Why relational qualities but not relational realizables?

[zhengj2007]

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

[zhengj2007]

From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on May 22, 2012 06:52:16

I am confusing reciprocal with relational. Will rethink and possibly close

[zhengj2007]

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?

[zhengj2007]

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

[zhengj2007]

From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on May 23, 2012 08:50:04

Status: Started

[zhengj2007]

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'.

[zhengj2007]

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.