Bunches
On 12/1/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> --- Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, not any unnamed relation, just the
> > "subkind" relation
> > I named the first time I mentioned kinds.
>
> But that is 1) not obviously unfounded and 2) not
> not obviously connect with the various things you
> mentioned. They are all kinds, I suppose, and
> have various subkinds. But they are also just
> the sorts of things where the subkind relation is
> founded on individuals
It's becoming hard for me to tell what the argument is
about here. My claim is that kinds satisfy all the theses
listed except the foundation one, because for the most
part kinds always have proper subkinds.
The individual dog "Fido", for example, would not normally
be taken as a kind of dog. If someone asks "What kind of
dog do you have?", answering "Fido" would be odd.
Whether or not we use individuals in order to form our
conception of kinds is, it seems to me, a separate issue.
Even if it were true in all cases (which seems doubtful), it
does not follow that a system of kinds must include
the foundation thesis.
> But I doubt that there is a
> use of {temci} or other temporal words outside of
> specialized contexts that is clearly taking time
> as continuous. We tend to measure time and that
> gets us into units and definite fractions of
> units. At best we take time as continuous when we
> think about a thing called "time" rather than
> what is happening.
I can only report that I think of the flow of events as
something continuous. Even when watching a movie
for example, even _knowing_ that what I'm seeing is really
a discrete sequence of images, I can't help but seeing
it as something continuous.
> But would we ever say "its duration in
> seconds is root 2" as we can say that its length
> in inches is? If we can say it (outside of
> examples), what does it mean?
I don't think one would normally say that the length
of something in inches is root 2. I don't see much
difference in the way we measure lengths and
durations.
> We don't even take advantage of the putative
> infinite divisibility of time intervals in the
> way we do of space, for example.
I see no significant difference in the way we treat space
and time. In fact cross metaphores are very prevalent.
> > It would be nice to have the foundation theses
> > expressed formally.
> > I'm not quite sure how that would go.
>
> How much more formal do you want than that every
> bunch breaks down without remainder (or loss)
> into individuals? I even wrote it out in
> quasi-formal language and will — when I get a
> symbolism I am comfortable with — do it again in
> that formalism. What is obscure here?
It's not exactly obscure, I can intuitively understand
pretty well what it means. But I see nothing close to
a formalization (of that particular thesis) yet.
xod wrote:
> That we generally refer to non-zero intervals of time does not
> mean that we treat it as discrete. Those interval endpoints can be
> situated anywhere in the timeline, and that means we treat it as
> continuous.
I agree.
> Furthermore, people refer to instants and moments which have
> no duration, like a point in space has no size. A pixel, however, does
> have size. And there is no analogous time-pixel in English.
I think "moments" are sometimes thought of as having duration
("wait a moment" for example) and sometimes as points.
dictionary.com has:
1. A brief, indefinite interval of time.
2. A specific point in time, especially the present time: He is not
here at the moment.
mu'o mi'e xorxes