Misplaced Pages

Four-dimensionalism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:30, 18 June 2011 editStho002 (talk | contribs)1,819 edits +← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:06, 7 November 2024 edit undoMuffinHunter0 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers2,261 editsm Reverted edits by Creepysuckle (talk) (AV)Tags: AntiVandal Rollback 
(289 intermediate revisions by 70 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Philosophical treatment of time, an object's persistence across it, and reality}}
{{other uses2|Fourth dimension}} {{other uses|Fourth dimension (disambiguation)}}
⚫ {{Refimprove|date=March 2009}}
{{Multiple issues|
⚫ {{refimprove|date=March 2009}}
{{original research|date=June 2011}}
{{essay|date=June 2011}}
}}


In ], '''four-dimensionalism''' (also known as the '''doctrine of ]''') is the ] position that an object's persistence through time is like its extension through space. Thus, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies, just like an object that exists in a region of space has at least one part in every subregion of that space.<ref name="Sider1997">{{Cite journal |title=Four-Dimensionalism |first=Theodore |last=Sider |journal=The Philosophical Review |volume=106 |issue=2 |pages=197–231 |date=April 1997 |url=http://tedsider.org/papers/4d.pdf |jstor=2998357 |doi=10.2307/2998357 |access-date=2011-06-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304074848/http://tedsider.org/papers/4d.pdf |archive-date=2016-03-04 |url-status=dead }}</ref>


Four-dimensionalists typically argue for treating time as analogous to space, usually leading them to endorse the doctrine of '']''. This is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of ], according to which all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the ] idea that only the present is real.<ref>{{Cite book|title=General Philosophy of Science: Focal Issues |first=Theo A.F.|last=Kuipers|publisher=North Holland|year=2007|isbn=978-0-444-51548-3|page=326|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qUMuFaXjNjEC&pg=PA326}}</ref> As some eternalists argue by analogy, just as all spatially distant objects and events are as real as those close to us, temporally distant objects and events are as real as those currently present to us.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Metaphysics : an introduction|first=Alyssa|last=Ney|author-link=Alyssa Ney|oclc=870919144}}</ref>
'''Four-dimensionalism''' is a ]/] theory about the nature of ], which has implications for the ] over ] of people and other objects. According to this theory, past, present, and future all exist equally, as opposed to the view that only the present exists, the past exists no more, and the future is yet to exist (i.e. ]). As a theory, ] is a ] "dead end". According to '''four-dimensionalism''', there is nothing "special" about the present. The present is merely the temporal analogue of "here", which can be thought of as the "spatial present". Being located in the present, as opposed to the past or the future, is just like being "here rather than there". In neither case does where you are located have any "special status" over and above the fact that it is where you are located...


'']''—or ''perdurance theory''—is a closely related philosophical theory of persistence and ],<ref name="sep-temporal-parts">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Hawley |first=Katherine |title=Temporal Parts |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor=Edward N. Zalta |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/temporal-parts/|year=2010 |edition=Winter 2010}}</ref> according to which an individual has distinct temporal parts throughout its existence, and the persisting object is the sum or set of all of its temporal parts. This sum or set is colloquially referred to as a "space-time worm", which has earned the perdurantist view the moniker of "the worm view".<ref name=":0" /> While all perdurantists are plausibly considered four dimensionalists, at least one variety of four dimensionalism does not count as perdurantist in nature. This variety, known as '''exdurantism''' or the "stage view", is closely akin to the perdurantist position. They also countenance a view of persisting objects that have temporal parts that succeed one another through time. However, instead of identifying the persisting object as the entire set or sum of its temporal parts, the exdurantist argues that any object under discussion is a single stage (time-slice, temporal part, etc.), and that the other stages or parts that comprise the persisting object are related to that part by a "temporal ]" relation.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sider|first=Theodore|date=1996-09-01|title=All the world's a stage|journal=Australasian Journal of Philosophy|volume=74|issue=3|pages=433–453|doi=10.1080/00048409612347421|issn=0004-8402}}</ref>
We tend to think that there is a fundamental distinction between objects and processes (events), for example, persons and their lives. We tend to think that objects, such as people, are wholly present at each moment at which they exist (]). By contrast, only a stage (=temporal part) of a process can be present at any one moment, not the whole process. ] is a ] "dead end", and does not sit well with the doctrine of ]. This may seem to threaten the everyday notion that objects and people persist (i.e., retain their ] over ]). ] is an alternative to ]. We must abandon the distinction between object and process, or, equivalently, reinterpret objects as processes. Effectively, a person '''is''' their life, with stages, and not wholly present at any one time. So, with the combination of '''four-dimensionalism''' and ], we can avoid the ] "dead end" theories of ] and ], while retaining ] over ] for people and objects.


