RE: SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline - roles
>Chris --
>
>I would like to make an observation here that just struck me as a point of
>discomfort. I suppose it is an interesting and valid thing to explore at
>length the ontological architecture that you have articulated - both
>earlier and in your revised Word document version over the last several
>days. I have to admit that I don't really get the distinction that is
>being labored so mightily between a 4-D world and a 3-D world plus time.
Let me try to explain the issue (and maybe discover whether you are
an -ist of some kind).
Imagine an ordinary physical object of some everyday kind, such as a
table. Let me put down a few simple facts and see if you find them
reasonable.
The table lasts for a time, and is the same table at one time as another.
The table has properties (such as a length, a weight, being made of
pine, and being in the kitchen). Some of these properties may change
as time passes, ie the table has these properties at one time but not
at another time.
These seem reasonable, I expect. However, they are not ontologically
neutral. They are couched in endurantist language. A 4-d ontology
would not say that properties changed: rather, it would attribute
properties to the temporal 'episodes' (slices) of the table. These
properties never 'change'; in fact, such talk is meaningless in a 4-d
ontology. And in this ontology, the idea that it is the same table
at one time as another is provably false, since one thing cannot both
have and not have the same property; rather, there is a single
table-history (sometimes called 'worm') and the properties in
question are properties of slices of this history. The sharp
distinction between things that endure and processes that happen is
much vaguer in this framework: it can be made, but only artificially,
and it plays no fundamental role; whereas in the endurantist view it
is absolutely central.
> I
>say this having read your book very thoroughly, which you were kind enough
>to send me in electronic form. I annotated it heavily, with the intent of
>pursuing a detailed conversation with you, because it seems to be very
>fundamental in the minds of several people here, but I haven't had the
>time, then or now to really engage at the level I would like.
>
>The point of discomfort for me, though, goes beyond the architecture, or
>issues ontological relativism. What concerns me is language such as "I
>hope you are not dismissing the difference between Endurantists and
>Perdurantists". This appears to go beyond the discussion of concepts and
>architectures into the realm of classifying people into various camps based
>on their understanding, use of, or comfort with, these concepts. This
>reification of concepts in the form of competing groups of people, and
>labeling human beings in this way, will tend to create a polarizing effect
>that is antithetical to the work at hand.
My dear fellow, you have no idea how polarised people are about this,
and have been for years. Entire libraries have been written arguing
one or another position in this debate; rather strong language has
been employed (philosophers who speak of a different position as
'evidently unsatisfactory' or 'clearly unintuitive' are close to
armed combat). The terms arise from the world-views; they are not
mere labels being used to foment political ambitions or create
childish quarrels.
There are good reasons for both the endurantist and perduarnatist
points of view; they are not just party labels. Endurantism is
reflected both in natural language and in our everyday view of the
world as conscious observers 'moving' through time (which is, by the
way, logically incoherent, in spite of being immediately clear to
everyone); it fits naturally with tense logics. On the other hand,
the 4-d view arises naturally when one thinks of time as a dimension,
and it fits naturally into untensed asssertional logic, which is why
it is so useful in practical applications such as business and
engineering ontologies (and AI).
> By this I am not simply whining
>"Can't we all just please get along ...". I am going on record to say I
>will resist any attempt to classify me in such a way, and will work to
>maintain an inclusive rather than a fragmenting posture for any product
>that emerges from our collective efforts.
Well, good luck, but you are going to have a very hard time
explaining to either side why they should write axioms about things
that, to them, seem to be logically impossible (a continuant to a
perdurantist) or in gross violation of the basic rules of discourse
and rational thought (4-d histories to an endurantist).
Pat Hayes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes