RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Pat,
It is the case only if you include the axioms from these different
theories that conflict. I believe that you're arguing that those axioms
must be included in order to have a faithful realization of both
philosophical approaches. I'm taking what I hope is a pragmatic approach
(yes, everyone things he's a pragmatist!) which is to find a realization of
both theories that most proponents of each can accept, which also doesn't
have directly contradictory axioms. I think I'm close to that with Matthew.
Adam
At 04:27 PM 8/31/2001 -0700, pat hayes wrote:
>>Matthew,
>>
>>At 02:30 PM 8/30/2001 +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
>>>
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
>>> > Sent: 29 August 2001 22:12
>>> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'pat hayes'
>>> > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>>> > Subject: RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Matthew,
>>> >
>>> > At 10:09 AM 8/29/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
>>> > >Dear Adam,
>>> > >
>>> > >If you don't mind changing the meaning of the concepts involved
>>> > >so that they are 4D rather than 3D concepts, then your axioms would
>>> > >probably work.
>>> >
>>> > Could you explain further what you mean by "don't mind changing the
>>> > meaning..."? The only meaning the terms have is from their axioms.
>>>
>>>MW: I admit I am reading the words rather than the axioms, and it is
>>>possible that the SUMO has not added those axioms that would make it
>>>specifically 3D. The only point is that you can't be both at the
>>>same time, you have to be one or the other, or have each in different
>>>places (what I am proposing).
>>
>>Well, it sounds like we just disagree on whether this is possible. I'm
>>looking for an operational, computational definition of what it would
>>mean that they "can't be both at the same time". The only operational
>>definition I can think of would be the one could prove a contradiction
>>using first order logical inference. Since that's not the case
>
>That IS the case, as I have already pointed out now several times. If you
>apply endurantist assumptions to a perduantist object, then you can
>immediately infer that for example Joes-Arm is both 10 and 20 cms long.
>(Joes-arm in 1990 is the same thing - literally, identically, the same -
>as Joes-arm in 2000, to an endurantist, and since the perduantist insists
>that being 20 cms long is a *timeless* property of joes-arm-at-2000 and
>also that being 10 cms long is a *timeless* property of joes-arm-at-1990,
>the conclusion follows immediately.)
>
>Pat
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>(650)859 6569 w
>(650)494 3973 h (until September)
>phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571