On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 09:18:14AM -0000, West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321 wrote:
> > 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).
>
> MW: You of course are showing your presentist predelictions when you say
> that (as you are entitled to). (01)
Well, non-futurist anyway, but yes. And again, these are
*philosophical* predilections that, from my perspective, at most serve
as a starting point for ontological engineering. I'd readily shun them
for purposes of ontological engineering should positing entities that I
consider philosophical fictions prove more useful. (02)
> > 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.
>
> MW: I notice that it is necessary to choose one poison or another. (03)
I hardly think that choosing not to drink of that cup is to simply to
choose a different poison, but point taken. :-) (04)
> > > 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.
>
> MW: Well I'm an engineer first, so I tend to put a high value on utility. (05)
Me too, in an engineering context. (06)
-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)
|