Re: Categorization (was RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of attributes)

["Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 06:58 PM 2/8/2006, you wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at
> 08:40:31AM -0500, Barry Smith wrote:
> > 
> > >MW: Noone has yet been able to explain the difference (or even
> offer an
> > >explanation) though more than one has asserted a difference. I
> am simply
> > >seeking enlightenment.
> > 
> > Sets are mathematical objects; the set-membership relation is an
> > abstract relation, which obtains independently of time and change.
>
> I certainly agree with you on the difference between sets and types,
> but
> this latter claim is far from obvious, for 3Ders anyway.  There is
> a
> pretty strong intuition that the membership relation that holds
> between
> you and the set {Clinton, Smith} did not hold at, say, the moment of
> the
> Big Bang -- unless you think that nonexistent objects can bear
> relations
> to other nonexistent objects!

sets exist timelessly
do you agree with that?

> > Types are not
> subject to arbitrary iterations, combinations and
> > intersections. There is no type 'rabbit or steering wheel'.
>
> Nonsense!  I just saw one in my yard and am about to grasp yet
> another
> one as I drive up to meet my wife for dinner! :-)

you happened to see two things at different times
I assert that there is no single type (like that one) which they both
instantiate
which science would study types like that?

BS



_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)