RE: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline
At 01-03-01 18:33, pat hayes wrote:
> > Ian Niles <iniles@teknowledge.com>, to Matthew West:
>>[...]I really don't follow you here. To my mind, what we ordinary regard as
>>objects are regarded in this way precisely because we ascribe
>>continuant-like properties to them.
>
>Well, yes, you do seem to be an endurantist, as Ive said, so one would
>expect that your mind would work that way. Nothing personal, just an
>observation.
[...]
### L.S., (not only Pat)
### I believe this word "endurantist" must have been coined before I joined
this list. Can sb. tell us newbies what is the exact definition please? I
can start to see possible etymological roots of course, from "endure" and
"rant", but its precise semantics (from context) keep eluding me.
### BTW this IS by occasion an interesting discussion, in case sb.'d be
interested in this opinion. However, is one not at risk of re-doing a lot
(if not all) of physics just for physics' sake? I had thought ontology
would provide a mechanism for explicit abstraction from such reductionist
endeavors, if one would choose (or need) to do that. These (methodological
and usage) aspects appear to be missing. For a set of people to agree
-instantaneously- on the redness of a Coke can, they usually don't need to
know how their retinas and optical nerve neurotransmitters are interpreting
light reflected at 610 nanometer wavelength, nor quantum mechanics. Not to
mention the definition of "nano" and "meter" even.
### Thx and :-)
--Robert Meersman
=============================================================
Prof Dr Robert A Meersman VUB STARLab
Department of Computer Science Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Bldg. G-10, Pleinlaan 2 B-1050 Brussels Belgium
phn (+32|0) 2 629 3308 fax (+32|0) 2 629 3525
http://www.starlab.vub.ac.be/staff/robert/ h
=============================================================