RE: SUO: RE: RE: A proposed SUO content outline
Dear Pat,
<snip>
>
> > >
> > > (documentation Object "A Physical Continuant which retains
> > > its identity over
> >
> >MW: Continuant does not compute in "my" ontology.
>
> Matthew, I think you could get continuants into a 4-d ontology by
> thinking of them as a certain class of temporal cross-sections of a
> 4-d history. Given a history, consider the set of all spacelike (ie
> perpendicular to the time-axis) 'slices' of it: that set always
> exists, and it is 1:1 with the history but not identical to it. For
> histories of continuants, the things in this set will 'be' the
> continuant at the various times in its lifetime (to speak for a
> moment in continuant-talk) ; for other histories they won't, of
> course, but they might still be worth allowing to exist. The
> characteristically 'continuing' nature of continuants, to which those
> wedded to that way of thinking attach so much importance, may be
> phrased in terms of what Nicola calls identity criteria on the things
> in these slice-sets. For example, from the history (lifetime) of a
> person, this would construct the (single) person at each moment in
> that person's life. Each of these would 'be' that (single) person at
> a particular time, so if we were to (re)construct a temporal or modal
> logic by thinking of times - temporally possible worlds - as slices
> through the 4-d universe, then these things would be the (individual)
> continuant in each temporally possible world.
MW: I'm not sure I followed that. Do I understand that a continuant would be
the slice of the 4D object at the time of interest? So effectively the
result of a function on a 4D object?
>
> This move would allow a 4-d ontology to accomodate
> continuant/occurrent talk quite naturally, I believe, even though it
> would not be a mapping that those who like that way of talking would
> approve of.
MW: Well I think there is a point worth discussing here. In principle,
anything that I can map to from a 4D ontology, I can incorporate into a 4D
ontology, and you have just described how that might be done. My question is
whether this the best way to structure things. You rapidly end up with
something that is monolithic and confusing (at least).
MW: In practice I suspect that most people will want to work with one world
view at a time (we all change world view as needs require). I therefore
think that from a structuring point of view is is better to keep the world
views as separate ontologies, at least along major fault lines like 4D/3D.
The kind of relationship you describe above is precisely the mapping that
would then be needed between them. However, let me be clear, this is a
practical and not a theoretical point. Theoretically there is no difference.
>
<snip>
Regards
Matthew
=============================================
Matthew West
Operations & Asset Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
Mobile: +44 7796 336538
E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
http://homepages.rya-online.net/matthew-west
=============================================
Also:
Shell Visiting Professor
The Keyworth Institute
The University of Leeds
=============================================