Talk:Four-dimensionalism

Disambiguation

I think this stub should be disambiguied. Fourdimensionalis is really a name for several other positions.

Sometimes "fourdimensionalism" is used as a synonym for eternalism, the view that the past, present and future exists.

Sometimes "fourdimensionalism" is used as a synonym for the combination of eternalism and perdurantism. Perdurantism is the view that objects persist through time by having different temporal parts.

Sometimes "fourdimensionalism" is used as a synonym only for perdurantism.

Sometimes "fourdimensionalism" is used as a synonym for the view that combines eternalism, perdurantism and the so called B-series of time. Se McTaggart-

Source: Sider, Ted, 2001, "Four-dimensionalism - An Ontology of Persistence and Time", Oxford: Clarendon Press.

/RickardV

disambig

I could not find any other "philosophy" four dimensionalism articles so a philosophical disambig wouldn't apply. Instead, I placed this in the Four Dimension disambig. If "/RickardV" writes some of the above proposals, then a philosophical disambig could become necessary, but that would be (ahem) in the future. Naufana : talk 05:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Material removed from article

This is a copy of material inappropriately placed on the article page that may be useful for people who wish to improve the article Anarchia 22:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This description above isn't accurate. In the philosophy of time there are three questions. - 1. Do events have tensed values of time or tenseless? For example. Two days ago, yesterday's wheaterforecast had the value: future, yesterday it was present and today it is past. We call that tensed values, or according to John McTaggart: A-values. Julius Caesar lived after Alexander the great, but before George Washington and simultaneously with Cleopatra. We call that tenseness values or B-values of time. - 2. Does the past and future have an existing status, in other words are past and future equally real as the present? When the past and future is seen as equally existing we call that eternalism. If past is seen as no longer existing we call that presentism. A third view is the "growing universe theory" where just like eternalism the present is equally real as the past, but the future is yet to exist. The present is then the latest expansion, or growth of the universe. - 3. Do objects perdure or persist trough time? Perdurance of objects is the classical view. Where objects are three-dimensional and move trough time similarly as objects move trough space. In other word they relocate themself in the dimension of time. Persistance of objects trough time holds that objects are really four-dimensional. the three dimensional objects we perceive are just segments of a bigger four-dimensional object that lays spread out over the dimension of time. This view of persistance of objects trough time is also referred to by Theodore Sider as fourdimensionalism because it holds all objects have four dimensions. Although it does seem this view is best compatable with B-series of time and with eternalism that doesn't necessarily have to be so. Added to page by 84.198.255.169

Course Assignment

As part of an academic assignment, given to us by Professor Heidi Lockwood, I and some of my classmates (Daniel Colonari and Tom Bouchard) will be revising and editing this article. We hope that the quality of work will be sufficient enough to consider reclassification above the stub class. While none of us are familiar with Wikipedia's article assessment policies and aren't sure exactly how to initiate the article reassessment process (assuming there is one), we're hoping that this discussion entry will suffice. --SimonGumkowski 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with the overall tone of our revision we request permission to delete the section on Popular Culture references. We will remove the section for now and, should anyone feel it is a good reason to add it back in the future, you may copy/paste it from this discussion:

In Popular Culture

Four dimensionalism is a key concept in Kurt Vonnegut's book, Slaughterhouse-five. In the book, Tralfamadorians are an alien species that can see time.

--SimonGumkowski 7:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases ratings on several factors, but I personally think this article needs its source count improved. Although the papers you cited are extensive, more sources contribute to the verifiability of the subject, and would aid in this article's assessment.Spring12 (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Four Dimensionalism in IT

Let me begin by saying that I'm only vaguely familiar with the use of the term 'ontology' in IT/Information Architecture contexts. The section added purports that the two ontological methods referred to (both based on the BORO method) are inspired by the B-Series but I can see no evidence of this in either example. Could someone shed some light here? BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Nobdy can point you to any such evidence because "the B series" is an object without any real meaning. In mathematics its what you would call an affine line with a vector field. It becomes the A series by choosing a specific point on that line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.213.78 (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#TheBThe for more information on A and B series. See (for example) http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2009-02/msg00526.html / http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg06195.html / http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2009-03/msg00047.html for more IT related discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispar (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede reads like an essay

I tagged the lede section 'essay-like' but stopped short of removing it since it's been removed and restored once already. Can we please get a few more eyes on this and come to some kind of agreement? I am of the opinion that it can't stay in as-is. Thanks. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy is inherently 'essay-like', and if you try to convert it into "paint by numbers" quote and cite style, the article becomes meaningless or misleading. In philosophy, you have to be able to explain and interpret, or else it is worse than useless. Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede is surely dreadful; "essay=like" is unfair to essays. If it was better previously revert.— Philogos (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

yes, why not? Let's make sure WP stays like any self-respecting academic already thinks of it ... where's the rubbish bin? Stho002 (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

furthermore, all philosophy is 'written like a personal reflection or essay'. It is not science, history, etc. with simple "multiple choice" facts. You really do have to wonder what is the point of WP philosophy articles?? How can you possibly hope to condense a complex idea like four-dimensionalism down to a lede of a couple of simple sentences stating sourced facts?? Nonsense ... Stho002 (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

False alternative. You strive to present, in the lede, a summary of the article that is accessible to anyone, non-philosophers included. You then have the whole rest of the article to explore the topic in depth, (with references to reliable sources, of course - per the gigabytes of WP policies, procedures, guidelines and consensus). BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Unrealistic goal. If someone doesn't understand my lede, then they haven't a snowball's chance of understanding the topic ... this is highly esoteric metaphysics we are talking about Stho002 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are unequal to the task of writing a lede that -- as I've pointed out four times now -- should give a concise, introductory-level introduction to the topic, as is done on thousands of articles throughout Wikipedia on a vast array of topics, many of them much more 'esoteric' than this -- then I would submit you may wish to defer to other editors who are, or at the very least refrain from inserting long, rambling, discursive personal reflections at the head of the article, in clear contravention of established consensus and Wikipedia style guidelines. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And another thing -- I'm sure there must be an essay or guideline somewhere that addresses this but I can't put my hand to it right now; your attitude, best summarized as "My way or the highway" to use an English-language idiom is frankly offensive. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

>concise, introductory-level introduction to the topic< well, what can I say (that I haven't already said ad nauseam)? The topic is a very complex one. There are limits to how concise and introductory-level a lede can be for such a topic. We disagree where those limits are. There is no barrier to writing something basic and calling it a concise and introductory-level lede, but, chances are, it will not give anyone (who doesn't already know) any idea what the topic is about, or why they should read the article. I would rather try to write a better lede, even at the risk of making it a bit overly "rambling", because that isn't as bad as a short and meaningless lede. Stho002 (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede is dreadful, and shows no compliance with Wiki standards for a lede. The first sentence There is a possible ambiguity here that needs to be looked into further. sets the tone.— Philogos (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not "dreadful"; it merely does not comply with Wikipedia's house rules. The more serious problem here, however, is that we have many instances of unsourced opinions. For example, we are claiming that Markosian 2004 appears to be missing the point, presentism is a metaphysical dead end, one set of theories are "better theories", etc. These claims must be attributed to sources outside Wikipedia. Actually, the entire article is making the point that these are better theories because by getting rid of the special status of "now" you have lesser entities. But determining the postulated entities of a theory of time, so that you can claim one is more parsimonious just because it eliminates some concept is a completely non-trivial claim. Stuff like this must be attributed to people making such claims in the literature, but here these statements are just made in the voice of Wikipedia as if they were obvious and uncontroversial. Given that the opposing -isms have notable contemporary proponents, none of these claims are uncontroversial. Vesal (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

NB I said The lede is dreadful, and (not because it) shows no compliance with Wiki standards for a lede (emphasis added). The lede and the article itself lacks citations and appears to be original research among other faults. The first sentence of the lede alone warrants the description dreadful for the lede. IMHO.— Philogos (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, there are several *big* factors here which you both appear to be failing to (want to?) see:

