Chris & Matthew,
As for "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." (01)
I don't think I'm a 4 dimensionalist and I think I am quite grounded in
wanting to solve real problems with real technologies, yet the more general
interpretation of extent seems logically correct. If a predicate defining a
type qualifies something in the future, that thing is in the extent. It
would seem to be a bad idea to explicitly "lock" an extent to the real world
right now. So if you say the extent is all possible instances in all time,
this would seem consistent. Now, such an extent is not so useful and in
most cases is not knowable, but restrictions of it would be - such as the
restriction of an extent in the real world as of NOW. There is no reason
not to have the "general" extent and qualified subsets defined in COSMO. (02)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Menzel
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 2:02 PM
> To: West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321
> Cc: ONTAC Taxonomy-Ontology Development Discussion
> Subject: Re: Categorization (was RE: [ontac-dev] Representation of
> attributes)
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> > > 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.
>
> I hardly think that choosing not to drink of that cup is to simply to
> choose a different poison, but point taken. :-)
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Me too, in an engineering context.
>
> -chris
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|