RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
Adam,
I apologise if I misunderstood you.
It appeared to me that were attempting to provide a quick solution to a well
known problem without making the effort to study at least some of the known
analyses of this.
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: apease@ks.teknowledge.com [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
Sent: 27 August 2001 18:38
To: mail@ChrisPartridge.net; mail@ChrisPartridge.net;
standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Cc: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat hayes'
Subject: RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
Chris,
I intended my comments as practical, not disingenuous. I do want to
study this issue further and will read the references you provide. Since
you do understand the nature of the problem presumably, I thought you might
be able to point out what's wrong with the quick solution I attempted.
Adam
At 06:27 PM 8/27/2001 +0200, Chris Partridge wrote:
>Adam,
>
>This is disingenuous.
>
>The issue is not whether it should be easy to show a faulty conclusion -
>there may be subtle distinctions that one can only appreciate after study.
I
>in fact think this is so with 3D and 4D, from my experience discussing it
>over the years. I hope Matthew will not mind me asking him to back me up on
>this. He has said before on this list I think that it took him a lot of
time
>and study to appreciate the issue as well as he does now. This is not so
>strange. I seem to remember Pat making similar points about discussing
>logic. Difficult subjects require study. Discussion of the study can help,
>as for example Matthew's description of 4D was I thought very useful - but
>ignoring the resources seems to me 'criminal'. We have precious few
>resources and we need to make sure we manage them properly - and not waste
>them on re-inventing wheels.
>
>To make my point clearer. I think that trying different KIF formulas,
>without understanding the nature of the problem, is a very long-winded way
>to get to a solution. If indeed it will get you there.
>
>BTW, as I think you note:
>
>(spatioTemporalPart JoesArmAtAge10 JoesArm)
>
>is not an allowable relation (which I presume in KIF makes it false) in a
3D
>ontology - as if JoesArm is a continuant it cannot have temporal parts.
>Though, of course, it is true in a 4D ontology.
>
>Regards.
>Chris
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Adam
>Pease
>Sent: 27 August 2001 17:41
>To: mail@ChrisPartridge.net; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Cc: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat hayes'
>Subject: RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
>
>
>
>Chris,
> Since you've studied this topic extensively, shouldn't it then be easy
>to show, given the formalization below, a faulty conclusion? That would be
>very concrete and would certainly help me (as well as others) to understand
>the issues better.
>
>Adam
>
>
>At 05:14 PM 8/27/2001 +0200, Chris Partridge wrote:
> >Adam,
> >
> >The 3D and 4D views are well-documented, and well enough understood.
> >
> >The sticking point for combining them seems to be:
> >
> >3D: At each point in time that a continuant exists - it completely
exists.
> >This implies that all its parts also exist.
> >
> >4D: Typically a physical object is extended in time. If one is happy to
>talk
> >about time-slices, this means that at each point in time at which it
exists
> >only a time-slice of this object exists.
> >
> >BTW I think endurantist and perdurantist are better terms than 3D and 4D
as
> >what is at stake is a view on what change is (see, for example, Chap 8 of
>my
> >book).
> >
> >I am not sure how one can have a consistent theory that encompasses
both -
> >and the people who write about this seem to take the same view (does
anyone
> >disagree?). That is not to say that there cannot be a translation between
> >the two.
> >
> >While I am pleased that you are beginning to see the underlying issues of
>3D
> >vs 4D, I think you may be being extremely optimistic that you can solve
>them
> >in an afternoon - or less.
> >
> >It would help the discussion if it was carried on in a relatively
informed
> >basis. For a good introduction see Loux's 1998 Metaphysics Chap.6, and
its
> >bibliography - for a good article see Merricks T, Endurance and
> >indiscernability, J. of Phil. 1994 - or even (though in nothing like the
> >same class :)) the paper I submitted to the SUO list on meta-ontology.
> >
> >It seems to me that we going to waste everyone's time if there are good
> >resources for handling a topic and we ignore them and try and re-define
the
> >problem and come up with instant answers to something people have spent
man
> >years (at least) working on. Isn't this re-inventing the wheel at its
>worst?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Chris
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> >[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Adam
> >Pease
> >Sent: 27 August 2001 16:41
> >To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat hayes'
> >Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
> >
> >
> >
> >Matthew,
> > Did you have any further comments on the logical representation I
> >presented in my message? That was the actual "meat" of the message and
> >where I think we have hope of some progress. I may be the eternal
> >optimist, but I think I found a solution that supports the 4d view that
you
> >want. I've copied that portion below.
