SUO: Re: Montologies
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Chris Partridge wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I am aware that logic does not directly treat tense.
> There was no need for that when it was designed for
> mathematics.
?????
For those who did not get the memo, our best current models of
change, process, physical objects, and physical transformation
are mathematical and statistical models. The ancient problems
of change and diversity, as Parmenides and Heraclitus knew them,
began to be addressed in a competent manner with the development
of the differential-integral calculus by Mssrs. Leibniz and Newton.
There has been a diversity of changes since then, but unless you are
siding with the late-lambasted Berkeley, or calling for a return to the
days of Parmenides and Heraclitus, I heartily recommend that you avail
yourselves of what has become the "standard" way of describing change
and diversity for the last two or three centuries. I would not say
not to bother reading metaphysicians and philosophers on the topic,
for that is what always encouraged me to read them, but I do think
that it's fair to say this: The den of the metaphysicians has
been re-filled with analytic philosphers in recent years, but
it has done nothing to alleviate the density of the smoke.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> I am also aware that from a linguistic point of view, you can group these
> into a category called indexicals. However there is also an implicit
> ontological choice (favouring the 4D perspective) being made here --
> which needs to be made explicit.
>
> As you are aware, if you consult one of the standard introductions to
> metaphysics - e.g. Loux - then you will find a discussion of the reality of
> tense as one of the metaphysical choices (you could also look at the note I
> posted to this list in the early days) and you will also note that the text
> discusses a tendency for people who are enduratists (3D) to also be presentists
> (who believe in the reality of the present and so tenses). This is understandable
> as the present is a clear example of something that is 3D. As you are aware, you
> will also probably find in the texts discussions of McTaggart and series A and B
> of time (Google has stuff on these).
>
> I agree that "Indexicals [in general] have nothing to do with a 3D/4D
> distinction and everything to do with context." However the specific
> here and now 'indexicals' do have a lot to do with the motivation for
> the 3D/4D choices.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sowa@bestweb.net [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: 25 June 2003 17:19
> To: Chris Partridge; Ian Niles; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
> Chris,
>
> Words like here, now, this, that, he, she, it, I, you, etc.,
> are indexicals (a term that was coined by C. S. Peirce and
> has become the standard terminology in linguistics). They
> are context dependent, and they cannot be translated into
> conventional notations for logic, which do no support context.
> Tenses are also indexicals, since they include implicit
> references to one or more context-dependent time points.
>
> > I assume that 'I am here now' in SUMO is translated into 'I am at position X
> > at timepoint Y' as is I was there then' if said a bit later and 'I will be
>
> > there in exactly a minute' if said exactly a minute earlier.
> >
> > This suggests that a position of unreality of tense is taken - albeit
> > without stating this is so (or maybe you can point us to the statement).
> > This also seems to me to suggest a 4D bent - at least on this point.
>
> Indexicals have nothing to do with a 3D/4D distinction and
> everything to do with context.
>
> John
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o