Re: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
Chris and Adam,
This is another of the very many reasons why the goal of a monolithic
ontology is hopeless:
> I never suggested - or hoped I did not - that there was a simple single
> answer to this question. Philosophers will be arguing about this for
> decades - they have a vested interest in doing so - and one of the standard
> arguments will be that the distinction is misguided. My point is that the
> issue is well enough understood to recognize some of its important
> features - one of which is that there are serious problems in having a
> single consistent way of talking about 3D and 4D - along with a variety of
> other metaphysical positions. And that deciding on these points is a
> particularly important aspect of any top ontology.
I believe that there are strong arguments for both sides (and maybe
there are even more than just 2 options on this and many related
issues). The lattice of all theories very nicely accommodates
all of these views; it can show exactly what axioms are common
to both, and what axioms are contradictory.
All the effort spent in arguing over these issues could have been
much more profitably spent in making a clean division of the
axioms for both approaches and giving developers a choice.
John Sowa