Though they have often been conflated, eternalism is a theory of what time is like and what times exist, while perdurantism is a theory about persisting objects and their identity conditions over time. Eternalism and perdurantism tend to be discussed together because many philosophers argue for a combination of eternalism and perdurantism. Sider (1997)<ref name="Sider1997" /> uses the term ''four-dimensionalism'' to refer to perdurantism, but ] uses the term "four-dimensionalism" to mean the view that presentism is false as opposed to "perdurantism", the view that ] is false and persisting objects have temporal parts.<ref>{{quotation|text={{omission}} This view is variously called "four-dimensionalism", "perdurantism", or "the doctrine of temporal parts". Some think that four-dimensionalism understood as the denial of presentism implies four-dimensionalism understood as perdurantism. But whether or not that is true, the important thing to recognize is that these are two very different views. To avoid confusion, I will in this paper reserve the term "four-dimensionalism" exclusively for the view that presentism is false, and I will use the term "perdurantism" to refer to the view that objects last over time without being wholly present at every time at which they exist.|author=Michael C. Rea|title=Four Dimensionalism|source=The Oxford Handbook for Metaphysics}} </ref>
It is unclear if you can have ] without '''four-dimensionalism'''. It is also unclear if you can have ] with '''four-dimensionalism'''. Hence, this article may be about two independent issues, i.e., ] vs. ], and '''four-dimensionalism''' vs. ], though they are usually discussed together in the literature.


== Four-dimensionalism about material objects ==
It is hard to relate the difference between ] and ] to any real life issue, but suppose that you are informed that tomorrow you will suffer the most horrendous torture. If you endure, then you will, in some sense, "find yourself" tomorrow being tortured. Better try to avoid it! But if you perdure, then you cannot "find yourself" anywhere tomorrow, for the stage of your life tomorrow is not intrinsically the "same one" (in the sense of numerical identity) as it is today, and tomorrow has no less reality today than today has! The person stage who gets told that tomorrow they will be tortured is "located in today", whereas the person stage who actually gets tortured is "located in tomorrow"! The significance of this is rather unclear, but there would seem to be far less rational reason to fear future pain if you perdure. Why should your "today stage" care about pain inflicted on your "tomorrow stage", except by way of sympathy/empathy? Issues of ] are relevant here, and may well undermine the plausibility of ].
Four-dimensionalism is a name for different positions. One of these uses four-dimensionalism as a position of material objects with respect to dimensions. Four-dimensionalism is the view that in addition to spatial parts, objects have temporal parts.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Metaphysics: an Introduction|last=Ney|first=Alyssa|author-link=Alyssa Ney|date = 13 August 2014|isbn=978-1-317-67634-8|oclc=887509960}}</ref>


According to this view, four-dimensionalism cannot be used as a synonym for perdurantism. Perdurantists have to hold a four-dimensional view of material objects: it is impossible that perdurantists, who believe that objects persist by having different temporal parts at different times, do not believe in temporal parts. However, the reverse is not true. Four-dimensionalism is compatible with either perdurantism or exdurantism.
==Background==
As '''four-dimensionalism''' is a ] theory, it is necessary to say something here about the aim of ]. Like science, the aim of ] is to understand as much as possible in terms of as little as possible. In other words, the aim is to reduce the number of fundamentals to a minimum, and understand everything else as if constructed in some simple way out of those fundamentals. The background assumption is that this will lead to a '''true''' picture of reality. A "fundamental" represents a ] "dead end", resisting further analysis. If we can understand space in terms of fundamentals x, y, z, etc., then all the better if we can also understand time in terms of x, y, z, etc. '''Four-dimensionalism''' attempts to do just that. Time is understood as the fourth dimension, equivalent to the three dimensions of space. What we lose from this theory is any special status for the present, however special it might seem...


