Re: SUO: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?
Chris,
I realize that you weren't referring to Whitehead, and I
am pleased you think Whitehead's position is congenial.
CP> As I understand it "the current metaphysical fashion
> among the 3-D camp" is to distinguish between occurents
> and continuants in terms of whether they have temporal
> parts - hence my comment "events are occurents and so
> exemplars par excellance of an object with temporal parts
> (the first act of the play, etc.)"
In fact, Whitehead's position, which is very much a 4D
ontology, considers every "actual occasion" to be created
anew at each instant from the previous "actual occasion".
With this view, the question of temporal parts as well as
spatial parts is determined partly by convention and partly
by empirical evidence.
For example, one might distinguish two trees as individual
continuants because they are recognizable by characteristics
that tend to change very slowly. But the spatial parts of
trees, such as roots, trunk, branches, twigs, and leaves
blend into one another without sharp boundaries. It is
easy to identify the trunk in the broad middle, but it is
impossible to say (except by an arbitrary "vote") where the
trunk stops as you go farther up into the branches.
Furthermore, there are many kinds of trees that propagate
by their roots, including redwoods and aspens. In some cases,
there are entire forests of aspen "trees", which are actually
a single "organism" with multiple trunks. The same is true
of fungi. The mushrooms that pop up are the fruiting bodies
of a massive underground organism, which in some cases can
extend over many square miles. A road can cut the organism
in two -- but it is actually very hard to say how many
individuals there are.
The same is true of things that are extended over time.
A tornado, for example, can be recognized as an individual
(event? or object?) that can persist for some time. But it
is very hard to tell when it first forms and when it finally
dissipates.
Whitehead's ontology is an example of a theory, which I believe
is more fundamental than most of the current 3D and 4D versions.
It may be possible to formulate a theory based on Whitehead's
approach that makes both the 3D and 4D versions into special
cases of a single, more fundamental theory.
However, any such effort to unify the 3D and 4D camps in terms
of a more fundamental Whiteheadian version will certainly take
a considerable amount of research. I don't believe that most
people would want to wait for that research to be completed
before getting an SUO that they can use relatively soon.
Therefore, I believe it is essential to include all the options
in any SUO we may propose. Otherwise, we are making it impossible
to accommodate future developments that might simplify things
much more radically than we can imagine today.
Summary: The simplest and best approach we can imagine today
is one that accommodates multiple options. Instead of cutting
off options by a premature vote, we should allow time for both
research and applications to show us the way to go.
John