5 of 7
5
Supertask
Posted: 24 May 2010 07:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
dougsmith - 24 May 2010 06:23 AM


(And our theory of dessert says that only time slices posterior to T are responsible for our actions at T).

 

Well it’s an absurd theory, obviously time slices after the action didn’t do it. Obviously they played no causal role whatsoever. Obviously it had nothing to do with those time slices.

And obviously dessert is impossible assuming it contains the idea that these temporal parts deserve to suffer, because any temporal parts deserving to suffer would take incompatibilist free will, but the idea it’s the ones after the ones that did it, rather than the ones that did it that deserve to suffer, is particularly bizarre.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2010 07:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15396
Joined  2006-02-14
StephenLawrence - 24 May 2010 07:23 AM

I think you are thinking in terms of the same person being here today as was here yesterday and that is why we are going around in circles. So really you are mixing temporal parts theory with something else.

Er, I’m mixing it with something absolutely essential. Any temporal parts theory must also go together with a theory of personal identity over time. The rest follows.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2010 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
dougsmith - 24 May 2010 07:40 AM
StephenLawrence - 24 May 2010 07:23 AM

I think you are thinking in terms of the same person being here today as was here yesterday and that is why we are going around in circles. So really you are mixing temporal parts theory with something else.

Er, I’m mixing it with something absolutely essential. Any temporal parts theory must also go together with a theory of personal identity over time. The rest follows.

So there is more to change over time than simply temporal parts theory.

edit: somehow parts of a person are not just parts of the same person but the same person too?


Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2010 07:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15396
Joined  2006-02-14

Well, clearly. The parts have to be parts of something; viz., the same X over time. Otherwise they aren’t “parts”.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2010 07:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
dougsmith - 24 May 2010 07:47 AM

Well, clearly. The parts have to be parts of something; viz., the same X over time. Otherwise they aren’t “parts”.

Of course Doug but parts of the same X are not X. there are no persons here today (except for those with very short lives) similarly there are no cars trees etc etc. edit: or atoms

To say there are is to deny that trees and so on are 4 dimensional .

If you want to argue that parts of X are X, then you need to make the case that my hand is me.  edit: Or accept there is more to change over time than change over space.

Stephen

[ Edited: 24 May 2010 08:00 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2010 08:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15396
Joined  2006-02-14

Right now there are only parts of persons here, just as right here there is only part of the earth. Conventionally we talk about the earth being here even though there is only part of it.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2010 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
dougsmith - 24 May 2010 08:18 AM

Right now there are only parts of persons here, just as right here there is only part of the earth.

OK

Conventionally we talk about the earth being here even though there is only part of it.

Yes.

edit: sorry not sure about the yes, not sure what you mean afterall? edit: If you mean people conventionally talk about the earth being in their back gardens, for instance, then no they don’t. I’m sure you don’t mean that but can’t imagine what here might refer to in a real life example.

Stephen

[ Edited: 24 May 2010 12:29 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2010 07:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1909
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 24 May 2010 05:10 AM

There maybe one person but that person is spread over time.

If the person refers to that which is spread over time from birth to death, just to keep it simple, then that person is not here today, because today is only part of that time.

To believe that person is here today is the same as believing an entire person is in the space that the person’s hand takes up.

From my earlier post on the paper by D. H. Mellor:

In particular, it is argued that the principle of unrestricted composition, that any two or more entities have a mereological sum, while true of sets and propositions, is false of things and events.

To say “that person is spread over time” is a series of events (objects in time). Then, to define the person as the “totality of events from birth to death” is take the mereological sum as “the person” and that, is false of “things and events”. This is true only of sets and propositions.

There is only one entity, the person, which changes over time “from birth to death” and that’s that.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2010 08:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1909
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 24 May 2010 05:47 AM
kkwan - 23 May 2010 09:19 PM

If the Andromeda galaxy disappears into a black hole, it is now (universe minus Andromeda galaxy), which is still the universe,

Obviously incorrect. There is no such thing as what the universe is now because the definition of the universe you’ve given is that it’s spread over billions of years. It can’t be spread over billions of years and be here now.

but you would say that is another universe and therefore cannot be so as there is only one universe.

If universe is as you’ve defined then clearly it can’t be the universe, as it doesn’t include all it’s spacetime coordinates. Saying it’s the universe is akin to saying a tree is the universe. That’s why it cannot be.

You need another definition of the universe, to allow the universe to somehow be here today.

I think to make sense when you refer to the universe you need to sometimes refer to “Take the universe as a whole. It can be defined as the totality of all matter/energy and space/time.”

The universe as a whole…..the totality of all matter/energy and space/time refers to “all things and events”. The “universe minus Andromeda galaxy” reflect change in the composition of the universe over time. It is still the one universe.