⚫ ==A-series and B-series==
==Temporal parts==
{{main article|A-series and B-series}}
The idea of a whole object being composed of smaller parts is not revolutionary. On the contrary, this notion is rather common. One instance of a whole object losing a part is the ] example of the ]. Another illustration is a familiar routine such as getting a haircut. Both of these instances provide an example of a whole object losing a part. For the four-dimensionalist, this does not represent the notion of parthood.<ref name="Sider 4D">{{cite journal |first=Theodore |last=Sider |year=1997 |title=Four-Dimensionalism |journal=Philosophical Review |volume=106 |number=2 |publisher=Oxford University Press |url=http://tedsider.org/papers/4d.pdf |pages=197–231}}</ref>


] in '']'' identified two descriptions of time, which he called the A-series and the B-series. The A-series identifies positions in time as past, present, or future, and thus assumes that the "present" has some objective reality, as in both ] and the ].<ref> by Dean Zimmerman, p. 7</ref> The B-series defines a given event as earlier or later than another event, but does not assume an objective present, as in four-dimensionalism. Much of the contemporary literature in the ] of time has been taken to spring forth from this distinction, and thus takes McTaggart's work as its starting point.
The notion of parthood for a four-dimensionalist allows one to speak of the parts of an object simpliciter. That is, without any criterion or condition, versus at any particular time such as t<sub>1</sub> or t<sub>2</sub>. Within the framework of four-dimensionalism, one could say that his or her current temporal part is sitting at a computer, typing up a presentation on four-dimensionalism, wearing sweatpants and having tea. Therefore, a four-dimensionalist conceives of the parts of an object as an ] relation, or part of a larger ] worm. A spacetime worm is a four-dimensional object consisting of a three-dimensional object extending through the fourth dimension of time.<ref name="Sider 4D" />


⚫ ==Contrast with three-dimensionalism==
Furthermore, the notion of parthood allows a four-dimensionalist to account for change, in a basic and ordinary sense of the word. Change is what allows one to distinguish between different successive ] parts. For example, one temporal part of a person may be typing at a computer, while another temporal part will be going to ]. Still a third temporal part will be waking up to run ] and get prepared for work later in the evening.<ref name="Sider 4D" />


⚫ Unlike the four dimensionalist, the three dimensionalist considers time to be a unique ] that is not analogous to the three spatial dimensions: ], ] and ]. Whereas the four dimensionalist proposes that objects are extended across time, the three dimensionalist adheres to the belief that all objects are wholly present at any moment at which they exist. While the three dimensionalist agrees that the parts of an object can be differentiated based on their spatial dimensions, they do not believe an object can be differentiated into temporal parts across time. For example, in the three dimensionalist account, "Descartes in 1635" is the same object as "Descartes in 1620", and both are identical to Descartes, himself. However, the four dimensionalist considers these to be distinct temporal parts.<ref name="Three-Dimensionalism and Four-Dimensionalism">{{cite web |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#ThreDimeFourDime
==Presentism and eternalism==
|title=Time: 8. The 3D/4D Controversy
|date=2002-11-25 |access-date=2008-12-15 |publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |quote=As in the case of the disputes between A Theorists and B Theorists, on the one hand, and Presentists and Non-presentists, on the other hand, the 3D/4D controversy is part of a general disagreement among philosophers of time concerning the degree to which time is dissimilar from the dimensions of space. That general disagreement has been an important theme in the philosophy of time during the last one hundred years, and will most likely continue to be so for some time to come.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081007063003/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time#3D4Con |archive-date=2008-10-07}}</ref>