> >
> >Adam
> >
> > >If I understand you correctly, then you may be closer to the current
SUMO
> > >representation than I thought. Here's a formalization in SUMO:
> > >
> > >(instance JoesArm OrganicObject)
> > >(instance JoesArmAtAge10 OrganicObject)
> > >(instance JoesArmAtAge20 OrganicObject)
> > >(spatioTemporalPart JoesArmAtAge10 JoesArm)
> > >(spatioTemporalPart JoesArmAtAge20 JoesArm)
> > >(equal (BeginFn JoesArmAtAge10) (BeginFn (YearFn 1990)))
> > >(equal (EndFn JoesArmAtAge10) (EndFn (YearFn 1990)))
> > >(equal (BeginFn JoesArmAtAge20) (BeginFn (YearFn 2000)))
> > >(equal (EndFn JoesArmAtAge20) (EndFn (YearFn 2000)))
> > >
> > >The key then is in the definition of a new relation for SUMO which we
> > >could call 'spatioTemporalPart' which would allow us to deduce
> > >
> > >(not (equal JoesArmAtAge10 JoesArmAtAge20))
> > >
> > >Now, at the danger of pointing out a flaw in this, we'd have to assume
> > >that no one who wants to use a 3d viewpoint would ever want to reify
> > >temporal sub-parts. Because from the above formalization, they'd want
to
> > >conclude
> > >
> > >(equal JoesArmAtAge10 JoesArmAtAge20)
> > >
> > >I'm hoping though that this might be an acceptable compromise in terms
of
> > >practical modelling support.
> >
> >At 02:42 PM 8/26/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
> > >Dear Adam,
> > >
> > >See comments below.
> > >
> > >
> > >Matthew West
> > >Principal Consultant
> > >Shell Information Technology International Limited
> > >Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> > >
> > >Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> > >Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> > >Internet: http://www.shell.com
> > >
> > >snip
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matthew,
> > > > > > Ian's just pointed out to me problems with my response.
> > > > > > SUMO could
> > > > > > handle a 4d view but only in a trivial way by a knowledge
> > > > > > engineer putting
> > > > > > everything he cares about under the notion of Process and
> > > > > > thereby throwing
> > > > > > out the existing SUMO notions of identity that work on
> > > > > > Object. That's not
> > > > > > a good solution. I can see merit in both 3d and 4d views and
> > > > > > the challenge
> > > > > > is how to let them coexist in a meaningful way.
> > > > >
> > > > >MW: Unfortunately, you need to start probably above object.
> > > > >4D classes have unchanging extents, for example.
> > > >
> > > > I'm referring to Object in its sense in SUMO. The current
> > > > hierarchy is
> > > >
> > > > Entity
> > > > Physical
> > > > Object
> > > > Abstract
> > > >
> > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > Do you feel a change is needed to axioms about Physical
> > > > <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&sk>
> > > b=Merge-WordNet&id=95>?
> > >
> > >MW: Physical is close to the 4D concept of spatio-temporal extent.
>However,
> > >a 4D view would be that Physical Entities are parts of space time, not
> > >located
> > >in it. I presume location is meant in some co-ordinate sense, which is
an
> > >abstraction. Before you can have an abstraction, you need to have
>something
> > >that forms the basis of abstraction, these are spatio-temporal extents,
> > >including
> > >one which is all of space-time (past, present, and future).
> > >
> > >MW: Existant has the concept of existing at one or more points in time.
>It
> > >is
> > >fundamental to a 4D view that existance is for a period of time. This
is
> >one
> > >of the
> > >ways in which it differs significantly from a continuant based view
which
> > >the SUMO
> > >has built in at a high level.
> > >
> > >MW: Also, a spatio-temporal extent can be quite arbitrary, rather as a
>set
> > >can have
> > >arbitrary members.
> > >
> > >MW: Another problem is that many of the things that you have as
abstract,
> > >like roles,
> > >are temporal parts of things in a 4D ontology. I would therefore think
it
> > >was safer
> > >to start above physical.
> > >
> > >MW: There are also problems with the abstract concepts. Our classes
would
> >be
> > >extensional and
> > >unchanging. Properties and qualitities would be classes, and attributes
> > >might be either
> > >classes or spatio-temporal extents.
> > >
> > >MW: I.e. all abstract concepts would be classes/sets.
> > >
> > >MW: The best bet is to start with Chris M's Basic Set Theory and try to
> > >build something
> > >from there. However, it would be important to have a partition and
>probably
> > >a naming
> > >convetion so that 4D and 3D concepts can be distinguished.
> > >
> > >snip
> >
> >Adam Pease
> >Teknowledge
> >(650) 424-0500 x571
>
>Adam Pease
>Teknowledge
>(650) 424-0500 x571
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571