RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Dear Adam,
NNNNNOOOOO!!!!!!
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: 01 September 2001 00:34
> To: pat hayes
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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.
MW: The best you can hope for going down this route is that you
have a vague ontology that allows people to confuse 3D and 4D
views. I can think of nothing more disasterous.
>
> 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
>