Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Creepysuckle (talk | contribs) at 16:03, 7 November 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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

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

• Extended modal realism
• Four-dimensional space
• Multiple occupancy view
• Rietdijk–Putnam argument advocating this position
• Spacetime
• World line
• Light cone

References

1. Ney, Alyssa (13 August 2014). Metaphysics: an Introduction. ISBN 978-1-317-67634-8. OCLC 887509960.
2. Presentism and the Space-Time Manifold by Dean Zimmerman, p. 7
3. "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.
4. Ney, Alyssa. Metaphysics : an introduction. OCLC 870919144.
5. Lewis, David K. (1986-01-01). On the plurality of worlds. B. Blackwell. OCLC 12236763.
6. Lăzăroiu, A. 2007: Multiple occupancy, identity, and what matters. Philosophical explorations, 10(3): 211–225. doi:10.1080/13869790701535170

Sources

• Armstrong, David M. (1980) "Identity Through Time", pages 67,8 in Peter van Inwagen (editor), Time and Cause, D. Reidel.
• Hughes, C. (1986) "Is a Thing Just the Sum of Its Parts?", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 85: 213-33.
• Heller, Mark (1984). "Temporal Parts of Four Dimensional Objects", Philosophical Studies 46: 323-34. Reprinted in Rea 1997: 12.-330.
• Heller, Mark (1990) The Ontology of Physical Objects: Four-dimensional Hunks of Matter, Cambridge University Press.
• Heller, Mark (1992) "Things Change", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52: 695-304
• Heller, Mark (1993) "Varieties of Four Dimensionalism", Australasian Journal of Philosophy 71: 47-59.
• Lewis, David (1983). "Survival and Identity", in Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, 55-7. Oxford University Press. With postscripts. Originally published in Amelie O. Rorty, editor (1976) The Identities of Persons University of California Press, pages 17-40.
• Lewis, David (1986a). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Lewis, David (1986b). Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• McTaggart John Ellis (1908) The Unreality of time, originally published in Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 17: 456-473.
• Lewis, D. (1976) "Survival and identity", pages 17-40 in Rorty, A.O. editor, The identities of persons. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google books
• Markosian, N. (2004) "A defense of presentism", pages 47-82 in Zimmerman, D.W. editor, Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, Volume 1, Oxford University Press. Google books
• Muis, R. (2005) Review of Four-dimensionalism: an ontology of persistence and time by Theodore Sider, Ars Disputandi 5
• Robinson, D. (1985) "Can amoebae divide without multiplying?", Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63(3): 299–319. doi:10.1080/00048408512341901

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

• Theories of time
• Philosophy of physics
• Spacetime