Perhaps because I’ve already arrived at it independently, this felt lacking.
But I agree with what you’ve said.
In my ontology, I have some expansions that I would soon post.
As for “exists”, I find it useful to distinguish between “is manifest in some model” and “is manifest in the territory”—you have not made that distinction.
“Perhaps because I’ve already arrived at it independently, this felt lacking”—you’ll notice that I used a lot of words to describe two very simple concepts. This is because there is a wide variation in how people will interpret any particular text, so you need to spend a lot of words stating everything as clearly as possible. Now that I’ve done this, however, I can just use either of these terms and link people to this article.
I agree that there are further distinctions that can be made, but I really wanted to keep this article as simple as possible and just focus on, well not one thing, but two things that are pretty much inseperable.
You wrote: “Properties of an object are relations between the object and another object”. I’m not so sure about this. What if the property is “number of atoms”? What is the second object then?
Further, could you illustrate, “A composition of relations is a relation” with an example?
Actually, you’re right that the fitting some kind of Object Interface is only part of what “exists” means. Exists splits the possible object space up into “exists” and “doesn’t exist” and I haven’t dealt with this core aspect at all.
Perhaps because I’ve already arrived at it independently, this felt lacking.
But I agree with what you’ve said.
In my ontology, I have some expansions that I would soon post.
As for “exists”, I find it useful to distinguish between “is manifest in some model” and “is manifest in the territory”—you have not made that distinction.
My answer to what it means to “exist”.
“Perhaps because I’ve already arrived at it independently, this felt lacking”—you’ll notice that I used a lot of words to describe two very simple concepts. This is because there is a wide variation in how people will interpret any particular text, so you need to spend a lot of words stating everything as clearly as possible. Now that I’ve done this, however, I can just use either of these terms and link people to this article.
I agree that there are further distinctions that can be made, but I really wanted to keep this article as simple as possible and just focus on, well not one thing, but two things that are pretty much inseperable.
You wrote: “Properties of an object are relations between the object and another object”. I’m not so sure about this. What if the property is “number of atoms”? What is the second object then?
Further, could you illustrate, “A composition of relations is a relation” with an example?
You don’t have to regard evey predicate as a property.
A property of an object is a relation:
The relation is between the object and another object “atoms”. (Number of X that compose Y).
A composition of relations is a relation.
Paris is in France.
France is in Europe.
Paris is in Europe.
Paris is the capital of France.
France is on Earth.
Paris is the capital of a country on Earth.
Actually, you’re right that the fitting some kind of Object Interface is only part of what “exists” means. Exists splits the possible object space up into “exists” and “doesn’t exist” and I haven’t dealt with this core aspect at all.