SUO: RE: RE: Continuants and Occurrents in 4D
Chris,
Not only two copies -- perhaps infinitely many copies.
>Take the standard example - my desk. It is a physical object and under the
>E(ndurantist) view this is one thing, under the P(erdurantist) view it is
>another. Do I have two predicates or two definitions? I would tend to say
>two predicates. If we had to choose, then which is P1 and which P2 - i.e.
>which do we demote to 'not recommended for future development'. And when we
>have made the choice, have we not demoted all world views that incorporate
>P2.
First of all, at the moment, we have *zero* definitions of
"desk" in any formal ontology. But it does occur in a
very large number of terminological ontologies.
So what? The lattice of all theories is infinite. It just
means that the predicate desk(x) might have different axioms in
different parts of the lattice.
> My
>experience is that at this level analysis reveals some way to incorporate
>the two perspectives on the checking account into a synthesized richer
>notion. My experience and, I think, a common philosophical claim, is that
>there are some fundamental (top level) notions where this is not practical.
>What I was trying to understand was how to deal with this - other than
>choose an option.
The best way is to move up, down, or sideways in the lattice
until you find a theory that seems acceptable. This gets to
the point that I was making is that the framework for moving
around in lattices of theories is more important than what
we stuff into any particular theory.
John