Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:22, 24 June 2011

Philosophy: Metaphysics Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics

Time Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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' ... 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 ? I really don't like such redundancy on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages 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/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:

—Machine Elf  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  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  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  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 Misplaced Pages 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  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  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  19:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are my recent edits: to lede and to refs 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 Misplaced Pages 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 presently 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  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: — Philogos (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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  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' , 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 , 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.”

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... 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  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  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)

1. {{Cite book|title=Four-dimensionalism |first= Ted |last=Sider:publisher Philosophical Review (Oxford University Press)|year = 1997 |url= http://tedsider.org/papers/4d.pdf))
2. Kuipers, Theo A.F. (2007). General Philosophy of Science: Focal Issues. North Holland. p. 326. ISBN 978-0444515483.
3. Temporal parts - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class metaphysics articles
• Mid-importance metaphysics articles
• Metaphysics task force articles
• Start-Class Time articles
• Unknown-importance Time articles