Getting back in shape: Persistence, shape, and relativity.

In this paper, we will introduce a novel argument (the "Region Argument") that objects do not have frame‐independent shapes in special relativity. The Region Argument lacks vulnerabilities present in David Chalmers' argument for that conclusion based on length contraction. We then examine how views...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Philosophy & Phenomenological Research Vol. 110; no. 1; pp. 75 - 97
Main Authors: Himelright, Jack, Murgueitio Ramírez, Sebastián
Format: Article
Published: Wiley-Blackwell Jan2025
Subjects:
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=183923368&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 183923368
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318205
        PPO
      jtl: Philosophy & Phenomenological Research
      issn: 00318205
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jan2025
      vid: 110
      iid: 1
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        183923368
        10.1111/phpr.13092
      ppf: 75
      ppct: 22
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: C
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 551KB
      tig:
        atl: Getting back in shape: Persistence, shape, and relativity.
      aug:
        au:
          Himelright, Jack
          Murgueitio Ramírez, Sebastián
        affil:
          Department of Philosophy, Kansas State University, Manhattan Kansas,, USA
          Department of Philosophy, Purdue University, West Lafayette Indiana,, USA
      su:
        Relativity
        Perdurantism & endurantism (Philosophy)
        Skepticism
        Philosophy
      sug:
        subj:
          Relativity
          Perdurantism & endurantism (Philosophy)
          Skepticism
          Philosophy
      keyword:
        Edenic properties
        endurantism
        four‐dimensionalism
        shape
        special relativity
      ab: In this paper, we will introduce a novel argument (the "Region Argument") that objects do not have frame‐independent shapes in special relativity. The Region Argument lacks vulnerabilities present in David Chalmers' argument for that conclusion based on length contraction. We then examine how views on persistence interact with the Region Argument. We argue that this argument and standard four‐dimensionalist assumptions entail that nothing in a relativistic world has any shape, not even stages or the regions occupied by them. We also argue that endurantists have viable ways of preserving shape despite the Region Argument. The upshot of these arguments is that contrary to conventional wisdom, considerations about shape in relativity support endurantism rather than four‐dimensionalism. We conclude by examining the implications of our discussion for the debate over Edenic shapes, noting that endurantists have a satisfying response to skeptical arguments about Edenic shapes similar to the one they have against the Region Argument.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Philosophy & Phenomenological Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Philosophy & Phenomenological Research
      holder: Wiley-Blackwell
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2025
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N