Re: [bfo-discuss] Re: Issue 12 in bfo: immaterial parts and MaterialEntity
Barry Smith
Consider e.g. the hole where the mole lives
We have here on the one hand a site, which includes as parts
molecules of oxygen, etc.
And on the other hand a hole (immaterial entity), which is still
there if all the oxygen is removed.
Many material entity have holes as parts. I think.
Other sorts of immaterial entities are boundaries. Many material
entities have boundaries (e.g. the North Pole) as parts.
BS
At 06:32 PM 2/26/2010, Barry Smith wrote:
>At 10:03 AM 2/18/2010, b...@googlecode.com wrote:
>>
>>Comment #2 on issue 12 by batchel...@rsc.org: immaterial parts and
>>MaterialEntity
>>http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=12
>>
>>Alan Ruttenberg says:
>>
>>>We don't assert anywhere that all parts of material entities are material
>>>entities.
>>
>>True. I think it would help to say explicitly that holes, which are
>>immaterial, are
>>allowed to be parts of material entities. My sense is that, in this sort
>>of case,
>>people don't trust their intuition that holes are actually there and are
>>countable,
>>causes things, and so forth.
>>
>>(Sites are partly material as well as immaterial, or at least they were
>>when I last
>>looked.)
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>Colin.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>You received this message because you are listed in the owner
>>or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
>>You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
>>http://code.google.com/hosting/settings
>>
>>--
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>Groups "BFO Discuss" group.
>>To post to this group, send email to bfo-d...@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>bfo-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
>>For more options, visit this group at
>>http://groups.google.com/group/bfo-discuss?hl=en.
>>
>>
Phillip Lord
Barry Smith <phis...@buffalo.edu> writes:
> I think we need both 'site' and 'immaterial entity'
> Consider e.g. the hole where the mole lives
> We have here on the one hand a site, which includes as parts molecules of
> oxygen, etc.
I'd always assumed that site was the location not the stuff in it. Is
this wrong?
> And on the other hand a hole (immaterial entity), which is still there if all
> the oxygen is removed.
> Many material entity have holes as parts. I think.
> Other sorts of immaterial entities are boundaries. Many material entities have
> boundaries (e.g. the North Pole) as parts.
Here, I'd always assumed that a boundary, well, er, bounded something.
The north pole (or either of them) doesn't as it lacks a dimension; it's
either a point (zero dimensional) on a 2D geometry or 1D on a 3D if you
dig a hole.
Phil
Barry Smith
>Barry Smith <phis...@buffalo.edu> writes:
> > I think we need both 'site' and 'immaterial entity'
> > Consider e.g. the hole where the mole lives
> > We have here on the one hand a site, which includes as parts molecules of
> > oxygen, etc.
>
>I'd always assumed that site was the location not the stuff in it. Is
>this wrong?
Site is the location modulo the fact that locations can move through
distinct spatial regions (for instance the interior of the rowing
boat is a site, which moves through successive spatial regions as the
boat moves across the water)
The idea now is to use 'site' to apply also to habitats and similar
entities, which are locations in this sense together with media (air,
water) which organisms can inhabit
We certainly need a term for such entities, but it may be that this
term falls outside the scope of BFO, and should be defined in terms
of 'site' in the purely locational sense.
BS
> > And on the other hand a hole (immaterial entity), which is still
> there if all
> > the oxygen is removed.
> > Many material entity have holes as parts. I think.
> > Other sorts of immaterial entities are boundaries. Many material
> entities have
> > boundaries (e.g. the North Pole) as parts.
>
>Here, I'd always assumed that a boundary, well, er, bounded something.
>The north pole (or either of them) doesn't as it lacks a dimension; it's
>either a point (zero dimensional) on a 2D geometry or 1D on a 3D if you
>dig a hole.
>
>Phil
>
Alan Ruttenberg
in material entities that have some immaterial entities as part and
are realized in processes that occur in, at least in part, in those
immaterial entities.
-Alan
Phillip Lord
>>Barry Smith <phis...@buffalo.edu> writes:
>> > I think we need both 'site' and 'immaterial entity'
>> > Consider e.g. the hole where the mole lives
>> > We have here on the one hand a site, which includes as parts molecules of
>> > oxygen, etc.
