Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    The argument from STR to perdurantism is weak — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The argument from STR to perdurantism is weak

    Modality & PossibilityPersonal Identity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.STR's Minkowski spacetime is compatible with presentism, as Crisp and Sider's debate shows the metric alone underdetermines ontological commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The geometric unity of spacetime in STR is a representational tool; it does not entail that objects must instantiate properties by having distinct temporal parts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Huw Price and others note that STR's block universe is consistent with endurantism if objects are understood as wholly present at each spacetime region they occupy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Theodore Sider concedes that the inference from STR to perdurantism requires an independent metaphysical premise about how persistence relates to extension.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This required bridging premise—that temporal extension must mirror spatial extension in generating parts—is not derivable from physics and remains philosophically contested.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Although STR shows space to be like time in some respects, the theory still differentiates between spatial and temporal dimensions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if STR did not differentiate between spatial and temporal dimensions, a further reason would be needed to believe that persistence must be just like spatial extension
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityModality & Possibility

    Related

    Although STR shows space to be like time in some respects, the theory still diff...Even if STR did not differentiate between spatial and temporal dimensions, a fur...Huw Price and others note that STR's block universe is consistent with enduranti...STR's Minkowski spacetime is compatible with presentism, as Crisp and Sider's de...
    +3 moreShow less
    The geometric unity of spacetime in STR is a representational tool; it does not ...Theodore Sider concedes that the inference from STR to perdurantism requires an ...This required bridging premise—that temporal extension must mirror spatial exten...

    Similar

    Presentism is compatible with perdurantism83%B-theory perdurantism faces a semantic problem77%The combination of B-theory with perdurantism generates difficulties i...77%The arguments discussed in this section are insufficient to decide bet...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: temporal-parts
    View source passageHide passage
    A first argument from STR to perdurantism goes as follows: STR shows space to be much like time, objects extend in space by having spatial parts, so objects persist through time by having temporal parts.  But this argument is weak: although STR does show space to be like time in some respects, the theory does still differentiate between spatial and temporal dimensions. Even if it did not, we would need some further reason to believe that persistence must be just like spatial extension.
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit