{"id":11333,"date":"2010-09-10T19:20:20","date_gmt":"2010-09-10T19:20:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/09\/10\/four-dimensionalism-to-the-rescue\/"},"modified":"2010-09-10T19:20:20","modified_gmt":"2010-09-10T19:20:20","slug":"four-dimensionalism-to-the-rescue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/09\/10\/four-dimensionalism-to-the-rescue\/","title":{"rendered":"Four-Dimensionalism to the Rescue?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Let us return to that impressive product of porcine ingenuity, Brick House.&#0160; Brick House, whose completion by the Wise Pig occurred on Friday, is composed entirely of the 10,000 Tuesday Bricks.&#0160; I grant that there is a sum, call it &#39;Brick Sum,&#39; that is the classical mereological sum of the Tuesday Bricks.&#0160; Brick Sum is &#39;generated&#39; &#8212; if you care to put it that way &#8212; by <em>Unrestricted Composition,<\/em> the classical axiom which states that &quot;Whenever there are some things, then there exists a fusion [sum] of those things.&quot; (D. Lewis, <em>Parts of Classes<\/em>, p. 74)&#0160; I also grant that Brick Sum is unique by <em>Uniqueness of Composition<\/em> according to which &quot;It never happens that the same things have two different fusions [sums].&quot; (Ibid.)&#0160; But I deny Lewis&#39; Composition as Identity.&#0160; Accordingly, Brick Sum cannot be identical to the Tuesday Bricks.&#0160; &#0160;After all, it is one while they are many.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Now the question I am debating with commenter John is whether Brick House is identical to Brick Sum.&#0160; This ought not be confused with the question whether Brick House is identical to the Tuesday Bricks.&#0160; This second question has an easy negative answer inasmuch as the former is one while the latter are many.&#0160; Clearly, one thing cannot be many things.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">The question, then, is whether Brick House is identical to Brick Sum.&#0160; Here is a reason to think that they are not identical.&#0160; Brick Sum exists regardless of the arrangement of its parts: they can be scattered throughout the land; they can be piled up in one place; they can be moving away from each other; they can be arranged to form a wall, or a corral, or a house, or whatever.&#0160; All of this without prejudice to the existence and the identity of Brick Sum.&#0160; Now suppose Hezbollah Wolf, a &#39;porcicide&#39; bomber, enters Brick House and blows it and himself up at time t on Friday evening.&#0160;At time t* later than t, Brick Sum still exists while Brick House does not.&#0160; This shows that they cannot be identical; for if they were identical, then the destruction of Brick House would be the destruction of Brick Sum.&#0160; <\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">This argument, however,&#0160;rests on an assumption, namely, that Brick Sum exists both at t and at t*.&#0160;&#0160; This won&#39;t be true if Four Dimensionalism is true.&#0160; If bricks and houses are occurrents rather than continuants, if they are composed of temporal parts, then we cannot say, strictly and philosophically, that Brick Sum at t still exists at t*.&#0160; And if we cannot say this, then the above argument fails.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">But all is not lost since there remains a modal consideration.&#0160; Brick House and Brick Sum both exist at time t in the actual world.&#0160; But there are plenty of possible worlds in which, at t, the latter exists but not the former.&#0160; Thus it might have been the case at t that the bricks were arranged corral-wise rather than house-wise.&#0160; So Brick Sum has a property that Brick House lacks, namely, the modal property of being such that its parts could have been arranged in non-house-wise fashion.&#0160; Therefore, by the Indiscernibility of Identicals, Brick House is not identical to Brick Sum.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">So even if the historical discernibility argument fails on Four Dimensionalism, the modal discernibility argument seems to work even assuming Four Dimensionalism.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\">Please note that my thesis is not that Brick House is a sum that violates Uniqueness of Composition, but that Brick House is not a classical mereological sum.&#0160;&#0160;&#0160; If Brick House were a sum, then it would be Brick Sum.&#0160; But I have just argued that it cannot be Brick Sum.&#0160; So it cannot identified with any classical sum.&#0160; It is a whole of parts all right, but an unmereological whole.&#0160; What does that mean?&#0160; It means that it is a whole that cannot be adequately understood using only the resources of classical mereology.<\/font><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\"><font face=\"Georgia\"><\/font>&#0160;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Let us return to that impressive product of porcine ingenuity, Brick House.&#0160; Brick House, whose completion by the Wise Pig occurred on Friday, is composed entirely of the 10,000 Tuesday Bricks.&#0160; I grant that there is a sum, call it &#39;Brick Sum,&#39; that is the classical mereological sum of the Tuesday Bricks.&#0160; Brick Sum is &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/09\/10\/four-dimensionalism-to-the-rescue\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Four-Dimensionalism to the Rescue?&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,142,346,86],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11333","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aporetics","category-existence","category-identity-and-individuation","category-wholes-and-parts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11333","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11333"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11333\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}