RE: SUO: RE: CYC event vs. SUMO Process -- really different?
Chris,
The most scientifically respectable ontology is Whitehead's
process ontology, which assumes that everything is a process.
That has some important implications, which I think will
simplify many complex issues:
1. What distinguishes an object from an event is a "form of
definiteness", as Whitehead called it, which enables an
entity to be recognized by some recurring features or
characteristics that are observable at different encounters
with "the same" entity.
2. The difference between a continuant and an occurrent is
primarily a difference in point of view rather than the
entity's fundamental nature. A glacier, a tornado, or a
cloud, for example, could be considered objects or events
depending on time scale and application.
3. The "form of definiteness" is independent of a 3D or
a 4D representation and can be asserted for an entity
type independent of what representation for space-time
may be adopted.
> I understood that the current metaphysical fashion among the
> 3-D camp (if I may call it that) is that events are occurents
> and so exemplars par excellance of an object with temporal
> parts (the first act of the play, etc.) and so a good proxy
> for the 4-D camp's objects. As I understand it, for them it
> is continuants that are '3-D' and so more amenable to a 3-D
> vs 4-D discussion.
As I said above, the notion of "forms of definiteness" is
applicable to either a 3D or a 4D representation.
> So if we are looking into events and their relation to time,
> then the option of a 3-D or 4-D status may not be so viable.
Why?
> Though if the discussion moves onto the related question
> of whether events necessarily happen to some continuant,
> the differences between the 3-D and 4-D camps may become
> relevant.
In Whitehead's ontology, all happenings involve processes.
A continuant is simply a long-lasting process that has some
distinguishing features that are recognizable over long
periods of time.
John