On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen Stead <ste...@paveprime.com> wrote:
> The question is not could we generalise the property to E2 but are > there potential instances of E2 that are not E3's or E4's that potentially > do not have decomposition. I do not know and additionally I am not sure I > want to > spend a lot of time making sure that by their very nature all E2's > are decomposable!! This actually a rather significant ontological decision. If there are temporal entities that cannot be so divided then the underlying temporal ontology is *discrete. * If every temporal entity can always be so decomposed, then the underlying temporal ontology is *dense*. CRM is committed to a dense ontology (because of the approximate model of time points, and the rejection of any momentary events*) , so it would seem all E2 must be decomposable. It is of course, not the case that the type of every part is the same as the type of the whole; conversely, there may be certain granularities where each part *is* of the same type - e.g. the granularity of a step, each part of a walk is also a walk. Simon * e.g. "the upward velocity of the ball I just tossed becoming zero" is not considered to be momentary, in spite of calculus, because the precise beginning and end points are cannot be defined as equal, just not distinguishable.
