Dear Barry and John, (01)
I see Barry is forced to hold a counter-intuitive view
again by his artificial separation into 3D and 4D objects. (02)
See below. (03)
Regards (04)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (05)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (06)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
> Sent: 24 January 2006 17:04
> To: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontac-dev] Too many axioms spoil the broth
>
>
> At 04:00 PM 1/24/2006, you wrote:
> >Barry,
> >
> >Following is an example that illustrates the kinds
> >of inconsistencies that are created by having too
> >many axioms. (I changed the subject line to
> >reflect that point.)
> >
> >BS> Certainly processes have parts (subprocesses).
> > > And which subprocesses of a process are unfolding
> > > changes from one time to another.
> >
> >Up to this point, nobody would disagree. But the
> >following discussion depends on axioms inherited
> >from theories at a very high level of the ontology:
> >
> >BS> But neither a process nor its subprocesses change
> > > over time. This is because a process/subprocess
> > > IS a change over time. It is continuants (objects)
> > > which change over time, by undergoing processes.
> >
> >What would you call Hurricane Katrina?
>
> Hurricanes, epidemics, bodies of radio energy moving through space,
> and forest fires are not processes, but rather complex continuants
> (enduring objects) which undergo changes over time.
> Think of a forest fire as a pack of monkeys jumping from tree to
> tree, with some monkeys dying off, quickly, at the back, and new
> monkeys being born at the front. (07)
MW: Good heavens! We are supposed to believe then that all that air
whirling about is not a process! Of course I agree that it is also
a physical object. It takes considerable mass moving at considerable
speed to flatten a tree. But this is just another very good example
of an object that is both a process and a physical object. Barry's
problem is that he cannot admit that, since it would mean the same
object being both 3D and 4D. So he has to suggest this somewhat
counter-intuitive view. An alternative and equally counter-intuitive
move is to suggest that there are two Katrionas, a Katriona physical
object and a Katriona process with doubtless one participating in
the other. All to maintain the position that rather than a presentist
view on reality being just that, a view, that it is actually the
underlying reality. (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (09)
|