RE: RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Matthew,
I hope you'll keep an open mind on this. It's possible that the result
of my attempt at combining the concepts is too vague, but I think we can
only reconcile what the actual facts are if we agree on what the missing
axioms might be that would remove the vagueness (and one possibility is
that doing that will introduce a contradiction).
Adam
At 10:39 AM 9/3/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
>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
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571