SUO: RE: RE: Basics of Process and Event, 3D and 4D
Dear Julian,
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.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fowler, Julian [mailto:JFowler@modulant.com]
> Sent: 20 June 2003 11:29
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: RE: Basics of Process and Event, 3D and 4D
>
>
> Thanks Matthew. I take it, then, that the answer is "maybe"
> ... or, rather, that development of/commitment to 4D
> ontologies at such a stage that we have the luxury of being
> able to *establish* what the standard assumptions are for 4D.
MW: It is really that 4 dimensionalism is only part of the
foundations, covering a particular area, but with significant
potential and consequences.
>
> See JPF> below for one detailed comment.
>
> regards
> Julian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE [mailto:matthew.west@shell.com]
> Sent: 2003-06-20 10:39
> To: Fowler, Julian; Patrick Cassidy
> Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: 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.
>
> JPF> I know what the intent here, but it doesn't come across
> in this wording. How about "when individuals are identified
> or described as being distinct but have the same
> spatio-temporal extent, they are the same individual".
> Otherwise there is a mapping problem for individual <-> thing.
MW: I think the "formal" definition goes something like:
For some x and some y, for all z iff z is a part of x and z is
a part of y then x=y.
i.e. they are the same if they share all their parts.
>
> 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
> >
>