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.
You also need to not include any axioms that one of the proponents
would consider to embody a type error, such as applying any kind of
temporal part function or property to a continuant (a type error for
an endurantist), or stating a property of a 4-d history relative to a
time (a type error for a perdurantist).
>I think I'm close to that with Matthew.
Like I said, your latest axioms embody the perdurantist point of
view, and Matthew is a perdurantist, so that is not surprising. Try
keeping Matthew *and* Barry Smith happy at the same time.
Pat
>
>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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes