Nonclassical Mereology and Its Application to Sets

Forrest, Peter

doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1071509430

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

The Question Of the Uniqueness Of Fusions2

Introduction1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2006

2020

Publication Types

Select...

Article6

Book3

Relationship

Self Cite1

Independent8

Authors

Journals

Cited by 21 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Roeper [Roeper, 1997, p. 253] invokes one in order to use the Stone Representation Thereom. Forrest [Forrest, 2002, p. 81] utilizes a null object, which he dismisses as 'fictitious'.…”

Section: The Question Is What To Make Of This Notion Of Emptiness?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inconsistent boundaries

Weber

Cotnoir

2014

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Mereotopology is a theory of connected parts. The existence of boundaries, as parts of everyday objects, is basic to any such theory; but in classical mereotopology, there is a problem: if boundaries exist, then either distinct entities cannot be in contact, or else space is not topologically connected [Varzi, 1997]. In this paper we urge that this problem can be met with a paraconsistent mereotopology, and sketch the details of one such approach. The resulting theory focuses attention on the role of empty parts, in delivering a balanced and bounded metaphysics of naive space.

show abstract

“…Roeper [Roeper, 1997, p. 253] invokes one in order to use the Stone Representation Thereom. Forrest [Forrest, 2002, p. 81] utilizes a null object, which he dismisses as 'fictitious'.…”

Section: The Question Is What To Make Of This Notion Of Emptiness?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inconsistent boundaries

Weber

Cotnoir

2014

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elsewhere I have employed considerations of volume against classical mereology if it turns out that regions of space‐time are atomless (Forrest 2002). I now think that these volumetric considerations fail 1 .…”

Section: The Question Of the Uniqueness Of Fusionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mereological summation and the question of unique fusion

Forrest¹

2007

Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In other words, Leśniewski assumes that when parts are composed, according to their characteristics, they "naturally" connect with one another to produce a whole. This leads to a lot of controversy around the composition of parts and the uniqueness of mereological sum in Extensional Mereology [2,4]. For example, the sentences "Jane loves Tom" and "Tom loves Jane" are made of the same parts, but they are obviously not the same.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%