|
12298
|
Genuine motion, rather than variation of position, requires the 'entire presence' of the object [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
In order to have genuine motion, rather than mere variation in position, it is necessary that the object should be 'entirely present' at each moment of the change. Thus without entire presence, or existence, genuine motion will not be possible.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (In Defence of Three-Dimensionalism [2006], p.6)
|
|
A reaction:
See Idea 4786 for a rival view of motion. Of course, who says we have to have Kit Fine's 'genuine' motion, if some sort of ersatz motion still gets you to work in the morning?
|
|
12296
|
4-D says things are stretched in space and in time, and not entire at a time or at a location [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Four-dimensionalists have thought that a material thing is as equally 'stretched out' in time as it is in space, and that there is no special way in which it is entirely present at a moment rather than at a position.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (In Defence of Three-Dimensionalism [2006], p.1)
|
|
A reaction:
Compare his definition of 3-D in Idea 12295. The 4-D is contrary to our normal way of thinking. Since I don't think the future exists, I presume that if I am a 4-D object then I have to say that I don't yet exist, and I disapprove of such talk.
|
|
18882
|
You can ask when the wedding was, but not (usually) when the bride was [Fine,K, by Simons]
|
|
Full Idea:
Fine says it is acceptable to ask when a wedding was and where it was, and it is acceptable to ask or state where the bride was (at a certain time), but not when she was.
|
|
From:
report of Kit Fine (In Defence of Three-Dimensionalism [2006], p.18) by Peter Simons - Modes of Extension: comment on Fine p.18
|
|
A reaction:
This is aimed at three-dimensionalists who seem to think that a bride is a prolonged event, just as a wedding is. Fine is, interestingly, invoking ordinary language. When did the wedding start and end? When was the bride's birth and death?
|
|
12297
|
Three-dimensionalist can accept temporal parts, as things enduring only for an instant [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Even if one is a three-dimensionalist, one might affirm the existence of temporal parts, on the grounds that everything merely endures for an instant.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (In Defence of Three-Dimensionalism [2006], p.2)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems an important point, as belief in temporal parts is normally equated with four-dimensionalism (see Idea 12296). The idea is that a thing might be 'entirely present' at each instant, only to be replaced by a simulacrum.
|
|
19554
|
Denying closure is denying we know P when we know P and Q, which is absurd in simple cases [Hawthorne]
|
|
Full Idea:
How could we know that P and Q but not be in a position to know that P (as deniers of closure must say)? If my glass is full of wine, we know 'g is full of wine, and not full of non-wine'. How can we deny that we know it is not full of non-wine?
|
|
From:
John Hawthorne (The Case for Closure [2005], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
Hawthorne merely raises this doubt. Dretske is concerned with heavyweight implications, but how do you accept lightweight implications like this one, and then suddenly reject them when they become too heavy? [see p.49]
|
|
17897
|
Analytic explanation is wholes in terms of parts; synthetic is parts in terms of wholes or contexts [Belnap]
|
|
Full Idea:
Throughout the whole texture of philosophy we distinguish two modes of explanation: the analytic mode, which tends to explain wholes in terms of parts, and the synthetic mode, which explains parts in terms of the wholes or contexts in which they occur.
|
|
From:
Nuel D. Belnap (Tonk, Plonk and Plink [1962], p.132)
|
|
A reaction:
The analytic would be bottom-up, and the synthetic would be top-down. I'm inclined to combine them, and say explanation begins with a model, which can then be sliced in either direction, though the bottom looks more interesting.
|