Thank you! I am trying to study for an exam on this and this is literally the most clear writing I have seen about this debate after wading through all of my notes and readings.

The problem with perdurantism, as Bergson would have said, is that it confuses time with space. There is no such thing as a location in time, such as your fifth birthday, at which you still exist in some form, because points in time do not have a location. Only space has locations. You were in a location in space on your fifth birthday, but you are not there now. The earth, sun, moon, planets, universe have moved on and so have you.

@das.gegenmittel

9 ай бұрын

circular and not correct. there are things as dates and clockes you know? but jeah they only represent time as change.

@jasoncruz19800

2 ай бұрын

What? What you've said is completely false..........Einsteinian physics operates on space-time, of which time is its own dimension. The exact same applies in perdurantism, where time is it's own dimesnion.....You have a complete misunderstanding of this subject matter clearly. Perdurantism is the only option that is consistent and fits perfectly with actual physics.

@jasoncruz19800

2 ай бұрын

And the reason space and time are separate/inverse of the other- is because even in a completely empty universe with no matter- there will still be time due to causality(technically entropy, but causality encompasses it). Your 5th birthday is a specific location in time, as there are people who have never experienced a 5th birthday. Hence it isn't invariant or absolute. The concept of a 5th birthday is abstract, but still a generalization of individual 5th birthdays...which is based on a location in time(every event falls within a specific time interval)

Perdurantism SEAMS MORE INTUITIVE TO ME BUT I AM NOT SURE IF THERE IS SUCH A THING AS PERSONAL IDENTITY

Could Four-Dimensionalism/Worm Theory be posed as a solution to the Ship of Theseus

It’s my assumption that Special Relativity entails perdurantism, and because SR is strongly supported by empirical evidence, it seems we have a stronger case for perdurantism than we do for endurantism. Do you think this is the case? Or does SR better support some other temporal view that I am unaware of? To put it another way, perhaps SR doesn’t entail P-tism but rather P-tism is just more probable than its proposed alternative given the truth of the ontological commitments we have to assent to if SR is even merely a close approximation of the truth (which is what it really appears to be). Thanks!

@orelazarevic2796

5 жыл бұрын

GR is irrelevant here, what is relevant is SR. And it has 3 interpretations: relativity interpretation, Lorenz' interpretation and Minkowskian spacetime interpretation. Only the last one is incompatible with enduratism. GR is not a continuation of SR, it is a theory of gravity, in which it is explained as a curvature of spacetime(and there are many theorems of spacetime that are compatible with endurantism). For more see William Lane Craig's "Time and metaphysics of relativity" or some other work of his on this issue.

@DamonD_Absences

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the clarifications everyone, I amended my comment in light of them.

@sethapex9670

5 жыл бұрын

Actually I think relativity is more in line with endurantism, given that the laws of physics within ones own frame of reference do not change, indicating that only the present matters.

@DamonD_Absences

5 жыл бұрын

Seth Apex I’m not sure I see how that follows. Wouldn’t that be a possibility on perdurantism as well, or am I misunderstanding one of these positions?

As an enthusiast of process philosophy I’m inclined to think endurantism is more correct. Perdurantism is just unnecessarily overcomplicating time by thinking of it as completely analogous to space.

Do temporal parts imply that substance monism and mereological nihilism is false?

@CarneadesOfCyrene

3 жыл бұрын

Hmm. Probably not substance monism, since you can have one sustance divided into many parts (I can have a toy that is made entirely of plastic, but has many interconnected parts). But it would likely contradict mereological nihilism, unless someone had a version of mereological nihilism which was specific to spatial but not temporal parts.

@CMVMic

3 жыл бұрын

@@CarneadesOfCyrene Thanks! Can you do a video on the philosophy of time in the near future. It would be a great help!

Perdurantism seems mathematically coherent (time as geometry), which one might argue makes it absolutely correct. Does Endurantism have a mathematical component? How does it explain the natural world?

Clockclockclockclockclockclockclockclockclock

The perdurantist seems merely to be appealing to the idea of stages according to which Socrates is the same person at t1 and at t2 because those two person-stages are his person-stages. Similarly, the X River at t1 is the same thing as the X River at t2 because those are both stages of the same river. But if we ask how it is known that those person-stages are Socrates stages and how it is known that those two river stages are stages of the same river, it seems a principle of identity through time must be assumed. In other words, a river is no less mysterious than a river stage, respecting identity. To know whether the two person stages belong to Socrates as parts, we must first know just WHAT is Socrates. Why are we looking at those precise person stages at all? I submit that the 4D space-time worm does not help us for persons or material objects so long as consecutive stages in this worm lack perfect identity of properties (atoms, molecules, or whatever you wish). The reason is there is nothing to say we cannot simply pick out any set of space-time points and make it the starting point for tracing a 4D worm, just as we can speak of the object which is the set whose members are The Eiffel Tower, the square root of 7, and Trump's hair. The strategy of viewing all time at once, so to speak, and qualifying all statements so that they are timelessly true seems to help in problems regarding the truth-value of statements about the future, and possibly other problems; but I don't see that it helps reach a principle of identity. I am inclined to say virtually anything which can be said to have identity (which is probably everything, simpliciter) is an abstract object. Identity is a notion inextricably bound up with the process of abstracting ffrom the material world. [I believe the same to be true of events, for which is seems impossible, to me, to know how to even begin trying to pin down an identity principle.]

@Spar__

5 жыл бұрын

Clifford Hodge so what you’re basically saying is that perdurantism fails because a certain temporal part can’t identify the whole of a person? Or that these temporal parts are distinct from the essence of oneself or something (object)?

@cliffordhodge1449

5 жыл бұрын

A part cannot show us the way to identify the whole - chopping things into parts or stages only pushes back the identity problem one step. Looking at parts or stages, we are now faced with the problem: By virtue of what are we claiming it to be a part of THIS, rather than a part of anything else?

What about exdurantism?

@yuffytaffy

Жыл бұрын

Similar to perdurantism, exdurantism also believes in objects being four-dimensional and having temporal parts. However, an object is constantly changing and not persistent through time according to this belief. For example, there is no persistent “us” through time, but rather a stage of “us”. Any past stages of us are temporal counterparts of us. And the referent of our names constantly changes.

I really enjoy watching ur vids, but the "stay sceptical everybody" gets me every time. In how far do you ask to be sceptical? Do you consider yourself the kind of person that is sceptical towards covid, climate change etc.?

@das.gegenmittel

9 ай бұрын

to not only take things for a given but to try to understand things and the world.

@aleksi2627

8 ай бұрын

Don't believe things because somebody told you to. Believe things because it makes sense to do so.