Does Four-Dimensionalism Explain Coincidence?
Moyer (Mark)
Source: Australasian Journal of Philosophy, June 2009 (vol. 87, issue 3, pp. 479-488)
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsBooks / Papers Citing this PaperNotes Citing this PaperDisclaimer

Author’s Abstract

  1. For those who think the statue1 and the piece of copper that compose it are distinct objects that coincide, there is a burden of explanation. After all, common sense says that different ordinary objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
  2. A common argument in favor of four-dimensionalism (or ‘perdurantism’2 or ‘temporal parts theory’) is that it provides the resources for a superior explanation of this coincidence.
  3. This, however, is mistaken. Any explanatory work done by the four-dimensionalist notion of absolute parthood rests ultimately on notions equally available to the three-dimensionalist. Thus, a neutral explanation of coincidence is at least as good while avoiding commitment to temporal parts.


See Link.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - Apr 2020. Please address any comments on this page to File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page