|
16672
|
Quantity is the quantified parts of a thing, plus location and coordination [Olivi]
|
|
Full Idea:
Quantity refers to nothing other than the parts of the thing quantified, together with their location or position, being extrinsically coordinated with each other.
|
|
From:
Peter John Olivi (Treatise on Quantity [1286], f. 49vb), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 14.1
|
|
A reaction:
I'm not sure I understand 'extrinsically'. Is there some external stretching force? God spends his time spreading out his stuff? It is nice that being spread out isn't taken for granted. We take much more for granted than they did. Motion, for example.
|
|
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.
|
|
8954
|
Geometrical circles cannot identify a circular paint patch, presumably because they lack something [Szabó]
|
|
Full Idea:
The vocabulary of geometry is sufficient to identify the circle, but could not be used to identify any circular paint patch. The reason must be that the circle lacks certain properties that can distinguish paint patches from one another.
|
|
From:
Zoltán Gendler Szabó (Nominalism [2003], 2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
I take this to be support for the traditional view, that abstractions are created by omitting some of the properties of physical objects. I take them to be fictional creations, reified by language, and not actual hidden entities that have been observed.
|
|
8955
|
Abstractions are imperceptible, non-causal, and non-spatiotemporal (the third explaining the others) [Szabó]
|
|
Full Idea:
In current discussions, abstract entities are usually distinguished as 1) in principle imperceptible, 2) incapable of causal interaction, 3) not located in space-time. The first is often explained by the second, which is in turn explained by the third.
|
|
From:
Zoltán Gendler Szabó (Nominalism [2003], 2.2)
|
|
A reaction:
Szabó concludes by offering 3 as the sole criterion of abstraction. As Lewis points out, the Way of Negation for defining abstracta doesn't tell us very much. Courage may be non-spatiotemporal, but what about Alexander the Great's courage?
|