Does Four-dimensionalism explain coincidence?
For those who think the statue and the piece of copper that compose it are distinct objects that coincide, there is a burden of explanation. After all, common sense says that different ordinary objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. A common argument in favour of four-dimensionalism...
| Published in: | Australasian Journal of Philosophy Vol. 87; no. 3; pp. 479 - 489 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Sep2009
|
| 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=42532859&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 42532859 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00048402 BHK jtl: Australasian Journal of Philosophy issn: 00048402 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Sep2009 vid: 87 iid: 3 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd artinfo: ui: 42532859 10.1080/00048400802421707 ppf: 479 ppct: 10 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 107KB tig: atl: Does Four-dimensionalism explain coincidence? aug: au: Moyer, Mark affil: University of Vermont su: Fourth dimension Coincidence Object (Philosophy) Spacetime Whole & parts (Philosophy) sug: subj: Fourth dimension Coincidence Object (Philosophy) Spacetime Whole & parts (Philosophy) ab: For those who think the statue and the piece of copper that compose it are distinct objects that coincide, there is a burden of explanation. After all, common sense says that different ordinary objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. A common argument in favour of four-dimensionalism (or 'perdurantism' or 'temporal parts theory') is that it provides the resources for a superior explanation of this coincidence. This, however, is mistaken. Any explanatory work done by the four-dimensionalist notion of absolute parthood rests ultimately on notions equally available to the three-dimensionalist. Thus, a neutral explanation of coincidence is at least as good while avoiding commitment to temporal parts. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Australasian Journal of Philosophy is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd 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: Australasian Journal of Philosophy holder: Taylor & Francis Ltd dt: @attributes: year: 2009 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|