Re: SUO: Continuants and Occurrents in 4D
Pat,
I think that we largely agree. Following are some further
clarifications of the details:
>>I had many arguments with Nicola about that. In particular,
>>I maintained that identity was only well defined for formal
>>systems, where you could decide identity by fiat. For the
>>real world, identity is far more difficult to determine than
>>similarity, and similarity itself is extremely problematical.
>
>Well now I dont really agree with that, as you know. Seems to me that
>I do make identifications all the time. Every time I go home I
>re-identify my house, and so on, not to mention my cat-process. It
>would be hard to manage if one didnt do this rather a lot, with
>rather a lot of success: I imagine that being in such a condition
>would result in prompt institutionalisation, at the very least.
Perhaps I should have used a different term. By "well defined",
I meant having a clear formal definition which can give a
unique answer in every case. There is abundant evidence of
the fallibility of "eye-witness" identifications and all the
problematical cases that anyone who does KR has to deal with.
And although I have no trouble recognizing my own home, I
often have trouble recognizing my own car in a parking lot.
>>Re continuants more fundamental than processes: That claim
>>is incompatible with modern physics, chemistry, and biology.
>>I can imagine that some people might believe it, but I don't
>>believe that anyone can make a serious case for it.
>
>I think one could make such a case, even in science. But I really
>don't think we - the SUO - should be trying win this debate one way
>or the other; rather, we need to recognise how to transcribe between
>such differences.
I would agree. And in fact, I think that the distinction
between the terms "continuant" and "occurrent" can be quite
nicely defined in Whitehead's terms: A continuant is something
that we can recognize at multiple encounters. An occurrent is
something that does not have enough distinctive characteristics
that we can be sure whether another encounter is with "the same"
or "a similar" entity.
In another argument with Nicola, I maintained that we recognize
identity by multiple predicates of similarity, any one of which
could be mistaken, but taken altogether give us an assurance
beyond a reasonable doubt. But Nicola became very upset,
because I was questioning his religion.
>>Whitehead, Peirce, and I have a simple answer to what endures:
>>the laws of physics, which determine certain conservation
>>principles, such as conservation of energy, momentum, charge,
>>spin, etc. That is the reason why certain aspects of processes
>>remain stable from one moment to the next.
>
>Nah, come on. You arent the same bloke from one day to the next
>because of any fundamental conservation laws, but because the largish
>chunk of meat that knows its name to be 'John Sowa' has a certain
>critical kind of spatiotemporal continuity (which among other things,
>preserves your narrative memory, probably in some pattern of
>connections in your neurons.) When you snuff it and John Sowa is no
>more, no physical conservation laws will be violated, but you will
>still be a goner.
I would say that all the things that determine my identity
or yours depend directly or indirectly on the fundamenal laws
of physics with the appropriate extensions by the derived laws
of chemisty and biology. I am not a "reductionist" in the
sense that I can show exactly how to define each and every
law of chemistry or biology in terms of physics. I consider
chemistry and biology to have their own conservation laws, many
which have not yet been fully explained in terms of physics.
John