• the article as it was originally was truly dreadful (vacuous and misleading) ... now it may not be perfect, but is at least much better (perfection or rubbish ought not to be the only two standards for WP articles ... particularly because the former is unattainable but the latter is very easy!)
• what I have done so far is only a starting point, which I intend to build on
• you are confusing interpretation with "opinion" and issues of OR and NPOV, but with a topic like this one, you cannot say anything without major interpretation (most of the literature on the topic is devoted to trying to interpret what the topic means and what the rest of the literature is actually trying to say)
• if you can find a better phrase for what I mean by a metaphysical "dead end" theory, then please tell me! It is not a value judgement, ... I just mean that the theory is a "just so story" which you must just accept, and cannot analyse any further, i.e., if a theory claims that x is a fundamental attribute of reality, then the theory is a "dead end" theory of x, by definition
• the opening sentence is intended as a warning to the reader, in exactly the same way as the OR, etc. flags you have added ...
• by all means flag (tag), as you have done, the article with as many warnings as you wish, ... that is not a problem, ... but please do not revert it back to the original dreadful version ...
• by the way, interesting wording on OR warning flag, viz. 'Statements consisting only of original research may be removed' [my bold] ... suggests an obvious loophole! :)

Stho002 (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm tired, so I won't respond to all your point. I tried to make some edits to tweak your writing into the more rigid Wikipedia style. Most of my changes were stylistic, but the crucial one for WP:NPOV was changing "because both are "better theories" into "considering both as better theories". Usually, it is as simple as that, you just shift the claim from Wikipedia's voice into the perspective of those making the claim. Vesal (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Vasal: Good point. Stho002:Generally instead of just asserting 'X', it is better to write "According to Y, X" or "Y has argued that X ". Then a footnote (ref) at the end can refer the reader to the text in which you haver found that Y made the point in question. Then it does not look like OR and the reader can look up the citred text. Also could your keep your contributions to this page a little shorter and terser? Or perhaps rasie one point at a time?— Philogos (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

All well and good, but the whole point is that I was trying to say something so obvious that probably nobody publishing on this stuff has ever bothered to state it (which makes it difficult to cite a source!). I was trying to say that, obviously, a metaphysician is going to prefer a theory that they can do more metaphysics on, over a "dead end" "just so story" x is a fundamental feature of reality type "theory", that can only be accepted or rejected, not explored. By definition, presentism and endurantism are such "dead end" theories. Stho002 (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a science teacher who said (ironically) "obviously the chicked crossed the road because it wanted to get to the other side": what appears obvious might not be true. If a point has not been ame ain the literature either (a) it is not considered worth mentioning (b) it is not thought relevant (c) it is not thught true. The easiest thing to do is not to raise such a point. Would that be a problem for you?— Philogos (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a BIG problem for me. The trickiest thing about learning any academic topic properly is somehow understanding the background assumptions that nobody ever actually tells you because they are too busy trying to progress the topic. In other words, what is obvious to one person is a mystery to a beginner ... Stho002 (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it is a problem you must cope with as must all editors. Just try, it may be easier than you think— Philogos (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to write an article that readers might actually understand ... why are you here??? Stho002 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is customary and polite to assume that all editors are attempting improve the articles; its called "assume good faith"— Philogos (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

citation requests

The majority of editors who have expresed an opinion are of the opinion that this article lacks citations. If an editor puts a citation requested flag in the article please do not just delete it. Either (a) provide a citation or (b) say on this talk page why you do not think a citation would improve the article.— Philogos (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations not necessary here: 'Eternalism attempts to do just that. Time is understood as the fourth dimension, equivalent to the three dimensions of space. What we lose from this theory is any special status for the present, however special it might seem...'

• that the present seems special is commonsense uncontroversial ... no reader in their right mind is going to challenge it
• I was merely expressing in different words what eternalism is, not making any additional claims or arguments

Stho002 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You are making the claim that what is attractive about eternalism is that reduces the number of fundamentals. Other people might find eternalism attractive because it is more in tune with contemporary physics. I will not have Internet for at least a week now, so I wish you all the best, Vesal (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting question to what extent, if at all, metaphysics depends on physics. My inclination at present is to say that alternative metaphysical theories ought to have no (different) physical consequences ... Stho002 (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Before going any further

Could someone clarify the big picture. Do we really need to separate articles on the four -isms, this article, and also [[temporal parts]? I really don't like such redundancy on Wikipedia. Could people comment on how they envision that material should be distributed between all these articles? Why is this page not merely a disambiguation page with material moved into the relevant sub-articles? Vesal (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Good question, but with a good answer: "Redundancy" isn't necessarily a bad thing. If all the "facts" about the topic were perfectly clear, which they aren't, then there would be no point in the "redundancy", but given the HUGE lack of clarity over the "facts", it is useful to have multiple articles giving slightly different interpretations, and hopefully the reader will find one that makes some sort of sense to them ... Stho002 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC) The best we can hope for is that the different articles have slightly different focus and emphasis Stho002 (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: that makes for rather a fitting slogan, "the four -isms of four-dimensionalism!" :) Stho002 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Verification

Without more citations it is not possible to verify most of this article.

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

• To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source

— Philogos (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The article provides just three references, as below, and only the firat uses the term Four-dimensionalism which does not appear in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

1. Sider, Theodore (1997). "Four-Dimensionalism". Philosophical Review (Oxford University Press) 106 (2): 197–231. http://tedsider.org/papers/4d.pdf.
2. "The Unreality of Time". Wikisource. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time. Retrieved 2008-12-15.
3. "Time". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2002-11-25. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#TimTra). Retrieved 2008-12-15.

— Philogos (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

this applies to claims being made in an article, not to explanations or illustrative examples Stho002 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A suggested simplification of the lead

Apparently there are some articles in philosophy journals that use the term "four-dimensionalism". I tend to be inclusive, and so have no objection to this article, but I suggest that the lead makes the subject more complicated that it needs to be. I suggest the following lead:

Einstein viewed time as a fourth dimension. This has suggested two philosophical questions. Is the universe best viewed as four dimensional? Are objects in the universe, including people, best viewed as four-dimensional? Four-dimensionalism is a philosophical term used to describe the view that the universe, or the objects in the universe, or both, are four-dimensional.

More specific terms in this area include eternalism, meaning the universe if four-dimensional, presentism, meaning the universe is essentially three-dimensional, so that only the present exists, perdurantism, meaning objects in the universe are four-dimensional, and endurantism, meaning the objects in the universe are essentially three-dimensional.

Sider (1997), uses the term four-dimensionalism to mean perdurantism. Many philosophers believe in both eternalism and perdurantism. A philosopher who rejects eternalism would, presumably, also reject perdurantism.

Rick Norwood (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a significant simplification, and if we all want to rewrite the lede in our own preferred way (with essentially the same content), then the result will be chaos (heck, aren't we already there??) Stho002 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

lede

The lede states

• In philosophy, four-dimensionalism may refer to either eternalism or perdurantism.

It quotes Sider (Sider, Theodore (1997). "Four-Dimensionalism". Philosophical Review (Oxford University Press) 106 (2): 197–231. http://tedsider.org/papers/4d.pdf) as using the term to mean perdurantism, but no text is cited for the use of the term to mean eternalism.

If the term four-dimensionalism refers to either eternalism or perdurantism, and we have articles on both eternalism and perdurantism, then what is the purpose of this article?— Philogos (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Vesal already raised this redundancy question (above), and I replied. At this (early) stage, we are simply trying to clarify what the topic is, and how best to improve the article (which existed long before I came to it). It is not impossible that ultimately this article will be abandoned as redundant, but that is way too premature at present ... Stho002 (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

revised lede

I have re-arranged the lede today. If other editors disagee with the changes please say so here, with reasons, rather than just reverting.— Philogos (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Further revision: inserted at top "definition" of 4dism according to Sider (1997) and principal adovocates of 4dism (again according to and attributed to Sider (1997)). Again, if other editors disagee with the addition please say so here, with reasons, rather than just reverting. It would be useful to look up Sider's cited texts and include the full citations in this article— Philogos (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC) The following shows the lede before and after my recent edits referred top above.

Before

In philosophy, four-dimensionalism may refer to either eternalism or perdurantism. The former is a theory of time, while the latter is a theory about the identity of objects over time. Sider (1997), for example, uses the term four-dimensionalism to refer to perdurantism, the theory that objects (and people) are four dimensional (see below for explanation). Eternalism, by contrast, is the theory that the universe (but not necessarily its contents, e.g., objects and people) is four dimensional, with time being the fourth dimension. Nevertheless, both theories tend to be discussed together, as many philosophers hold the combination of eternalism and perdurantism, considering both as better theories than their counterparts, presentism and endurantism, respectively. Probably, nobody who accepts perdurantism rejects eternalism, and it is unclear if such a position would even be coherent.

After

In philosophy, four-dimensionalism (also known as the the doctrine of temporal parts and the theory that objects "perdure") is the philosophical theory that persistanmce through time is like extension through space and an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies. (Sider (1997, page 1)) Contemporary four-dimensionalists include, according to Sider (1997), Armstrong (1980), Hughes (1986) , Heller (1984, 1990,1992,1993) and Lewis (1983, 1986).

Four-dimensionalism may refer to either eternalism or perdurantism. Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, according to which all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real. Perdurantism or perdurance theory is a philosophical theory of persistence and identity. according to which an individual has distinct temporal parts throughout its existence. Thus eternalism is a theory of time, while perdurantism is a theory about the identity of objects over time. Sider (1997) uses the term four-dimensionalism to refer to perdurantism. Eternalism and perdurantism tend to be discussed together because many philosophers argue for a combination of eternalism and perdurantism, considering both as better theories than their counterparts, presentism and endurantism, respectively. It may be argued that the acceptance of perdurantism and rejection of eternalism would would be incoherent.

it was better before. The 'after' version is too rambling and less clear as a lede. It adds nothing of substance. Stho002 (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have an RS for the first paragraph and the wording is based very closely on the cited reference. It provides the alternative terms used for the theory, accoding to Prof. Sider It provides a clear defeintion of four-dimensionlism, that provided by Prof. Sider. In addition it provides references to the principal advocates of 4dism, according to Prof. Sider. The second paragraph has merely been re-aranged a little. It could be pruned now with the new first paragraph. I will undo your revert and await the views of other editors, as I trust you will too. — Philogos (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The revised lede was reverted three times by user:130.216.201.45 — Philogos (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Philogos is out of control and gone rogue ... Stho002 (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As Stho002's lack of WP:CIVILity and failure to WP:AGF are being repeated across multiple forums, I've copied the following from the “More eyes needed at Four-dimensionalism” thread at WikiProject Philosophy:

Four times: 05:09, 21 June 2011 (somebody pls control rogue editor Philogo...) (Tag: references removed) 04:42, 21 June 2011 (Undid revision 435400405 by Philogo (talk) I can't stop Philogo from edit warring, I'm only an IP ...) (Tag: references removed) 04:37, 21 June 2011 (rv lede (Philogo out of control)) (Tag: references removed) 03:26, 21 June 2011 (Undid revision 435382778 by Philogo (talk) yes, please do!) (Tag: references removed) Add them to the half dozen or so by Stho002... it's his WP:SOCK. The IP's first edit in Oct 2009 was further to Stho002's edits earlier that day. In their next set of coincident edits, the IP claimed he's "under pressure" to remove the additions Stho002 actually made. (The IP uses the same edit summary when removing the material Stho002's added to the IO2 article he created). The IP didn't participate in any discussions... they're clearly identical, and he was simply referring to his efforts as Stho002 in trying to save his IO2 article from deletion. Here's another New Zealand IP 130.216.1.16, which Stho002 signed-off on in Nov 2008, (to take credit for shouting at Jimbo about how taxonomy is “NEVER fully objective”, no less. It's his first edit using Stho002, BTW.—Machine Elf 1735 02:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC) This is getting mighty silly! Philogo and MachineElf are clearly trying to bait me into reverting the article so they can entrap me with the 3 revert rule ... but I will keep reverting it, for as long as they keep reverting it for no justifiable reason ... Stho002 (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I edited as an IP because their constant and unjustified reverting doesn't make my account history look good, as they well know ... I'm perfectly justified to edit as an IP (it is only sockpuppetry with multiple accounts) ... Stho002 (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Machine Elf  is now stooping to the low tactic of dredging up irrelevant issues from 2008! Stho002 (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC) LOL, bait you? News flash, you've 3RRed more than once and we had been kind enough not to report you. On your talk page you admit you didn't know using IPs to “to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden” so we need to determine what your sock puppet accounts are. Especially since you don't intend to stop, despite numerous efforts from multiple users (i.e. “baiting you”): “At any rate, editing as an IP is the only way to stop other bad editors from deliberately making one's account history look bad, by making numerous unjustified reverts and heavy handed warnings”. FYI, the so-called “heavy handed” warning about 3RR from me was just a standard template... which, you summarily dismissed and went on to commit an additional 5 reverts.—Machine Elf 1735 17:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@BoK: please revise Philogo's version of the lead (if you wish), or make it clear that you are supporting Stho002's edits as modified (with a justification per request, if you please).

@All, it is not acceptable to change the inline reference format this article had been using.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

About the reference format I wasn't aware the 'inline' format was standard, sorry about that. To your other point, I was just trying to make the best of a bad situation; going forward, I will revise the lede as it is currently, if at all. Thanks. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I figured, no worries... just a general FYI when trying to edit Stho002's additions that inline references are preferred over a general bibliography, and we shouldn't change the preexisting style used in the article (i.e., Harvard, MLA, {citation} template, etc...) I haven't had time to review it yet, but if the latest material from Stho002 is appropriate, the small caps {aut} template and manual formatting should be fixed. I gave Stho002 examples and links for how to work with WP:CITEs but formatting is not a big deal; he's totally welcome to contribute badly formatted references so long as they WP:V (including page numbers when appropriate).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Stho002 (talk) has just reverted the lede again (and, for good measure removed the 'expert needed' flag). — Philogos (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

He did explain that he considers himself an expert on the subject... LOL

LOL all you like, but I didn't say that I consider myself to be an "expert" ... I just said that it isn't specified what an "expert" is, so why don't I count as one? It was a question ... Stho002 (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

His claim to be an expert is based on having an master in metaphysics. From <http://www.umsonline.org/degrees.htm> or <http://www.metaphysicscollege.com/> or <http://www.universityofmetaphysics.com/> perhaps? — Philogos (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was kind of a funny question to be asking, but who knows... maybe he gets that a lot, (people assuming he has a degree in metaphysics)?

I've only removed one expert tag myself, from Quantum suicide and immortality, because an expert wouldn't be caught dead... LOL—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just mocking me ... how very professional of you! I'm not saying that it is (or isn't) relevant to the "expert" issue (because it is entirely unclear what was intended by "expert"), but FYI I have an MA in philosophy (mostly metaphysics and logic) from the University of Auckland (1998). Denis Robinson, as in Robinson (1985), was my supervisor, and I have (briefly) met both Parfit and Lewis. So, no, it was not an "online degree" or other dodgy "pseudo-degree". It was completely bona fide. So, what are your qualifications in relation to metaphysics (not that it is necessarily relevant, I am just curious)? Stho002 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't mocking you. No one is persecuting you. You're doing it to yourself—I don't make you say what you say, or do what you do. Apparently, you're upset I din't express concern about what school you got a Metaphysics degree from? (LOL)

Sorry, I could care less if you have a MA in Metaphysics or if you're lying through your teeth. My qualifications?!? (ROTFLMFAO)

They came with a secret toy surprise in the pack from the F of U, this is Wikipedia B.

