Davidson argues that events are individuals. According to him, the meaning of Brutus stabbed Caesar is ∃e.stab(e,Brutus,Caesar), that is, there was a stabbing, Brutus did it, and Caesar underwent it. Likewise, Caesar died means ∃e.die(e, Caesar). Is there a reason not to view states as individuals, too? Something like ∃s.dead(s, Caesar) for Caesar is dead? One could then say, for example, that
die(e, Caesar) ≡ ∃s1,s2.change(e, s1, s2) ∧ alive(s1, Caesar) ∧ dead(s2, Caesar)
just as we can say
kill(e, Brutus, Caesar) ≡ ∃e′.cause(e, Brutus, e′) ∧ die(e′, Caesar)
Coordination can also be construed as an individual
||Brutus stabbed Caesar and drank a beer|| = ∃e,e1,e2.and(e,e1,e2) ∧ ...
which gives us the possibility to have complex events (I flew to Paris is an event but it can be refined as going to the airport, entering the plane, etc.). Do I miss something that prevents us from wanting to reify states?