Why relational qualities but not relational realizables?

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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 reported on code.google.com by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 22 May 2012 at 1:46

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 22 May 2012 at 1:52

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Why is the force exerted between two portions of matter not a relational 
disposition? 

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 22 May 2012 at 2:26

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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

Original comment by ifo...@gmail.com on 22 May 2012 at 2:34

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 23 May 2012 at 3:50

• Changed state: Started

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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'.

Original comment by albertgo...@gmail.com on 2 Jul 2012 at 3:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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.

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2 Jul 2012 at 5:22