Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.




Dear Graham,

I agree with Pat. I try to talk about a 4D or 3D VIEW of the
world which amounts to the same thing. In the end we only have
views/descriptions. 

The questions when considering different views for me are:
 - can I capture that facts:
    - precisely?
    - accurately?
    - unambiguously?
    - consistently?
    - simply?
    - comprehensively?


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: pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> Sent: 31 August 2001 23:23
> To: Horn, Graham; West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
> 
> 
> >Dear Matthew,
> >	.		Perhaps you're right.
> >
> >	.	Does this mean one can treat something as 
> though it were 3-D
> >for some purposes, especially short term ones, when it is 
> really 4-D, the
> >way we often do for convenience?
> 
> Let me break in here. This discussion illustrates the reason why 
> using the terms 3-d and 4-d is problematic. That isn't the issue. Of 
> course there are 3-d things, and of course some things last through, 
> or are extended in, time, so are in a sense 4-d. Everyone agrees 
> about that. The incompatibilities arise from how to properly describe 
> *changes* of properties; notice I said DESCRIBE. Again, the facts are 
> not in dispute: eg Joes arm is longer in 2000 than it was in 1990. 
> The issue is, how is this to be DESCRIBED? Do we say that the thing 
> Joes-arm is extended in time, or do we say that it is 3-d and lasts 
> through time? Both would produce a 4-d geometry, viewed abstractly, 
> but they would DESCRIBE it differently; and the differences in what 
> might be called descriptive style are what produce the problems. The 
> actual geometry of the world is not in dispute; if that were all it 
> were about, we could settle it in a few minutes.
> 
> Pat Hayes
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> (650)859 6569 w
> (650)494 3973 h (until September)
> phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
>