Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Temporally distinct exact locations need not mereologically coincide, since overlap relations are time-indexed and vary across moments.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If spatial locations are abstract and unchanging, their mereological facts cannot vary across time—time-indexing location overlap is incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Objects occupying exact locations at different times can be distinguished by temporal stages, making extra time-indexing of overlap redundant.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim conflates 'different objects at different times' with 'same location having variable overlap'—a conceptual confusion needing clarity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Objects persist through time while their spatial boundaries shift, so locations at t1 and t2 can be exact without mereological identity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Overlap is a relation between entities; relations instantiate differently at different times, so overlap facts need temporal indices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Denying time-indexed overlap forces either temporal parts theory or rejection of persistence, both metaphysically costly alternatives.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.