THAT is mocking and your painfully obvious competency issues aren't my fault. “Unprofessional” enough for you? “Vandal” enough for you? That's all I got. Shame you're so sensitive about people laughing when say something ridiculous. The best advice you'll ever get is to stop taking yourself so seriously, or no one else will. “LOL all you like”—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not in the least bit upset about anything that you have or could say to me. This little excursion into WP metaphysics is nothing more than a "change of scene" to amuse me for a while. I'm not the one taking anything seriously. I am a mirror, and you don't seem to like what you see ... Stho002 (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Question: why did you add all those refs that don't point to any inline citations? As I just said above, don't. They should be moved to a further reading section or removed until they're actually used. It's going to be hard enough to clean up this article without creating more questions. Thanks.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I bet it had something to do with that enormous red citation error? Stho002 didn't notice he deleted the named ref in the lede on his third revert yesterday, (that's ok, RN missed it too). Still, the references section is a mess due to Stho002's {aut} templates. It seems he gets to use small caps on his other wiki projects and he'll just keep WP:IDHT until he gets his way on this page. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, (not even in the mediocre scheme of tihngs).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are my recent edits: to lede [1] and to refs [2] The additional refs are the works cited by Sider in the lede which Stho002 has reverted yet again. The addition of <nowicki> </nowiki> does not seem to me to be adding too much detail for a lede, and making it obscure again— Philogos (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the current version, which begins "It is not entirely clear...", is totally unacceptable. It also seems clear that Stho002 has yet to understand that the fame and fortune accruing to Wikipedia editors is essentially zero, and that being wedded to one's words accomplishes nothing. I like my version. I also like Philogo's version. I'm happy with either. I'm reverting the version that begins "It is not entirely clear..." Rick Norwood (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it extremely alarming that someone would remove a qualifier warning that something isn't entirely clear, thereby making it appear to be entirely clear when it isn't ... Stho002 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Stho002's latest changes were, indeed, even more jumbled, so good that you undid that RN. However, you're not being entirely forthcoming when you say “I like my version. I also like Philogo's version. I'm happy with either. I'm reverting the version that begins "It is not entirely clear..."” Please, let's be entirely clear: Effectively, you reverted here, to Stho002's third revert yesterday. In fact, the only change you made was to remove the essay tag. So please, you're welcome to endorse Stho002's version, but don't call it “your version”. As you say, the user has expressed concerns about recognition of his authorship.

I think this version, which had enjoyed consensus until now, is a much better lede going forward as it presents the subject in clear, professional manner. As I've had my hands full, I haven't taken the time yet to provide Philogos with the comments he requested, but I'll do so briefly now. Rather than giving the reader a peculiar narrative in lieu of definitions, he provides vanilla, garden-variety lead-in definitions for each of the four isms the reader will encounter in the article and the most notable philosophical discussions about them.

While not as important as the lead, the “Presentism vs. eternalism” section is complete WP:OR, and the edit history captures every detail of Stho002's muse as it stuck... Completely unsourced, it condescends to attempt an explanation of past, present and future. According to Stho002, what presentism, (i.e., the common sense view), has to say about the truth value of a trivial statement (of contingent empirical fact), “we cannot say!” Frankly, I can't begin to explain what Stho002 trying to say about eternalism but apparently he believes it's required in order to speak of the past or future. As a finale, the reader is left with: “Applying the model to the future does, however, seem to raise issues relating to determinism and free will” and no further explanation.

IMHO, I found the prior material was superior, much more professional, and clear as a bell by comparison:

Presentism is an ontological viewpoint which attempts to account for how consciousness functions in relation to time. Presentism asserts that only the present exists. The past and the future, therefore, are seen as non-existent. To a presentist, the memory accounts for the collection of events that have already occurred. Similarly, the future is conceptualized as being a mental construct. Therefore, presentism is attempting to demonstrate that the total sum of the actual world occupies the present moment.

Consequently, eternalism is the ontological view which postulates that past, present and future all equally exist. While the presentist asserts that the past and future are only logical constructs, the eternalist believes that time exists as an objective manifestation. Eternalism is the basic construct behind four-dimensionalism, as it accounts for the reality of past and future rather than proposing that all events occupy the present.

So, should the prior material be restored or not when the WP:OR is removed? (or the WP:SYN if misc. refs are cobbled together for it). Thanks—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose pro tem we revert the lede to the version of Machine Elf  of June 23rd. as shown on the following which shows the difference between it and the current verion: [3] — Philogos (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My intent was to revert to Philogo's version. Did I mess up? In any case, I agree with Philogo's proposal above. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There being no objections: done. — Philogos (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Rick (et al): The first para of the current (pro tem) lede provides a verifiable definition of the term four-dimensionism from a RS: Sider. Other RS may use the term to mean something different (the 2nd para suggest it can mean essentialism, but there is no suporrting citation. Other texts referring to four-dimensionism can be found here [4] and here [5]. — Philogos (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by “vanilla, garden-variety” I meant to say that the introductory definitions provided were easily WP:Verifiable and WP:NPOV... (sorry, missed proof reading that part).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Explanation Section

I feel the explanation section needs to either be removed or rewritten and refocused for the reasons I stated in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy - It badly violates both WP:V and WP:NPV.

Here are my problems with it: It’s written like an essay, not an academic article. The author speaks in the first person. It violates WP convention with comments like “see bellow” instead of linking the section bellow. It has grammatical/syntax troubles. The author doesn’t present the information in a neutral point of view.

Also, I feel this section should be in the article at all. There shouldn’t be a section specifically set aside for a particular author to just brain dump all of his knowledge on the subject in an un-organized manner. For example, if you feel the information in the explanation section about A,B,C-Series benefits the article, you should add it to the section titled “A-series and B-series”. JonPF (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wake up! I didn't speak in the first person! I directly quoted some authors who did (in cited articles!) Stho002 (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As you're no doubt aware from the discussion at WikiProject Philosophy. You do write in the first person plural. Try WP:AGF.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi JonPF, I haven't gotten back over to the WikiProject page yet and the Explanation section being what it is, I haven't looked too deeply at WP:V yet... But I agree the style is unprofessional and inappropriate for the encyclopedia, insistence on speaking in the first person, the exclamation points, and the content:

“'in analytical metaphysics, there are three, closely related, debates about time and the nature of change and persistence' [my bold], the third debate being A-theory vs. B-theory of time (see below).”

Seriously, “A-theory vs. B-theory”... Maybe it's a reference to the Presentism vs. eternalism section (see above). Maybe that's how Sthro002 responds to his being reverted? Obviously, I can only guess at what it refers to... We can all only guess... But the WP:POV problem is unmistakable:

“Some philosophers, such as Markosian ^[5], for example, defend presentism against objections, claiming it to be the "commonsense view", but this appears to be missing the point that, while it could be true, and while it certainly is the "commonsense view", as a theory presentism is a metaphysical "dead end"... So, in essence, eternalism is just a theory of time which explains away the apparent special (fundamental) status of the present (but see below). All other things being equal, it is a better theory (=better as a theory) than presentism.^{[citation needed]}”

As I recall, he thinks he shouldn't have to cite that because he's already said it, as I recall, or something like that. I'm just stymied by it, “better theory (=better as a theory)” as opposed to what?

“Endurantism is a metaphysical "dead end", and does not sit well with the doctrine of materialism^{[citation needed]}... So, with the combination of eternalism and perdurantism, we can avoid the metaphysical "dead end" theories of presentism and endurantism, while retaining identity over time for people and objects... It is hard to relate the difference between endurance and perdurance to any real life issue, but suppose that you are informed that tomorrow you will suffer the most horrendous torture... Issues of qualia are relevant here”.