There is again the mereological muddle to think that the universe is a set or proposition when it is not. In other words, the universe, as a whole, can change in composition over time and still be the one universe. There is no inconsistency here.

Take Tibbles, the cat. Tibbles minus one hair over time is still Tibbles, the one cat.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 04:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15396
Joined  2006-02-14
StephenLawrence - 24 May 2010 12:09 PM

Conventionally we talk about the earth being here even though there is only part of it.

Yes.

edit: sorry not sure about the yes, not sure what you mean afterall? edit: If you mean people conventionally talk about the earth being in their back gardens, for instance, then no they don’t. I’m sure you don’t mean that but can’t imagine what here might refer to in a real life example.

“I’m standing on the Earth”.

Not the whole Earth, you’re only standing on part of it. But one can refer to a whole by pointing to one of its parts.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
dougsmith - 25 May 2010 04:02 AM


“I’m standing on the Earth”.

Not the whole Earth, you’re only standing on part of it. But one can refer to a whole by pointing to one of its parts.

Ok, yes, I agree.

I don’t think we can apply this when we are talking about a piano being here now. We don’t mean part of it is, and we don’t mean all of it is, if considering it as four dimensional.

When the police arrest “the man that committed the crime”, nobody believes we are talking about the whole of the four dimensional man. And nobody believes we are talking about later parts of the man that didn’t do it . People believe that the man who did it is being held.

People do believe in a kinda continuous I, present at every moment, the later I really being the I that did it earlier.

People believe the same when thinking about cars, TV’s, atoms too.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 12:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
kkwan - 24 May 2010 07:56 PM

 

To say “that person is spread over time” is a series of events (objects in time).

Not a series of objects, one four dimensional object.

 

Then, to define the person as the “totality of events from birth to death” is take the mereological sum as “the person” and that, is false of “things and events”. This is true only of sets and propositions.

The person is four dimensional, or not?

There is only one entity, the person, which changes over time “from birth to death” and that’s that.


Well yes but I think you’re saying the person is present at every moment?

If so define the person, the person cannot be four dimensional.

And if so do you have to concede change overs time is different to change over space?

I think you do because it’s clear my foot isn’t me.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 01:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1909
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 25 May 2010 12:20 PM
kkwan - 24 May 2010 07:56 PM

To say “that person is spread over time” is a series of events (objects in time).

Not a series of objects, one four dimensional object.

Then, to define the person as the “totality of events from birth to death” is take the mereological sum as “the person” and that, is false of “things and events”. This is true only of sets and propositions.

The person is four dimensional, or not?

There is only one entity, the person, which changes over time “from birth to death” and that’s that.

Well yes but I think you’re saying the person is present at every moment?

If so define the person, the person cannot be four dimensional.

And if so do you have to concede change overs time is different to change over space?

I think you do because it’s clear my foot isn’t me.

Stephen

From the wiki on Perdurantism

Perdurantism or perdurance theory is a philosophical theory of persistence and identity. The perdurantist view is often defined as being the claim that objects have distinct temporal parts as opposed to endurantism (endurantism is the view that an individual is wholly present at every moment of its existence).

For instance, the work of Ted Sider (2001) has suggested that even enduring objects can have temporal parts, and it is more accurate to define perdurantism as being the claim that objects have a temporal part at every instant that they exist. Zimmerman (1996) has said that this won’t work, as there have been many self-professed perdurantists who believe that time is ‘gunky’ and that for every interval of time, there is a sub-interval. Consequently there are no instants

From your writing, it appears you are a perdurantist.

If there are no instants of time, to define a person as a spatio-temporal object with temporal parts is meaningless.

It is much simpler to define a person as a whole whose composition changes over time.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 01:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20

Kkwan,

I’m arguing from the perdurantist point of view . It makes sense to me whilst endurantism doesn’t.

edit: the endurantist view is what I use the term temporal obesity for.

I’m not interested whether there are instances of time or not because I don’t think it matters.

The point is are we to take time as just another dimension or not? Are we to take change over time as the same as change over space or not?

Now, you know I am not in the space my foot is in. edit: This is my space analogy with change over time and spatial endurantism or spatial obesity would be to think the entity, me, is my foot, or that I am where my foot is, as well as my foot.

We should be able to talk about me and time in the same way, if time is just another dimension, like space dimensions, and if change over time is the same as change over space.

Do you believe change over time is the same as change over space or not?

Edit: if you do what is wrong with my critisism of endurantism?

Stephen

[ Edited: 25 May 2010 02:10 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 02:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20

error post, sorry.

[ Edited: 25 May 2010 02:16 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
   
5 of 7
5