>>
>>I'd always assumed that site was the location not the stuff in it. Is
>>this wrong?
>
> Site is the location modulo the fact that locations can move through distinct
> spatial regions (for instance the interior of the rowing boat is a site, which
> moves through successive spatial regions as the boat moves across the water)
Given that spatial regions are relative to the observer, is this not
just another spatial region? I mean, does the interior of the boat not
define a spatial region in the same way that the water does?
> The idea now is to use 'site' to apply also to habitats and similar entities,
> which are locations in this sense together with media (air, water) which
> organisms can inhabit
>
> We certainly need a term for such entities, but it may be that this term falls
> outside the scope of BFO, and should be defined in terms of 'site' in the
> purely locational sense.
Yes, something that defines an volume or area within a frame of
reference.
>> > And on the other hand a hole (immaterial entity), which is still there if
>> all
>> > the oxygen is removed.
>> > Many material entity have holes as parts. I think.
>> > Other sorts of immaterial entities are boundaries. Many material entities
>> have
>> > boundaries (e.g. the North Pole) as parts.
>>
>>Here, I'd always assumed that a boundary, well, er, bounded something.
>>The north pole (or either of them) doesn't as it lacks a dimension; it's
>>either a point (zero dimensional) on a 2D geometry or 1D on a 3D if you
>>dig a hole.
>>
And the boundaries?
Phil
Phillip Lord
A process can occur in an immaterial entity? With what?
Phil
--
Phillip Lord, Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827
Lecturer in Bioinformatics, Email: philli...@newcastle.ac.uk
School of Computing Science, http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord
Room 914 Claremont Tower, skype: russet_apples
Newcastle University, msn: m...@russet.org.uk
NE1 7RU
Alan Ruttenberg
<philli...@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> A process can occur in an immaterial entity? With what?
If a bug hides in hole, then a portion of the bug's life (a process)
occurs in hole.
Lots of digestion related processes happen in FMA:14585 Cavity of stomach.
-Alan
Phillip Lord
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Phillip Lord
> <philli...@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> A process can occur in an immaterial entity? With what?
>
> If a bug hides in hole, then a portion of the bug's life (a process)
> occurs in hole.
> Lots of digestion related processes happen in FMA:14585 Cavity of stomach.
If there is a bug in it, then it's not a hole right?
Phil
Alan Ruttenberg
I'm still trying to understand how all this fits together, Phil, but
according to my best undertanding, it's still a hole. The bug crawls
out, it's there again. You might want to check with an anatomist about
their intuitions about cavities, but from my experience, they are
going to say that the cavity of the stomach is still there when you
have a meal in it. .
-Alan
Phillip Lord
>>> If a bug hides in hole, then a portion of the bug's life (a process)
>>> occurs in hole.
>>> Lots of digestion related processes happen in FMA:14585 Cavity of stomach.
>>
>> If there is a bug in it, then it's not a hole right?
>
> I'm still trying to understand how all this fits together, Phil, but
> according to my best undertanding, it's still a hole. The bug crawls
> out, it's there again. You might want to check with an anatomist about
> their intuitions about cavities, but from my experience, they are
> going to say that the cavity of the stomach is still there when you
> have a meal in it. .
Sure, just not one that is made of an immaterial entity.
The point is to avoid getting a situation where you were out that
processes can happen in nothing, because, in general, they can't.
Phil
Alan Ruttenberg
>>>> If a bug hides in hole, then a portion of the bug's life (a process)
>>>> occurs in hole.
>>>> Lots of digestion related processes happen in FMA:14585 Cavity of stomach.
>>>
>>> If there is a bug in it, then it's not a hole right?
>>
>> I'm still trying to understand how all this fits together, Phil, but
>> according to my best undertanding, it's still a hole. The bug crawls
>> out, it's there again. You might want to check with an anatomist about
>> their intuitions about cavities, but from my experience, they are
>> going to say that the cavity of the stomach is still there when you
>> have a meal in it. .
