Re: Objects and Relations

JOG wrote:
> On Feb 6, 12:54 pm, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>

>>On Feb 6, 7:26 pm, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Feb 6, 5:26 am, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Feb 6, 12:29 am, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Feb 5, 1:25 pm, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:

> Well first pointing isn't allowed. One cannot continually follow Fred
> round pointing at him all day, we need to identify to him in some
> other way, but there I think we are agreed.
>
> However consider that some people's view of Fred is that Fred is Fred
> is Fred, throughout his whole lifetime. Other people/applications may
> need to view Fred only as he is /now/ - after all he will be composed
> of a completely different set of atoms in a few years anyway. Then
> there must be parts of him that make up our view of him which are
> purely abstract, his bravery, his humour, his IQ, his body of
> publications, etc., how should they perdure? Already the notion of
> where he starts and finishes as an 'entity' is seriously blurring.
>
> The old washington's axe/theseus ship paradox is perhaps a better
> example of the concept of a well defined entity being insufficient. I
> am sure you know it - "In a museum somewhere there is the axe used by
> washington. Ok, the handles been changed a few times. Oh and so has
> the headstock, but hey... its still the same axe". Same 'axe entity',
> completely different physical components. Something seems intuitively
> wrong with this notion of an axe 'entity/object'.
>
> But this problem is not really a paradox at all if you just discard
> the illusion that an entity exists anywhere outside a single
> individuals head. That's again why I believe one should always
> consider communicated propositions (which we have a shared common
> understanding of). Then you it becomes clear that the axe is the same
> axe if propositions discussing it use its name as the primary key. It
> is a different axe if the headstock/handle attributes are the compound
> key.
>
> The purpose of this is not anal philosophising. Imo philosophy is
> absolutely pointless if it cannot be applied practically and
> usefully. And in this Codd's approach is genius, because this entity-
> less philosophy underpins his original RM, and we've seen it actually /
> applies/ to solving real world data handling problems. Enough that it
> even seems possible to help me store information about employees _and_
> solve the Theseus Ship paradox in terms of RM keys. And unlike OO,
> simply from building on a firm mathematical foundation of predicate
> logic. Who'd have thought.
>
...
>
> Fair enough, but I don't really care if your a platonist, a
> reductionist, a mereological nihilist or a senior gynaecologist (and
> trust me compared to practicitioners like Gene and Marshall, I'm
> positively wooly). A philosophy is only worth its salt here if it has
> practical positive impact.
>
>
...
>
> So you object to me saying "entitities are abstract" by saying that
> because everything is abstract you are will deem them all "real". Then
> this is again just semantics.
>

These comments seem not woolly at all to me and more real-worldly than the other stuff which looks like word games.

p Received on Wed Feb 07 2007 - 00:40:24 CET