Re: SUO: 3D/4D question
Bill,
At 12:50 PM 9/6/2001 -0500, Bill Andersen wrote:
>Folks,
>
>I plead guilty of not following the discussions that closely on this topic,
>but which 4D model exactly is being talked about?
That's been part of the problem. There isn't just one. Without axioms,
we're just bandying about various intuitions. We're also prone to
misunderstanding what our colleagues mean.
>I have in mind David Lewis' nominalism, in which normal objects extended in
>space-time are really 5D (4D + modal counterparts) objects. I know this is
>a view that Chris Partridge champions. Chris, forgive me if I'm wrong.
>
>Without a Lewis-type view, adopting 4D leads you to accept mereological
>essentialism for the 4D objects, which leads you to accept that everything
>has all it's parts necessarily, i.e., cannot change - clearly a bad
>situation.
This strikes me as problematic too, but I suspect this is because we don't
understand the essentialists. Maybe Chris Welty or Nicola Guarino could
respond to this point.
Adam
> .bill
>
>--
>Bill Andersen
>Chief Scientist, Ontology Works
>1132 Annapolis Road, Suite 104
>Odenton, Maryland, 21113
>Mobile: 443-858-6444
>Office: 410-674-7600
>
>Confidential & Proprietary Information
>Copyright 2001 Ontology Works, Inc. All rights reserved.
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571