Skip to main content
Log in

Not All Worlds Are Stages

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The stage theory is a four-dimensional account of persistence motivatedby the worm theory's inability to account for our intuitions in thecases involving coinciding objects. Like the worm theory, it claimsthat there are objects spread out in time, but unlike the worm theory,it argues that these spacetime worms are not familiar particulars liketables and chairs. Rather, familiar particulars are the instantaneoustemporal slices of worms. In order to explain our intuitions that particulars persist for more than an instant, the stage theory drawson the counterpart theory of modal possibilism, which it is supposedto parallel. In this paper I show how the stage theory presupposes thattime can be divided into instants, which I call the atomistic view oftime. I do this by laying out an alternative theory of the nature oftime, the gunky view, and show that if time is gunky the stage theorycollapses into the worm theory. The deeper problem is that the merepossibility of gunky time would cause the stage theory's parallels topossibilism to break down. I therefore conclude that the stage theoryis committed to the view that time is necessarily atomistic. Finally,in the last section I argue that the fact that the stage theory rulesout a priori the possibility of time being gunky gives us reason toreject it as an account of persistence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Hawley, K. (2001): How Things Persist, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M. (1990): The Ontology of Physical Objects: Four-Dimensional Hunks of Matter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1986): On the Plurality of Worlds, Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1991): Parts of Classes, Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W.V.O. (1976): ‘Whither Physical Objects?’, in R.S. Cohen et al. (eds.), Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos (pp. 497–504), Dordrecht: D. Reidel Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rea, M. (1998): ‘Temporal Parts Unmotivated’, The Philosophical Review 107, 225–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sider, T. (1993): ‘Van Inwagen and the Possibility of Gunk’, Analysis 53, 285–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sider, T. (1996): ‘All the World's a Stage’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74, 433–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sider, T. (2001): Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J.J.C. (1959): ‘Sensations and Brain Processes’, The Philosophic Review 68, 141–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, D.W. (1996a): ‘Could Extended Objects Be Made Out of Simple Parts?: An Argument for “Atomless Gunk”’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 56, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, D.W. (1996b): ‘Persistence and Presentism’, Philosophical Papers 25, 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stuchlik, J.M. Not All Worlds Are Stages. Philosophical Studies 116, 309–321 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000007237.51867.14

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000007237.51867.14

Keywords

Navigation