SUO: RE: RE: Basics of Process and Event, 3D and 4D
Dear Julian,
4 dimensionalism as I learnt if from Chris Partridge, as I
had confirmed by Pat Hayes and as stated in Ted Sider is
founded on the following propositions.
1. Existence is a manifold of 4 dimensions, 3 space and time.
I.e. when I refer to things in the past they exist, and
when talking about the world I stand outside time.
2. Individuals extend in time as well as space and have
temporal parts as well as spatial parts.
3. When 2 individuals have the same spatio-temporal extent
they are the same thing.
It is still possible to go in different directions from there,
but that foundation of what individuals are is shared.
I am not familiar with Whitehead's writings on this matter, so
I am not certain whether his foundations amount to the same
thing. Item 3 is the one most at risk.
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.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fowler, Julian [mailto:JFowler@modulant.com]
> Sent: 20 June 2003 09:47
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Patrick Cassidy
> Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: RE: Basics of Process and Event, 3D and 4D
>
>
> Matthew et al
>
> You state:
>
> MW: one issue here is that there is not a single "standard"
> set of assumptions for a 3D ontology, in the way that there
> is for 4-dimensionalism. So it is not enough to say you
> are a 3-dimensionalist, you need to spell out what sort.
> (For example see John Sowa's comments on Dolce).
>
> yet later in the same message prefix one of your comments:
>
> MW: Just for reference, let me give you the 4D equivalent (at least
> as we have it in EPISTLE).
>
> John Sowa has also stated: "Whitehead's process ontology, for
> example, is *a* very powerful
> 4D approach, which I suspect may be able to subsume the more
> conventional 3D and 4D *versions* as special cases" (my emphasis).
>
> Question: is there really a "single standard set of
> assumptions for a 4D ontology"? Or are EPISTLE-4D and
> Whitehead-4D two examples of approaches that can be
> categorized as "four dimensional" but have differences that
> could be as significant (and potentially conflicting) as
> those within the "3D ontology" category?
>
> regards
> Julian
>