== Prominent arguments in favor of four-dimensionalism ==
Presentism is an ] viewpoint which attempts to account for how consciousness functions in relation to time. Presentism asserts that only the present exists. The past and the future, therefore, are seen as non-existent. To a presentist, the memory accounts for the collection of events that have already occurred. Similarly, the future is ]ualized as being a mental ]. Therefore, presentism is attempting to demonstrate that the total sum of the actual world occupies the present moment.
Several lines of argumentation have been advanced in favor of four-dimensionalism:


Firstly, four-dimensional accounts of time are argued to better explain paradoxes of change over time (often referred to as the paradox of the ]) than three-dimensional theories. A contemporary account of this paradox is introduced in Ney (2014),<ref name=":0" /> but the original problem has its roots in Greek antiquity. A typical Ship of Theseus paradox involves taking some changeable object with multiple material parts, for example a ship, then sequentially removing and replacing its parts until none of the original components are left. At each stage of the replacement, the ship is presumably identical with the original, since the replacement of a single part need not destroy the ship and create an entirely new one. But, it is also plausible that an object with none of the same material parts as another is not identical with the original object. So, how can an object survive the replacement of any of its parts, and in fact all of its parts? The four-dimensionalist can argue that the persisting object is a single space-time worm which has all the replacement stages as temporal parts, or in the case of the stage view that each succeeding stage bears a temporal counterpart relation to the original stage under discussion.
Consequently, ] is the ontological view which postulates that past, present and future all equally exist. While the presentist asserts that the past and future are only logical constructs, the eternalist believes that time exists as an objective manifestation. Eternalism is the basic construct behind four-dimensionalism, as it accounts for the reality of past and future rather than proposing that all events occupy the present.


Secondly, problems of temporary intrinsics are argued to be best explained by four-dimensional views of time that involve temporal parts. As presented by ],<ref>{{Cite book|title=On the plurality of worlds|last=Lewis|first=David K.|date=1986-01-01|publisher=B. Blackwell|oclc=12236763}}</ref> the problem of temporary intrinsics involves properties of an object that are both had by that object regardless of how anything else in the world is (and thus intrinsic), and subject to change over time (thus temporary). Shape is argued to be one such property. So, if an object is capable of having a particular shape, and also changing its shape at another time, there must be some way for the same object to be, say, both round and square. Lewis argues that separate temporal parts having the incompatible properties best explains an object being able to change its shape in this way, because other accounts of three-dimensional time eliminate intrinsic properties by indexing them to times and making them relational instead of intrinsic.
⚫ ===A-series and B-series===

] famously argues in his 1908 paper ] that time is necessarily unreal. McTaggart introduces three different types of ordered relations among events: the A-series, the B-series and the C-series. The A-series is “the series of positions running from the far ] through the near past to the present, and then from the present to the near ] and the far future.” <ref name="McTaggart">{{cite web |url=http://en.wikisource.org/The_Unreality_of_Time |title=The Unreality of Time |accessdate=2008-12-15 |publisher=Wikisource}}</ref> The basic temporal distinctions of past, present and future are fundamental and unique to the A-series as well as essential to the reality of time. If the distinctions of past, present and future are not true of reality, then there is no reality in time. The A-series is championed by proponents of ].<ref name="McTaggart" />

The B-series is a series of positions that is ordered from earlier to later. Like the A-series, the B-series contains a direction of change. Unlike the A-series, the B-series does not define a present moment that separates past and future. Events are thought to exist earlier and later, rather than in the past or future. This distinction allows one to move away from the terminology employed in the basic conception of time.<ref name="McTaggart" />

The A-series maintains that time is running from past to future while the B-series asserts that events are running from earlier to later, therefore both require a direction. The C-series, consequently, postulates that events have an order but that there is no inherent direction of time. McTaggart asserts that the order of the events does not necessitate change, a concept that he has already established to be necessary to the concept of time. Therefore, the C-series is atemporal and offers a plausible alternative to the conventional conception of time as well as a part of the concept of ].<ref name="McTaggart" />