>
>
> Sure, just not one that is made of an immaterial entity.
I'm not sure that "made of" is the way of speaking here.
However note that the fma says the cavity of stomach is an immaterial entity.
I don't think that the equation hole = empty should be made. If it
were we wouldn't be able to have holes anywhere but in a vacuum.
Instead I think the analogy is to boundaries, which are dependent on
some material entity. Move the thing that the hole is in, and the hole
moves. Destroy the thing that the hole is in and you destroy the hole.
This dependency seems to differentiate immaterial continuants from space.
-Alan
>
> The point is to avoid getting a situation where you were out that
> processes can happen in nothing, because, in general, they can't.
>
> Phil
>
Peter Simons
Not all immaterial entities are holes.
Holes are still holes when there is stuff or things in them --
provided the filling is not homogeneous with the surrounding material
or otherwise solidly attached to it. The cavity in a mug is still a
cavity whether the mug has coffee, air, a spider or nothing in it, but
if you pour cement into it and it sets solid, there is no hole any
longer: the hole has been filled. That's how you use Polyfilla on
walls: to get rid of holes, cracks and depressions in them.
On niches, I think 'niche' is a role term: what makes something a
niche is that something does or can occupy it. In a world without
creatures a cave would not be a niche.
On locations, assuming BFO is not subscribed to Newtonian absolute
space, what counts as the same location over time is frame-relative.
Peter
Peter Simons
3 Tower House Gardens
Arundel
West Sussex
BN18 9RU
Tel. 01903 884850
peterm...@gmail.com
Phillip Lord
>>> I'm still trying to understand how all this fits together, Phil, but
>>> according to my best undertanding, it's still a hole. The bug crawls
>>> out, it's there again. You might want to check with an anatomist about
>>> their intuitions about cavities, but from my experience, they are
>>> going to say that the cavity of the stomach is still there when you
>>> have a meal in it. .
>>
>>
>> Sure, just not one that is made of an immaterial entity.
>
> I'm not sure that "made of" is the way of speaking here.
>
> However note that the fma says the cavity of stomach is an immaterial entity.
>
> I don't think that the equation hole = empty should be made. If it
> were we wouldn't be able to have holes anywhere but in a vacuum.
>
> Instead I think the analogy is to boundaries, which are dependent on
> some material entity. Move the thing that the hole is in, and the hole
> moves. Destroy the thing that the hole is in and you destroy the hole.
>
> This dependency seems to differentiate immaterial continuants from space.
Sure, but the question is what you mean by "in" when you say "there is a
process in the hole". So, compare "there is a digestion process in my
stomach cavity" with "there is a wobbling process in my raspberry
triffle". The relationship between process and the entity are quite
different here; to follow from your example, if you destroy the stomach
cavity (by destroying the stomach), the digestion process can carry on
(for a while), which is not true of wobblying raspberry triffle.
I don't think that we are disagreeing heavily here; I'm just pointing
out a logical hole to be avoided. It would be better to say that there
are no processes in holes, although there maybe processes in the
contents of holes.
Phil
Alan Rector
It would seems to me that issues such as "digestion" are awkward
because they are awkward.
The object of the digestion is (some part of) the contents of the
cavity.
The lining that forms the boundary of the cavity plays a crucial role
both in
secreting enzymes and in absorbing nutrients and water.
The muscles in the wall that forms the organ of which the lining is the
inner boundary form a crucial function both in agitating and pushing
on the contents.
That (part of) digestion takes place in the stomach seems clear and we
ought
to be able to express that clearly. As in many bits of biology, the
causal
pattern and participants in the process form a surprisingly complex
system
even for what seems like a simple case.
Regards
Alan Rector
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "BFO Discuss" group.
> To post to this group, send email to bfo-d...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bfo-discuss...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bfo-discuss?hl=en
> .
>
-----------------------
Alan Rector
Professor of Medical Informatics
School of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
TEL +44 (0) 161 275 6149/6188
FAX +44 (0) 161 275 6204
www.cs.man.ac.uk/~rector
www.co-ode.org
http://clahrc-gm.nihr.ac.uk/