Re: SUO: Re: One Stone Makes a Beach
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 01:21:31PM -0700, Dace wrote:
> > > The problem with this approach is the assumption that "car" and
> > > "motorcycle" are things that actually exist in the world. They do
> > > not. If "carness" is the property that makes something a car, then
> > > cars exist in our minds. What exists in the world is not carness but
> > > atoms and molecues arranged in a manner such that we can get inside
> > > this set of molecules and transport ourselves to a destination of our
> > > choosing. This set of molecules is a "car" to the extent that it
> > > corresponds to our idea of what a car is. So the transformation from
> > > "car" to "motorcycle" is entirely arbitrary. It changes from one to
> > > the other when we decide it has changed. In reality it's just one set
> > > of molecules that's been gradually altered into another set.
> > > ...
> >
> > All of which, interesting as it might be over a latte at the corner
> > coffeeshop, is utterly irrelevant to the engineering project that is the
> > focus of this group. The task is to axiomatize useful ways of
> > conceiving the world as reflected in the ways that real people doing
> > real work in real domains talk about it.
>
> This is precisely the issue that triggered my original comments. The
> trouble with axiomatizing the world in terms of "real people doing
> real work" is that real work is carried out in real time... and ever
> since Einstein we're stuck with spacetime.
Capturing the relevant notion of time for representing and reasoning
upon the information a given domain hasn't a thing to do with Einstein.
> > 3D and 4D are "classical" positions, and they are incompatible.
> > 3D says that objects are wholly present at each point in time they
> > exist (i.e. there is no part of them teporally extended) whereas
> > 4D says that things have temporal parts.
>
> In claiming a thing is "present," the 3D position takes the literal,
> common sense view of time. Time is real, and as you exist in this
> "moment," you take up three dimensions of space. 3D is perfectly at
> odds with 4D because it asserts the asbolute nature of space and time,
> whereas 4D asserts their relativity.
Nonsense. While 4D might be more conducive to some fancy relativistic
account of objects, it is perfectly compatible with the
non-relativistic, commonsense picture. The conflicts between the two
views have to do with such question as whether or not an object is to be
considered wholly present at a given point in time or to possess
temporal parts. Which to use is determined by the discourse in, and
representational needs of, the real world domain in question.
> But there's another approach that preserves the common sense view without
> conflicting with 4D. What if, as Bergson suggested, only time is absolute
> but not space?
An absolutely irrelevant concern for the engineering project at hand.
You have wandered into the wrong cocktail party.
Chris Menzel