⚫ ==Comparisons to three-dimensionalism==

⚫ The three dimensionalist view imagines time as being a unique ], not analogous to the three spatial dimensions: ], ] and ]. Whereas the four dimensionalist proposes that objects are extended across time, the three dimensionalist adheres to the belief that all objects are wholly present at any moment at which they exist. While the three dimensionalist believes that objects can be differentiated based on their spatial dimensions, the same does not apply to time. Rather, the existence of temporal parts is a linguistic construct. For example, the person described by the phrase “] in 1635” is objectively the same as the person described as “Descartes in 1620.” Temporal parts are not existent for the three dimensionalist. Therefore, change does not need to be accounted for. Accordingly, the only relation between these objects is that of identity. This helps to account for the paradox of change.<ref name="3D/4D debate">{{cite web |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#TimTra) |title=Time |date=2002-11-25 |accessdate=2008-12-15 |publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>

The four-dimensionalist view, by contrast, asserts that all objects occupying different ] are inherently different versions of the same object. In order to account for these different versions, the notion of temporal parts is introduced. Differences among temporal parts are how a four-dimensionalist accounts for change. Thus, the temporal part described by the phrase “] in 1635” is different from the temporal part described by the phrase “Descartes in 1620.” When combined, these parts form a ] “worm.”<ref name="3D/4D debate" />


==See also== ==See also==
* ]

* ]
⚫ * ] for an argument advocating this position.
* ]<ref>{{aut|Lăzăroiu, A.}} 2007: Multiple occupancy, identity, and what matters. ''Philosophical explorations'', '''10'''(3): 211–225. {{doi|10.1080/13869790701535170}}</ref>
⚫ * ] advocating this position
* ]
* ]
* ]


==References== ==References==
{{Reflist}}
<references />

==Sources==
* Armstrong, David M. (1980) "Identity Through Time", pages 67,8 in ] (editor), ''Time and Cause'', ].
* Hughes, C. (1986) "Is a Thing Just the Sum of Its Parts?", ] 85: 213-33.
* Heller, Mark (1984). "Temporal Parts of Four Dimensional Objects", ] 46: 323-34. Reprinted in ''Rea'' 1997: 12.-330.''
* Heller, Mark (1990) ''The Ontology of Physical Objects: Four-dimensional Hunks of Matter'', ].
* Heller, Mark (1992) "Things Change", ] 52: 695-304
* Heller, Mark (1993) "Varieties of Four Dimensionalism", ] 71: 47-59.
* Lewis, David (1983). "Survival and Identity", in ''Philosophical Papers, Volume 1'', 55-7. ]. With postscripts. Originally published in Amelie O. Rorty, editor (1976) ''The Identities of Persons'' ], pages 17-40.
* Lewis, David (1986a). '']''. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
* Lewis, David (1986b). ''Philosophical Papers, Volume 2''. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* McTaggart John Ellis (1908) , originally published in ] 17: 456-473.
* {{aut|Lewis, D.}} (1976) "Survival and identity", pages 17-40 in {{aut|Rorty, A.O.}} editor, ''The identities of persons''. Berkeley: University of California Press.
* {{aut|Markosian, N.}} (2004) "A defense of presentism", pages 47-82 in {{aut|Zimmerman, D.W.}} editor, ''Oxford Studies in Metaphysics'', Volume 1, Oxford University Press.
* {{aut|Muis, R.}} (2005) , '']'' 5
* {{aut|Robinson, D.}} (1985) "Can amoebae divide without multiplying?", ''Australasian Journal of Philosophy'' 63(3): 299–319. {{doi|10.1080/00048408512341901}}


==External links== ==External links==
Line 56: Line 74:


{{DEFAULTSORT:Four-Dimensionalism}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Four-Dimensionalism}}
] ]
] ]
] ]

]
]
]

Latest revision as of 16:06, 7 November 2024

Philosophical treatment of time, an object's persistence across it, and reality For other uses, see Fourth dimension (disambiguation).
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Four-dimensionalism" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (June 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Misplaced Pages editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (June 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
(Learn how and when to remove this message)

In philosophy, four-dimensionalism (also known as the doctrine of temporal parts) is the ontological position that an object's persistence through time is like its extension through space. Thus, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies, just like an object that exists in a region of space has at least one part in every subregion of that space.