Materialism and qualia... still grinding the same axe. It's issues of WP:POV that are relevant here.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wake up! I didn't speak in the first person! I directly quoted some authors who did (in cited articles!) Stho002 (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As you're no doubt aware from the discussion at WikiProject Philosophy. You do write in the first person plural. Try WP:AGF.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that when I made the above comments, and the discussion at WikiProject Philosophy should indeed be referred to for a better account of events than the one you are trying to construct here. As for AGF, you just make that "leap of faith" a bit too wide ... Stho002 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JonPF. Of the alternatives suggested I would support removal.— Philogos (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

One of these days Philogo, you are going to surprise me by saying something truly inspirational ... Stho002 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Stho002, the “explanation” section is unorganized (it’s mostly just your brain dumping your personal view on the subject). And, the section is written in a personal narrative, take this sentence: “Unfortunately, David Lewis[2], at least in the first edition of this book, does not appear to use the term four-dimensionalism at all!” This should be rewritten (if it should be included at all) as “David Lewis in the first edition of his book does not use the term four-dimensionalism at all”. You also have personal comments in the section such as “my bold”, “which (fairly) clearly” or “Therefore, it appears” these shouldn’t be in an encyclopedia – you aren’t presenting an argument for your personal view on the subject. Also, as it is written, it is extremely difficult to tell what’s a direct quote and from whom. There are other problems with, mainly it’s just difficult to read and gain any understanding if you aren’t (or even if you are) already very familiar with the subject. And, I still disagree that there should be an “explanation” section in this article at all. If something needs to be explained, it should be done in the section itself. JonPF (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

JonPF. Would you make a firm proposal ?— Philogos (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see the whole section removed. If there is any content there that is needed it should find a home under the appropriate section. If Stho002 wants to try to rewrite it again to address some of the issues that may work too, but imho it should be removed until there is an agreed upon version. JonPF (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur: remove whole section— Philogos (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, remove whole section—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed it; Stho if you wanna rewrite it, will you post it here first so we can all get a chance to look at it? Thanks.JonPF (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Restore original §Presentism and eternalism

As a concrete proposal, I suggest the Presentism vs. eternalism section be removed and the original “Presentism and eternalism” section be restored as shown above from 04:54, 23 June.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that and have imnplemented same— Philogos (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Elephant in the room - possible redundancy

The lede states

In philosophy, four-dimensionalism (also known as the the doctrine of temporal parts and the theory that objects "perdure") is the philosophical theory that persistance through time is like extension through space and an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies. Contemporary four-dimensionalists include, according to Sider (1997), Armstrong (1980), Hughes (1986) , Heller (1884, 1990,1992,1992) and Lewis (1983, 1986). Four-dimensionalism may refer to either eternalism or perdurantism.

— Wiki, Four-dimensionalism

Since we have the articles perdurantism, eternalism and temporal parts, what is the purpose of this article? — Philogos (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

“ People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubborn, persistent illusion. ” — Albert Einstein

Perdurantism and Endurantism are just stubs. The article should distinguish itself from temporal parts although it doesn't really do so presently. I don't think Eternalism (philosophy of time) would really be a good merge candidate either way despite the inevitable duplication, (par for the course). Eventually, it should focus less on mereology, analytic tense, presentism, not presentism, etc. and more on philosophy of science: Einstein, Spacetime, Proper time, Relativity of simultaneity, Rietdijk–Putnam argument, Penrose, topologies, Multiple time dimensions, Comoving distance, Planck epoch, T-symmetry, Arrow of time, Entropic gravity... and whatever historical/background is relevant Non-Archimedean time, Absolute time and space, Newton/Liebniz, Mach...—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Elf doesn't understand metaphysics (philosophy) at all, so he either removes what he doesn't understand, or wants to replace it with irrelevant physics (science), as in his suggestion above... Stho002 (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you able to comment on content, and refrain from these personal attacks?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

All very well but what is the purpose of this article in addition to perdurantism, eternalism and temporal parts) (which if deficient could be improved)?— Philogos (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC) NB In Philosophy of space and time, Philosophy of space and time#Presentism and Eternalism has :

Main articles: Presentism (philosophy of time) and Eternalism (philosophy of time)

and Philosophy of space and time#Endurantism and perdurantism has

Main articles: Endurantism and Perdurantism

and it refers to this article only in a foot- note. — Philogos (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It certainly makes sense that the #Presentism and Eternalism section has those two articles for {Main} and similarly #Endurantism and perdurantism (although they're just stubs). While a certain amount of rehashing is to be expected, I don't see this article as the main venue for those isms or as synonymous with temporal parts. I'm sure the term isn't applicable in every case I listed above, they're just places to check. For example, the article on the Rietdijk–Putnam argument lists them as advocates of four-dimensionalism but there's no mention here. In fairness to four-dimensionalists who don't ascribe to temporal parts, (I don't think it's logically required), it seems to me worthwhile to have a separate article.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting exactly?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

IF (and I empahsise IF) four-dimensionalism is (as our article says) just either (a) the doctrine of temporal parts and the theory that objects "perdure") or (b) eternalism AND we have articloes on all of these three AND (c) Philosophy of space and time citest has Eternalism (philosophy of time) and Perdurantism as main articles THEN the only purpose of this article, four-dimensionalism, surely, would be to disambiguate the use of the term four-dimensionalism and and refer the reader to the main articles. IF the term is not ambigous (as the article now suggests) and means, say, just Perdurantism we could just redirect to that article. I have sought citations to support the statement that four-dimensionalism may refer to either eternalism or perdurantism, but no nibbles as yet. If you look at the top of this page an ed suggested it had a still greater variety of meanings.

I suggest the first priority is to establish whether of not (with citations) the term has more than one meaning and whether or not it can mean anything other that theories abaout which we already have articles. Then we would be able to know what do with this article which is consuming a lot of time of a lot of editors with little being accomplished (other than being used a sand-box for OR). — Philogos (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(a) Didn't you add the part that says it's the doctrine of temporal parts etc? Did it come from Sider?

(b) It's not identical with Eternalism (philosophy of time), (4D not required).

(c) Regarding the Philosophy of space and time article, as I said, it only makes sense that the #Presentism and Eternalism and #Endurantism and perdurantism sections point to those pairs of “main” articles, what else would they point to? If they pointed to this one, that seems like it might suggest a merge... None of those four should be the focus of this article, and originally, it only provided short summaries of them.

It would only follow from (a), right? But it's not clear that four-dimensionalism is synonymous temporal parts. Offhand, as I said, Putnum and Rietdijk (at one time) might be examples (but I don't know if they ascribe to temporal parts).

Not that it can't be discussed concurrently, but removing the OR will remove the much of the focus on those isms. If we don't, I think it's only going to make a merge discussion (with no merge target) all the more confusing, especially for new editors.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes to (a): its what Sider says here [6] / [7].

Persistence through time is like extension through space. A road has spatial parts in the subregions of the region of space it occupies; likewise, an object that exists in time has temporal parts in the various subregions of the total region of time it occupies. This view — known variously as four dimensionalism, the doctrine of temporal parts, and the theory that objects “perdure” — is opposed to “three dimensionalism”, the doctrine that things “endure”, or are “wholly present”.

