Why relational qualities but not relational realizables?
Opened this issue · 6 comments
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on May 22, 2012 09:46:20
Reference says:
"There are reciprocal realizable dependent continuants (e.g. husband/wife; complementary dispositions (for example of key and lock), as described in [28, 79])."
If we surface this in the ontology for qualities, why not for realizable entities?
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=40
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on May 22, 2012 06:52:16
I am confusing reciprocal with relational. Will rethink and possibly close
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on May 22, 2012 07:26:17
Why is the force exerted between two portions of matter not a relational disposition?
From ifo...@gmail.com on May 22, 2012 07:34:30
Currently relational quality is included as a subtype of quality in the draft document. But it is mentioned only in passing.
I certainly think that there are relational realizables as well as relational qualities, and would be happy to add and document them both.
Reciprocal realizables = husband role/wife role
Relational realizables = force exerted by one body on another
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on May 23, 2012 08:50:04
Status: Started
From albertgo...@gmail.com on July 02, 2012 08:13:48
Another paradigm case for reciprocal realizables is the lock and key.
Suppose k is a Key and l is a Lock.
At time t1, k 'has disposition at some time' to unlock l.
Later, at time t2, l becomes so rusted that k can no longer unlock l.
k can lose its disposition to unlock l in virtue of a change that is external to its own parts.
Alternatively, l may not be rusted but instead at time t2, k may become worn down so that it can no longer unlock l.
l can lose its disposition to be unlocked by k in virtue of a change that is external to its own parts.
Thus, 'disposition to unlock l' is reciprocally dependent on 'disposition to be unlocked by k'.
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on July 02, 2012 10:22:35
I understand that there are also reciprocal relations. I think we need, in the reference, a discussion comparing and contrasting these. Sometimes I get it, and sometimes it gets fuzzy.
Albert uses the criteria (for reciprocal dispositions x,y borne by a,b)
a can lose its disposition x in virtue of a change that is external to a's own parts.
b can lose its disposition y in virtue of a change that is external to b's own parts.
It isn't clear, for instance, how to distinguish this case from a relational disposition that inheres in the aggregate. We need to have this explained.