Four-dimensionalists typically argue for treating time as analogous to space, usually leading them to endorse the doctrine of eternalism. This is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, according to which all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real. As some eternalists argue by analogy, just as all spatially distant objects and events are as real as those close to us, temporally distant objects and events are as real as those currently present to us.

Perdurantism—or perdurance theory—is a closely related philosophical theory of persistence and identity, according to which an individual has distinct temporal parts throughout its existence, and the persisting object is the sum or set of all of its temporal parts. This sum or set is colloquially referred to as a "space-time worm", which has earned the perdurantist view the moniker of "the worm view". While all perdurantists are plausibly considered four dimensionalists, at least one variety of four dimensionalism does not count as perdurantist in nature. This variety, known as exdurantism or the "stage view", is closely akin to the perdurantist position. They also countenance a view of persisting objects that have temporal parts that succeed one another through time. However, instead of identifying the persisting object as the entire set or sum of its temporal parts, the exdurantist argues that any object under discussion is a single stage (time-slice, temporal part, etc.), and that the other stages or parts that comprise the persisting object are related to that part by a "temporal counterpart" relation.

Though they have often been conflated, eternalism is a theory of what time is like and what times exist, while perdurantism is a theory about persisting objects and their identity conditions over time. Eternalism and perdurantism tend to be discussed together because many philosophers argue for a combination of eternalism and perdurantism. Sider (1997) uses the term four-dimensionalism to refer to perdurantism, but Michael Rea uses the term "four-dimensionalism" to mean the view that presentism is false as opposed to "perdurantism", the view that endurantism is false and persisting objects have temporal parts.

Four-dimensionalism about material objects

Four-dimensionalism is a name for different positions. One of these uses four-dimensionalism as a position of material objects with respect to dimensions. Four-dimensionalism is the view that in addition to spatial parts, objects have temporal parts.

According to this view, four-dimensionalism cannot be used as a synonym for perdurantism. Perdurantists have to hold a four-dimensional view of material objects: it is impossible that perdurantists, who believe that objects persist by having different temporal parts at different times, do not believe in temporal parts. However, the reverse is not true. Four-dimensionalism is compatible with either perdurantism or exdurantism.

A-series and B-series

Main article: A-series and B-series

J.M.E. McTaggart in The Unreality of Time identified two descriptions of time, which he called the A-series and the B-series. The A-series identifies positions in time as past, present, or future, and thus assumes that the "present" has some objective reality, as in both presentism and the growing block universe. The B-series defines a given event as earlier or later than another event, but does not assume an objective present, as in four-dimensionalism. Much of the contemporary literature in the metaphysics of time has been taken to spring forth from this distinction, and thus takes McTaggart's work as its starting point.

Contrast with three-dimensionalism

Unlike the four dimensionalist, the three dimensionalist considers time to be a unique dimension that is not analogous to the three spatial dimensions: length, width and height. Whereas the four dimensionalist proposes that objects are extended across time, the three dimensionalist adheres to the belief that all objects are wholly present at any moment at which they exist. While the three dimensionalist agrees that the parts of an object can be differentiated based on their spatial dimensions, they do not believe an object can be differentiated into temporal parts across time. For example, in the three dimensionalist account, "Descartes in 1635" is the same object as "Descartes in 1620", and both are identical to Descartes, himself. However, the four dimensionalist considers these to be distinct temporal parts.

