 | |
#51
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: the two questions -
11-30-2007
, 10:25 AM
|
"JOG" <j... (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> wrote in message news:55517bf1-c48a-4bdf-9e84-6d72f81aca83 (AT) y43g2000hsy (DOT) googlegroups.com... On Nov 28, 1:07 pm, "Brian Selzer" <br... (AT) selzer-software (DOT) com> wrote: "JOG" <j... (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> wrote in message news:0c832d02-88f5-495c-ab2b-8098afcd8818 (AT) d21g2000prf (DOT) googlegroups.com... On Nov 27, 3:49 pm, "Brian Selzer" <br... (AT) selzer-software (DOT) com> wrote: "JOG" <j... (AT) cs (DOT) nott.ac.uk> wrote in message Each individual that existed, exists, or can exist has a property that distinguishes it from all other individuals that existed, exist or can exist; so, yes, there is a property that the caterpillar and butterfly share. Great, we have agreement  The problem is: I don't think haecceity can be observed directly. This time I agree with you (although I did have to look up what 'haeccity' meant) - it is often the case that the identifier we need isn't available to us (I mean we can't often check a butterflies dna right...). But we have to find a solution to this in the real world right - If I have a butterfly, how do I know it came from the caterpillar from earlier? Would you agree there are two options? 1) Check an identifier that we can manage to observe (dna if we're lucky, more likely the jar number we've kept it in, etc.) 2) If we couldn't access that identifier (or it was just too much of a pain to do so), we'd have needed to invent a new identifier as a replacement, that was trackable (a representative identifer for the insect's 'haeccity' - similar to what biologists do when they 'tag' birds). Again, all in the real world, before we get to a database. There is a third option: continuous observation. If you never take eyes (or the camera) off of the individual, there is no need to reidentify it, and therefore no need for a constant identifier. How would you know that the insect your looking at now is the same one as a second ago? You've tracked its (x,y,z) position. You've just been continually checking another of its identifiers! And then you describe the butterfly to someone else (after all this is shared data we're talking about), and you refer to it as the butterfly you've been watching, or the one on camera 2. More identifiers! 'Brian's' butterfly or 'Camera 1' butterfly. In fact surrogates for the butterfly's locational path! Yet the (x,y,z) position may have changed from a second ago. Clearly it is possible for all observable identifiers for an individual to change from one point in time to another. What is different in this case is that since it is being watched, both the old (x,y,z) and the new (x,y,z) positions are known, and the comparison can be made. |
positions form a path, and that is what you are recording. I believe
you are not correctly viewing the 'insect entity' as a thing that
exists over a whole time period (t1 to t6 for example). The fact that
I am currently at t3 is irrelevant. The path is still an attribute of
the entity under consideration across its lifetime. The fact that I
can't observe it (being temporally placed myself) is also irrelevant,
because I just replace it by a surrogate (thats what surrogate means
after all - "in place of"). I believe this is the same issue you had
with workers who change their surname.
While we probably end up at the same conclusions of using a surrogate,
I /think/ you are confusing the scope of the entity's you are
considering. Say that t1 is the birth of the caterpillar, and t3 is
when it becomes a butterfly. Then I am certainly not contradicting
myself by saying:
butterfly entity != caterpillar entity
insect entity at t1 = insect entity at t3
similarly:
brian now != brian aged 5
person entity in 1970 = person entity in 2007
Its all relative identity. Regards, J.
Quote:
|
Spatiotemporal location can only be used to permanently identify individuals that have already come into existence. For those that haven't yet, it is not a rigid definite description and thus not a permanent identifier. Although this doesn't appear to apply in this case since if the butterfly exists, then the caterpillar must have already also existed, it is problematic from the standpoint of determining what is possible. For example, it is possible for there to be a new blue caterpillar at point (1,2,3) at noon today, and it is also possible for there to be a new red caterpillar at point (1,2,3) at noon today; but it is not possible for there to be both a new blue and a new red caterpillar at point (1,2,3) at noon today. So point (1,2,3) at noon today has multiple possible interpretations. It may seem like splitting hairs, but I think that there should be a different identifier for the possible blue and the possible red caterpillars since they are obviously different possible organisms. If point (1,2,3) at noon is used to identifiy both possibilities, then that could introduce ambiguity into the determination as to whether one of the two possibilities can become actual. If one were able to examine the history of the butterfly, one should be able to determine that it coincides with the history of the caterpillar--up to the point of the initial snapshot. The problem is: I don't think history can appear in a snapshot. I get your gist here but hope we can come back to it after you've looked at the above question. Regards, J. |
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.