SUO: RE: RE: Basics of Process and Event, 3D and 4D
Matthew et al
You state:
MW: one issue here is that there is not a single "standard"
set of assumptions for a 3D ontology, in the way that there
is for 4-dimensionalism. So it is not enough to say you
are a 3-dimensionalist, you need to spell out what sort.
(For example see John Sowa's comments on Dolce).
yet later in the same message prefix one of your comments:
MW: Just for reference, let me give you the 4D equivalent (at least
as we have it in EPISTLE).
John Sowa has also stated: "Whitehead's process ontology, for example, is *a* very powerful
4D approach, which I suspect may be able to subsume the more
conventional 3D and 4D *versions* as special cases" (my emphasis).
Question: is there really a "single standard set of assumptions for a 4D ontology"? Or are EPISTLE-4D and Whitehead-4D two examples of approaches that can be categorized as "four dimensional" but have differences that could be as significant (and potentially conflicting) as those within the "3D ontology" category?
regards
Julian