— Sider, Four Dimensionalism, Philosophical Review 106

IF Sider is right, and then four-dimensionalism is just the doctrine of temporal parts and the theory that objects "perdure") then surely this article is

redundant since we already have both Perdurantism and temporal parts, If Sider is wrong, then surely we should cite other RSs that define four-dimensionalism distictinctivly. — Philogos (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's saying this view (an analog to space with subregions) is known by various names including “four dimensionalism”. Consider the TOC of his book Four-dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time, Oxford University Press: 2001; or, check out the tag cloud:

• accept
• analogous
• argued
• argument
• B-theory
• candidate
• Chapter
• claim
• coincidence
• concept
• counterpart relation
• counterpart theory
• defender
• deny
• Descartes
• dinosaurs
• discussed
• disk
• distinct
• endurance
• entities
• eternalist
• example
• exist
• facts
• fission
• four-dimensionalism
• four-dimensionalist
• frame of reference
• Fred
• fusion
• Gallois
• genidentity
• given
• growing block universe
• Hybrid
• identity
• indeterminacy
• indeterminate
• instantaneous
• intuitions
• Inwagen
• Leibniz's Law
• Lewis
• Lewis's
• located
• lump of clay
• matter
• mereological essentialism
• metaphysical
• minimal D-fusion
• Minkowski spacetime
• modal
• notion
• objects
• ontology
• overlap
• overlapping roads
• paradoxes
• parthood
• perdurance
• persistence
• person
• philosophical
• planks
• possible worlds
• precisifications
• predicate
• presentist
• problem
• property instantiation
• puzzle
• quantifiers
• question
• regions of spacetime
• reject
• relative
• relativize
• Sect
• seems
• sentence
• Ship of Theseus
• simpliciter
• sortal
• spacetime worms
• spatial
• spatiotemporal
• special relativity
• stage view
• statue
• subatomic particles
• supervenience
• temporal counterpart
• temporal qualification
• temporary intrinsics
• tense operators
• tenseless
• things
• three-dimensionalism
• three-dimensionalist
• Tibbles
• true
• truth conditions
• truth value
• vague
• Wiggins
• worm theory

And Sider's just one author... To me, it looks like four-dimensionalism is more than it's temporal parts, four isms, mereology, etc.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

MachineElf wrote:

"(b) It's not identical with Eternalism (philosophy of time), (4D not required)."

What do you mean by "4D", exactly? How could one possibly say all events in time "exist", and can be assigned different time-coordinates, while denying that it is permissible to conceptualize this as another dimension in which these events are positioned at different points along the time axis? That would seem a little like agreeing that there are spatial relations between objects (and points on those objects), and agreeing that every spatial position can be uniquely characterized using a set of three spatial coordinates, while at the same time saying "3D not required" and denying that you are a "three-dimensionalist". It seems incoherent, in other words. Can you point to any published sources that say the philosophical assumptions behind eternalism and four-dimensionalism are different? If so, the sources should be used as references in the article along with a clear explanation of what the difference is according to the authors; if not, the two articles should be merged. Hypnosifl (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did a little searching on google books and found that the book Free Will by the philosopher Joseph Campbell has on pretty succinct explanation of the difference between eternalism and four-dimensionalism, on p. 8. It seems that both ideas accept that time can be understood as a fourth dimension (contra MachineElf's comment above), but that four-dimensionalism adds a specific account of the problem of identity:

"Eternalism holds that time is space-like in an ontological sense: time is just another dimension like one of the three spatial dimensions. Thus, many eternalists adopt four-dimensionalism about objects, where the universe and the things in it are regarded as four-dimensional spacetime worms. The world is spread throughout spacetime from the beginning of its existence until the end; individuals are four-dimensional parts of the world. The eternalist is not committed to four-dimensionalism, for one is a theory of time and the other is a theory of the identity of objects over time (Sider 2001). But at the very least four-dimensionalism is helpful in illustrating eternalism."

And Issues in Theoretical Diversity: Persistence, Composition, And Time by Kristie Lyn Miller suggests that eternalism, being purely a theory about the identity of objects, argues further on p. 57 that four-dimensionalism can be compatible with eternalism:

"Is four-dimensionalism as defined consistent with both presentism and eternalism? Four-dimensionalism is the thesis that persisting objects are temporally extended and do not wholly exist at any temporal location. Most four-dimensionalists (in the form of perdurantists) are eternalists. That is hardly surprising. Eternalism is the thesis that all temporal locations are equally ontological real, so the combination of eternalism and four-dimensionalism is a natural one—it is, essentially, the block universe view. So both perdurantists and terdurantists should have no difficulty accepting eternalism.

"But what of presentism? Berit Brogard argues that four-dimensionalism in the form of perdurantism is not only compatible with presentism, but that such a combination has much to recommend it. Her idea is that perduring objects are composed of temporal parts, but that at any time t, the only part that exists is the t-part."

And earlier on p. 56, Miller also suggests that four-dimensionalism cannot be considered identical with perdurantism (and defines the term "terdurantism" which she used in the quote above):

"we will say that perdurantism is the view that:

"PER: Every possible persisting object perdures.

"Thus if perdurantism is true then four-dimensionalism is true, since if objects perdure then they are temporally extended and they do not wholly exist at any time at which they exist. The reverse is not the case. Perdurantism is only one way that four-dimensionalism could be true. What is the alternative to perdurantism? This is an issue that I will discuss at greater length in chapter five. But the intuitive idea is straightforward. The idea of a four-dimensional non-perduring object is analogous to the idea of a spatially extended object that lacks spatial parts. A spatially extended mereological simple exists at multiple spatial locations, but not in virtue of having some spatial part that exists at those locations. Yet the simple does not 'wholly exist' at any of those locations. The simple is, we might say, 'spread out' across space—only 'some' of it exists at each location despite the fact that there is no part that exists at those locations. The same will be true of four-dimensional objects that lack temporal parts; such objects are temporally simple (they lack temporal parts) just as our spatially extended object is spatially simple (it lacks spatial parts) and yet the four-dimensional object is still 'spread out' in time and thus does not wholly exist at any temporal location.

"Such temporally extended temporal simples do not persist by perduring. Let us call the manner in which they exist terdurance."

All rather abstract, but I think these quotes help a great deal to clarify the differences between eternalism, four-dimensionalism and perdurance, so we should try to integrate this information into the wiki articles on these subjects. Hypnosifl (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one who needs to cite sources that eternalists agree 4D is the only coherent way to go.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't just express skepticism or uncertainty about the idea that all eternalists would agree time can be seen as a fourth dimension (which is distinct from "four-dimensionalism" as a claim about the nature of objects and identity), you made the positive claim "4D not required". If you want to step back from that and say you're not sure one way or another whether eternalism automatically implies the "4D" view of time as a dimension, then you don't need to provide a source, but if you are confidently making the claim that eternalism does not require taking the 4D view, you should provide a source to justify that confidence. And note that the first of the two sources I quoted above did say pretty explicitly that eternalism does imply the 4D view: "Eternalism holds that time is space-like in an ontological sense: time is just another dimension like one of the three spatial dimensions." Hypnosifl (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

o_O That is not a positive claim. BTW, did you notice the thread was from 2011? Anyway, Free Will by "philosopher" Joseph Campbell... I'm pretty sure he wasn't responding to my comment...—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I thought it was a positive claim because usually when people say something is "not required", they are claiming something more definite than "it might not be required, but maybe it is required, I'm not sure." Were you saying something as indefinite as that? And what do you mean when you say "I'm pretty sure he wasn't responding to my comment"? When you said "I'm not the one who needs to cite sources that eternalists agree 4D is the only coherent way to go", were you really asking for reliable sources who had seen this wikipedia page and were responding to your comment personally? I doubt it, it seems like you were saying I needed to cite sources to support the general claim that eternalism implies the 4D view (not four-dimensionalism), which is exactly what that source seems to have been doing. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying any of that... except that you need to cite sources that actually say what you add. Include Joseph Campbell if you want, but you'll need WP:RS in philosophy, not a mythologist, writer and lecturer, best known for his work in comparative mythology and comparative religion.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not saying any of what? At first I thought you were saying 4D is definitely not required, then in the above comment I suggested maybe you meant something like "it might not be required, but maybe it is required, I'm not sure"--seems like you must be saying one or the other, either you are confident that eternalism is compatible with rejecting the 4D view of time, or you are unsure whether eternalism implies the 4D view. Anyway, it's not like it's of great important that you explain exactly what you meant by that brief comment, I just want to be sure you won't revert an edit I make to the eternalism page saying that it implies a space-like view of time.

