Dear Chris, (01)
See below. (02)
Matthew (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Menzel [mailto:cmenzel@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 12 February 2006 02:21
> To: West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321
> Cc: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> Subject: Re: Categorization (was RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of
> attributes)
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 09:09:27AM -0000, West, Matthew R
> SIPC-DFD/321 wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:06:33PM -0500, Barry Smith wrote:
> > > > sets exist timelessly
> > > > do you agree with that?
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > MW: The 4D position is to say there is some way things will
> turn out.
>
> A plausible but not uncontroversial view.
>
> > So there is just one set of all rabbits that have or will
> ever exist.
>
> That, of course, a non sequitur. It is plausible, for
> example, to think
> that (a small piece of) the way things will turn out is that a child
> will be born on 1 January 2007. It simply does not follow
> that there is
> something such that it will be born on 1 January 2007 (hence
> it doesn't
> follow that there is a set containing all the humans that have or will
> exist). (04)
MW: You of course are showing your presentist predelictions when you say
that (as you are entitled to).
>
> Your more general argument above, in a nutshell, is that the Barcan
> Formula is true for the future (and past) tense operators:
>
> If it will be that something is F, then there is something that will
> be F.
>
> This is a natural principle to accept *if* you are already inclined to
> accept merely future individuals. But to argue for your merely future
> individuals simply on the grounds that the Barcan Formula valid as you
> have above is to put the logical cart before the philosophical horse.
> You've *chosen* this particular poison; one can just as reasonably
> choose not to indulge. (05)
MW: I notice that it is necessary to choose one poison or another.
>
> > We don't know about all the members, but then we don't know about
> > all the members at 08:30 11th February 2006 either.
> >
> > MW: Following this, the set of all rabbits that have ever existed or
> > will ever exist has the same members, even before there
> were rabbits.
> > Of course before there were rabbits, we are not likely to
> be interested
> > in them, but that is a different matter.
>
> Well, of course, I do *understand* the view. I simply find it, once
> again, philosophically repugnant -- though, again, I am inclined to
> think it is a useful fiction for purposes of ontological engineering. (06)
MW: Well I'm an engineer first, so I tend to put a high value on utility.
It is certainly a very good fit with 4 Dimensionalism, though I can imagine
3 Dimensionalists might choose a different poison.
>
> -chris
>
>
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|