Prominent arguments in favor of four-dimensionalism

Several lines of argumentation have been advanced in favor of four-dimensionalism:

Firstly, four-dimensional accounts of time are argued to better explain paradoxes of change over time (often referred to as the paradox of the Ship of Theseus) than three-dimensional theories. A contemporary account of this paradox is introduced in Ney (2014), but the original problem has its roots in Greek antiquity. A typical Ship of Theseus paradox involves taking some changeable object with multiple material parts, for example a ship, then sequentially removing and replacing its parts until none of the original components are left. At each stage of the replacement, the ship is presumably identical with the original, since the replacement of a single part need not destroy the ship and create an entirely new one. But, it is also plausible that an object with none of the same material parts as another is not identical with the original object. So, how can an object survive the replacement of any of its parts, and in fact all of its parts? The four-dimensionalist can argue that the persisting object is a single space-time worm which has all the replacement stages as temporal parts, or in the case of the stage view that each succeeding stage bears a temporal counterpart relation to the original stage under discussion.

Secondly, problems of temporary intrinsics are argued to be best explained by four-dimensional views of time that involve temporal parts. As presented by David Lewis, the problem of temporary intrinsics involves properties of an object that are both had by that object regardless of how anything else in the world is (and thus intrinsic), and subject to change over time (thus temporary). Shape is argued to be one such property. So, if an object is capable of having a particular shape, and also changing its shape at another time, there must be some way for the same object to be, say, both round and square. Lewis argues that separate temporal parts having the incompatible properties best explains an object being able to change its shape in this way, because other accounts of three-dimensional time eliminate intrinsic properties by indexing them to times and making them relational instead of intrinsic.

See also

References

  1. ^ Sider, Theodore (April 1997). "Four-Dimensionalism" (PDF). The Philosophical Review. 106 (2): 197–231. doi:10.2307/2998357. JSTOR 2998357. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2011-06-12.
  2. Kuipers, Theo A.F. (2007). General Philosophy of Science: Focal Issues. North Holland. p. 326. ISBN 978-0-444-51548-3.
  3. ^ Ney, Alyssa. Metaphysics : an introduction. OCLC 870919144.
  4. Hawley, Katherine (2010). "Temporal Parts". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 ed.).
  5. Sider, Theodore (1996-09-01). "All the world's a stage". Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 74 (3): 433–453. doi:10.1080/00048409612347421. ISSN 0004-8402.

  6. ... This view is variously called "four-dimensionalism", "perdurantism", or "the doctrine of temporal parts". Some think that four-dimensionalism understood as the denial of presentism implies four-dimensionalism understood as perdurantism. But whether or not that is true, the important thing to recognize is that these are two very different views. To avoid confusion, I will in this paper reserve the term "four-dimensionalism" exclusively for the view that presentism is false, and I will use the term "perdurantism" to refer to the view that objects last over time without being wholly present at every time at which they exist.

    — Michael C. Rea, Four Dimensionalism, The Oxford Handbook for Metaphysics
  7. Ney, Alyssa (13 August 2014). Metaphysics: an Introduction. ISBN 978-1-317-67634-8. OCLC 887509960.
  8. Presentism and the Space-Time Manifold by Dean Zimmerman, p. 7
  9. "Time: 8. The 3D/4D Controversy". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2002-11-25. Archived from the original on 2008-10-07. Retrieved 2008-12-15. As in the case of the disputes between A Theorists and B Theorists, on the one hand, and Presentists and Non-presentists, on the other hand, the 3D/4D controversy is part of a general disagreement among philosophers of time concerning the degree to which time is dissimilar from the dimensions of space. That general disagreement has been an important theme in the philosophy of time during the last one hundred years, and will most likely continue to be so for some time to come.
  10. Lewis, David K. (1986-01-01). On the plurality of worlds. B. Blackwell. OCLC 12236763.
  11. Lăzăroiu, A. 2007: Multiple occupancy, identity, and what matters. Philosophical explorations, 10(3): 211–225. doi:10.1080/13869790701535170

Sources

External links

  • Rea, M. C., "Four Dimensionalism" in The Oxford Handbook for Metaphysics. Oxford Univ. Press. Describes presentism and four-dimensionalism.
  • "Time" in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Time
Key concepts
Measurement
and standards
Chronometry
Measurement
systems
Calendars
Clocks
Philosophy of time
Human experience
and use of time
Time in science
Geology
Physics
Other fields
Related
Philosophy of time
Concepts in time
Theories of time
Related articles
Categories: