On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:06:33PM -0500, Barry Smith wrote:
> sets exist timelessly
> do you agree with that? (01)
Only when their members are also timeless. You didn't exist at the time
of the Big Bang. How could your singleton {Barry} have? Sounds
preposterous to me, unless we agree with Matthew that you had some sort
of ontological status at the time qua "merely future" individual -- a
view I find philosophically repugnant. But I'm also a radical
pragmatist about knowledge engineering -- there is no a priori reason to
think that our most useful information models have to cut reality at the
joints -- even when there are pretty clear joints to be cut. "Merely
future" and "merely possible" individuals, in particular, strike me as
useful philosophical fictions for certain knowledge engineering purposes
like planning. (02)
> > 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? (03)
Well, either my irony generator, or your irony detector, needs some
fine-tuning. :-) I happen to agree with you on this point. (Perhaps I
should have used a winking smiley instead. ;-) (04)
-chris (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|