As for Joseph Campbell, why would you assume it's the same guy as the mythologist? In my above comment I referred to "the book Free Will by the philosopher Joseph Campbell"--both the term "philosopher", and the link I gave to a page on the author's work, were intended to give an indication to people who might be confused that this is a different guy from the Joseph Campbell who studied mythology (if you follow the link you'll see he's a professional philosopher with many published papers). This page also has a list of books he has collaborated on with other philosophers, and mentions that he is "Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Washington State University." Hypnosifl (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I said it's not required... never said a word about "rejecting the 4D view" yadda yadda yadda... No sense verifying your source before you even edit that article.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't say those specific words, but I'm talking about the meaning of your statement, given the most natural interpretation of the meaning of the word "required". When we are talking about beliefs, the phrase "Belief A requires belief B" would normally be taken to mean that belief B is a natural consequence of belief A, that you can't consistently hold belief A but reject belief B. For example, if someone says "believing there is a squirrel in my yard does not require believing there is a mammal in my yard", it seems to me they would clearly be incorrect--for anyone who is thinking logically, and understands the meaning of the terms, it is not consistent to believe the first part yet reject the second part. So in the same way, I understood your comment that 4D is "not required" to mean you think it would be consistent for someone to accept eternalism but reject the 4D view. Are you using "required" in some totally different way, so that you would agree with a person who says "believing there is a squirrel in my yard does not require believing there is a mammal in my yard"? (please answer this question yes or no if you want to continue this discussion--if you don't, no big deal) Hopefully you at least see why I interpreted you the way I did, and if I misunderstood perhaps you can elaborate on what you did mean. Hypnosifl (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. It's not like bachelors are unmarried. Quit bugging me, go edit something.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "bug" you, just responding to your various comments telling me I am wrong or reading things into your statements that aren't there (if you find it irritating that I persist in disagreeing with you, consider that I may feel exactly the same way about your responses--at least I try to explain my reasons for disagreeing, where you are simply contemptuously dismissive, treating my statements as stupid without explaining why). Since you respond with another implied argument (saying the case of "eternalism" implying "4D" is not equivalent to "bachelor" implying "unmarried", I will respond to that. I think from your response that you would indeed disagree with a person who says "believing there is a squirrel in my yard does not require believing there is a mammal in my yard" (you ignored my request to answer this question directly, but a squirrel is by definition a mammal much like a bachelor is by definition unmarried), and that you simply don't think the claim that eternalism doesn't require 4D is equivalent. If so, that suggests you are at least using "require" in exactly the sense I suggested, so that "believing A does not require believing B" means the same thing to you as "it is internally consistent and non-contradictory to believe A but to reject B" (obviously this would not be correct if A="this person is a bachelor" and B="this person is unmarried", but I think you are saying it would be correct if A="eternalism is true" and B="the 4D view is true"), which is exactly what motivated me to describe your position as "eternalism is compatible with rejecting the 4D view of time". If that's the case, your dismissive comment that you "never said a word about "rejecting the 4D view" yadda yadda yadda" falsely portrayed me as putting words in your mouth when I was correctly describing the meaning of your words.

In any case, I do think that eternalism being equivalent to the 4D view is merely a matter of definition, if you properly understand what philosophers mean when they talk about time being "like" a spatial dimension. I think that by this they mean nothing more than that the time dimension is similar to the spatial dimension in the sense that objects (or events, or temporal parts of objects) occupying different "positions" in space or time does not imply any difference in their ontological status--and eternalism is just the idea that all times, and the events and objects that occupy those times, have the same ontological status. In other words, calling time "space-like" is just a slightly more intuitive way of repeating the selfsame claim that is made by eternalism (it's more intuitive since we all take for granted that objects at different points in space are equally real, that saying that I am "here" doesn't imply I think objects "there" don't exist, whereas presentists would say that objects outside the "now" don't exist). This equivalence seems to be implied by Joseph Campbell's statement that time is space-like in an ontological sense: time is just another dimension like one of the three spatial dimensions. For additional evidence, note that the glossary on p. 149 of the book The Metaphysics of Time: A Dialogue by Bradley Dowden defines "block universe theory" and says it is "also called eternalism"--the block universe theory is the idea of the universe as a frozen 4D "block", see for example p. 123 of Probabilities, Causes and Propensities in Physics by Mauricio Suárez which says "We shall assume the ontological framework of the 'block universe', arguably the dominant framework of thinking in modern physics. In this framework, the universe is represented as a four-dimensional block, where three dimensions represent space and the fourth dimension represents time." So the block universe treats the universe as "four-dimensional", but it is also understood simply as an "ontological framework", an idea echoed by The Metaphysics of Time which defines the block universe as "Metaphysical theory that implies all of the past, present, and future is real", and as I mentioned treats it as synonymous with eternalism. If you think the "4D view", or the view that time is "space-like" has some additional meaning (when spoken by philosophers) beyond just a statement about the ontological status of objects at different points in time, please explain what you think that additional meaning is. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The concepts of change, time and eternity predate 4D. It is only by abstraction that a time-like dimension becomes conceptually indistinct from a space-like dimension. After all, one should want a phase space of infinitely many dimensions at their disposal. WP:FORUM (Truly the meaning of "yadda yadda yadda" being only too self-evident).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORUM says nothing about the length of one's comments, only their relevance to editing the article (if you want to continue to dispute my comments we should probably move the discussion to Talk:Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time), since we have moved away from discussing "four-dimensionalism" as a claim about the nature of objects, and are instead discussing the issue of whether eternalists see space-time as a four-dimensional block, which is not directly related to the claim about objects...note that I have added a footnote to the first paragraph of the eternalism page to reflect the fact that it's considered synonymous with the 4D "block universe" view). And your last comment seems more in violation of the rules about not using wikipedia as a personal discussion forum than my previous one (the second paragraph of my previous comment anyway, perhaps I should not have spent so much time clarifying what you meant by "not required" but it was relevant to understanding what you were actually arguing). I presented reliable sources saying that eternalism is equivalent to the four-dimensional block universe idea, which is equivalent to the claim "time is space-like in an ontological sense", whereas in your most recent comment you are simply presenting your own original argument. And that argument is based on a strawman--no one actually claims that time is "conceptually indistinct from a space-like dimension", only that they are the same in the particular sense that objects at various locations along each dimension are considered to be equally real. You have yet to explain how the "4D view" as used by philosophers includes any concepts beyond that, such that an eternalist would not be rationally "required" to believe the additional concepts. Hypnosifl (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FORUM is what I'm keeping in mind, I certainly can't accuse you of the same. I'm "disputing" the words you're putting in my mouth, obscured by pointless TL;DR walls of "comment". I'll WP:V your edit to the other article and I'll ask you again to quit referring to me. Discuss (article) content, not the contributors.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not been discussing you, but rather your statements. A lot of my comments about your statements have been attempts to clarify aspects of them that are unclear, and often the way I try to do this is by explaining how I would naturally interpret your words, then asking some questions where your answers could help me understand if/how I am misunderstanding (like the question about how you would use "required" in the squirrel/mammal example). But since you don't seem willing to respond to my questions about what you mean by "required", I am still unclear whether you are disputing the basic idea that it is internally inconsistent to both accept the eternalist view but deny the four-dimensional "block universe" view, in the same sense that it would be internally inconsistent to both accept that someone was a bachelor but deny they are unmarried. I suppose as long as you don't plan to edit the statements in the opening paragraph of Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) saying that eternalism is synonymous with the 4D block universe view, then your opinion on this issue doesn't have any further relevance to editing, so in that case I'm happy to drop it. Hypnosifl (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You're making "a lot" of attempts to "clarify aspects" of your allegedly "natural" mis-interpretation of my words. For the last time, quit putting words in my mouth and quit referring to me. As you've apparently anticipated, it's clear the WP:OR you inserted into Eternalism (philosophy of time) fails WP:V, so I've removed it.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm explaining myself because I'm trying to have a civil discussion, which for me involves asking questions when something is unclear and explaining how I had initially interpreted your words in case I was misunderstanding, in which case you could point out the specific aspect of my interpretation that was incorrect. But if you refuse any and all clarifications, it's probably best we drop it. I've made a second edit to Eternalism to exactly reflect the words in the source, if you wish to discuss it further we should probably use the Eternalism talk page, not this one. Hypnosifl (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish you would drop it. Your second edit removed cited material that indicates block universe theory is only sometimes called eternalism. I included your new statement and new source while reverting the removal. Unsatisfied, you've admited your Carol reference was "not good". I assume you don't mean bad faith but I'm well advised not to take your cites at face value any more.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to discuss edits to eternalism on this talk page. If you want to discuss those edits, please use Talk:Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time). Hypnosifl (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

