SUO: RE: Re: The Story So Far
Jon,
See below CP>
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: jawbrey@oakland.edu [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
Sent: 10 March 2001 09:00
To: Chris Partridge
Cc: sowa@bestweb.net; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: SUO: Re: The Story So Far
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Chris Partridge wrote:
>
> John,
>
> You are right that people are using 3-D and 4-D -- and by association
> E(ndurantist) and P(erdurantist) -- to cover a wide variety of things.
> However, I think you would be wrong to dismiss the terms -- however
> ugly they are. They are terms of art in philosophical ontology and,
> while related to the points you make below, are not these points.
>
> It is plain that commonsense objects *persist* through time.
> The question is how to explain this (and so, at least partly,
> explain a number of other things). One answer is that these
> objects *perdure* through time -- so only a (temporal) part is
> present at any one time. Another answer is to say they *endure*
> through time -- where they are wholly present (whatever that means)
> at any time at which they are present. This is the *only* question
> that the E and P words deal with. It seems to me that this is a
> legitimate question -- even if we think the answer is obviously
> that objects *perdure* -- getting agreement on this would be
> a substantial step forward.
Chris,
I am wondering about the notions
of "explanation" and "legitimacy"
that you have in mind when you say:
CP> Nothing special, over and above ordinary usage.
> The question is how to explain this (and so,
> at least partly, explain a number of other things).
and
> It seems to me that this is a legitimate question --
For instance, do you have in mind any sort of experiment that
would conceivably distinguish the "ostensible options" (OO's)?
In other words, can you name any effects that might conceivably have
practical bearings and actual consequences that you can conceive the
options of these two conceptions to have? (-- To coin a phrase --)
CP> Yes. I think these two conceptions lead to different ways of organizing
our knowledge about the world - and this is reflected, in KIF type
ontologies, by different axioms. In the business systems, I am used to
working with, it leads to very different structures. From a commercial point
of view, it is important as the Perdurantist systems tend to be
significantly (in large systems, orders of magnitude) simpler, with the
usual economic consequences. The types of experiment you can do have already
been outlined a number of times - for example by Pat. One standard academic
example is the Statue/Clay one described by Matthew - it is a useful test of
one's metaphysical position.
Just Wondering,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