tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post3398041554069423020..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Accretion of particlesAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-2295399188114714012016-05-24T09:34:40.550-05:002016-05-24T09:34:40.550-05:00Truth accretes everything, absolutely and equally....Truth accretes everything, absolutely and equally. == MJAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01897595473268353450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-60541007513749341522016-05-24T08:41:12.927-05:002016-05-24T08:41:12.927-05:00Well, in ordinary contexts statements are relativi...Well, in ordinary contexts statements are relativized to some interval of times containing the statement. Thus, "There is rain outside" can be read as: "Let T be a relevantly small interval of times containing this sentence. The manifold contains rain outside within T."<br /><br />But in more philosophical contexts, such relativization is gone.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-19010648392280350562016-05-23T18:53:58.255-05:002016-05-23T18:53:58.255-05:00I'm confused about the use of time-unspecified...I'm confused about the use of time-unspecified statements in the 4D case.<br /><br />If I am the 4Der, and I say "there is rain outside," can this be considered true from the 4D perspective if it rained outside last week, even if it has not rained today?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-21538645520749918572016-05-23T16:11:31.207-05:002016-05-23T16:11:31.207-05:00Christopher:
But then our 4Der ends up agreeing w...Christopher:<br /><br />But then our 4Der ends up agreeing with the Aristotelian that it never happens that a particle exists first as not a part of a substance and then as part of that substance. Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-81452393755296346792016-05-23T15:10:57.734-05:002016-05-23T15:10:57.734-05:00If you go that route and deny the distinction, the...If you go that route and deny the distinction, then I would be inclined, as I think most would, to deny that <i>x</i> is part of you, since there are 4D chunks of <i>x</i> that aren't part of you. So you either equivocate to get the transitivity going, or else the intuitive support for <i>x</i> being a part of you dissolves. The intuitive support for <i>x</i> being a part you came from treating <i>x</i> as a 3D object totally present now. If you give that up to amalgamate integral and temporal parts, the intuitive support for your premise goes with it, no?Christopher Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02003454986381351202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-90366935695248121942016-05-23T12:17:21.673-05:002016-05-23T12:17:21.673-05:00On a four-dimensionalist picture, there is no sign...On a four-dimensionalist picture, there is no significant difference: both are just four-dimensional chunks (typically--though a really thin slice might be three-dimensional) of a four dimensional object.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-34096955527173675302016-05-23T12:12:32.547-05:002016-05-23T12:12:32.547-05:00You are equivocating on “part” again! :-) Integral...You are equivocating on “part” again! :-) Integral parthood isn't transitive with temporal parthood. So <i>x</i> is an integral part of you, and <i>u</i> is a temporal part of <i>x</i>, but nothing follows from this.Christopher Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02003454986381351202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-13039601448499300692016-05-23T11:56:39.397-05:002016-05-23T11:56:39.397-05:00Right: And hence the particle itself does not pers...Right: And hence the particle itself does not persist as part of the substance, just as on the Aristotelian story.<br /><br />There is a difference between the two stories, too. On the 4D-temporal-parts story, the particle continues to survive, but not as a part of the substance it is accreted to, while on the Aristotelian story it perishes. I don't know which is more or less counterintuitive.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-86881116633354827912016-05-23T11:53:01.025-05:002016-05-23T11:53:01.025-05:00This is a weak argument. If something becomes a pa...This is a weak argument. If something becomes a part of something else, and objects have temporal parts, then it is only a temporal part which becomes a part, not the whole.<br />entirelyuselesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12422102436356978880noreply@blogger.com