References

EditWarring

Stho002 (talk has reverted the recent changes to (a) the lede and (b) the introduction here <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four-dimensionalism&action=historysubmit&diff=436071109&oldid=436054267>. No reasons were given or disussed on the talk page. Do any editors support his revert? — Philogos (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted: 03:16, 25 June (Undid revision 436071109 by Stho002 (talk) WP:DISRUPT rv edit warring by Stho002 against consensus, see talk)—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ganging up to exclude a new editor is not "consensus", as any admin will easily see ... so, if you want to get yourselves blocked, pls carry on this pathetic dummy spitting performance ... Stho002 (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Stho002 (talk has reverted again: <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four-dimensionalism&diff=436083902&oldid=436082721> Posting an aggressive note in response to undoing his revert.

He dismisses the consensus being documented on this page as “Ganging up to exclude a new editor”. He is not a new editor, having first signed in as an editor on WP in 2008. Also, he is an admin on Wikispecies and yet he deliberately mischaracterizes the reaction an edit war against consensus by a sole WP:TENDENTIOUS editor would solicit from an admin.

By his own admission, Stho002 shamelessly violates 3RR using his IP address, 130.216.201.45, so his edit history doesn't look bad.

Google: spat the dummy: Stho002 has just characterized us as spitting out pacifiers and throwing a temper tantrum. A phrase he used at WikiProject Philosophy in reference to users who left the Wikispecies project after he “battled through” them. Ominously, he feels history is repeating itself, and although I'm sure he can plainly see I'm not an admin, he dared me to block him for violating 3RR again after receiving a warning from me using the standard template for his first violation. A number of editors have commented on his disregard for community standards, frequent arguments against core policy and interpretations that contravene their intent.

Reverted: 05:23, 25 June (Undid revision 436083902 by Stho002 (talk) WP:DISRUPT rv edit warring by Stho002, note aggressive post to Talk:Four-dimensionalism#EditWarring at 03:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC) RE:any admin)—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Stho002 (talk has reverted again: <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four-dimensionalism&diff=436096679&oldid=436093806>

Reverted: 08:12, 25 June (Undid revision 436096679 by Stho002 / WP:DISRUPT In compliance with 3RR, I've exhausted the reverts at my disposal due to the relentless WP:TENDENTIOUS reverts of Stho002's edit war against the consensus)—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 08:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Stho002 (talk reverted again, his 4th (in less than 8 hours): <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four-dimensionalism&oldid=436110240> Reporting:

1. 01:12, 25 June 2011
2. 03:28, 25 June 2011
3. 05:56, 25 June 2011
4. 08:33, 25 June 2011

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 09:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Reported to 3RR Administrators' noticeboard

User:Stho002 reported by User:Machine Elf 1735—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted: 11:46, 25 June (rv see talk) — Philogos (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

reverted edit of User: 202.36.224.9 (sockpuppet of User: User: Stho002, as previous sockpuppet user:130.216.201.45?) to last version of User: Machine Elf 1735 of June 25. The edit of User: 202.36.224.9 looks remarkedly like previous edits by User: Stho002 and user:130.216.201.45 and may be another sockpuppet to evade the 24h ban on User: Stho002 for violation of the 3RR. Note User: Stho002 admits at User talk:130.216.201.45 that he sometimes logs on as user:130.216.201.45

— Philogos (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC) NB User: 202.36.224.9 and User: Stho002 are curretnly blocked, but User:130.216.201.45‎ is not despite violations of 3RR in this article and being an admitted sock-puppet of User: Stho002, see User talk:130.216.201.45‎. — Philogos (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Section "Background"

I propose delete section Four-dimensionalism#background: it's not verifiable and is blatant original reseach. — Philogos (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the section should be removed.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you do it, lest I fall fowl of the 3RR?

Section Temporal Parts

I have removed entire contents of Four-dimensionalism#Temporal parts as being unverifiable and replaced them with ref to main article. — Philogos (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It could stand to be rewritten in places, but it was referenced to the Sider paper. It didn't give the page numbers and we could tag it for that, or, I could look those up? A summary and link to the main article is fine (but it was barely more than a summary as it was). If folks are invited to come check out the article, it seems better to keep as much of it possible... If you don't mind, I'll see if I can merge the old material in with what you've and see about sourcing it. Thanks.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's OK by me if you put anything relevant in the para so long as it's verifiable and (preferably) terse. I have a .DOC version of the Sider paper if we want quotes. PS It would be god to quote some article/books other than Prof. Sider. I generated a list of articles/books mentioning 4Dism (ex Google scholar) et. and pasted on this talk page somewhere. — Philogos (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And here it is Other texts referring to four-dimensionism can be found here [8] and here [9] — Philogos (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Section A-series and B-series

I have removed the entire contents of Four-dimensionalism#A-series and B-series as being unverifiable OR and replaced them with ref to main article. — Philogos (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I would wish this article into the corn field too, after all that fuss... but inquiries would be made. Anywho, it didn't have the proper citation info (beyond wikisource) for McTaggart, and again, it had no page numbers... But, I've looked those up and it verifies, so I'll go ahead and try to merge it back in. OK?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I’m a new editor and I’m not even sure this is allowed, but wouldn’t it be easier to revert the article to before all these shenanigans took place, and then incorporate the new material in? JonPF (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Machine Elf: It's OK by me if you put anything relevant in the para so long as it's verifiable and (preferably) terse. JonPF: I am not sure what the article looked like before the shenanigans; if you look above at Elephant in the room you will see that I am not personally 100% convinced that the article is not redundant (but not may other editors have come back on this point). Pro tem I felt that there was a consensus to remove all the OR. I thought we might keep pro-tem the para headings and put something in each, terse, that was verifiable, and then see what it looks like. It's fairly straightforward to edit a para with verifiable material; there is usually room for adding material like: This position of X was criticised by Y who argued that ... but faced with a "wall of text" which is just OR it's just impossible. If anything showed the wisdom the policy of No Original Research then this article is it. — Philogos (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Other sources

I ahve added some external links to other texts and in the lede I have quoted REA M's use of the term 4Dism which is (apparently) distict from Sider's. If the distiction is sound, then we will new to revise the lede along the lines of 4Dism can be used to mean (Sider use) or (Rea use). — Philogos (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Perdurantism page?

I don't understand why there are two pages for articles that say pretty much the same thing. Perdurantism and Four-dimensionalism, as far as I can tell, are interchangable, and the article even mentions it. Both of them should be merged (personally preferred under the Perdurantism name since it is less misleading and matches up nicely with the already existing endurantism page).99.234.145.34 (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Four-dimensionalism - 3D / 4D confusion

The section Four-dimensionalism relies upon the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy but fails to reflect this. In particular, the concepts of "object" and "temporal part" are conflated in the text. This gives rise to multiple issues, some of which I've attempted to highlight. However the section needs an overall edit to accurately describe the differences between the two perspectives that are being addressed in it.

LookingGlass (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Put "light cone" under "see also"?

My knowledge of philosophy of time is greater than my knowledge of physics, but it seems to me that the physics concept of a light cone, assuming a four-dimensionalist eternalist ontological view (which modern physicists largely seem to), amounts to a particular form of a "space-time worm," the worm of an event (especially the event of a trajectory of photons) projected into four-dimensional time-space. 128.114.255.6 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)