Three-dimensionalism and counterpart theory

Analysis 65 (4):321-325 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Jim Stone argues that one cannot combine three-dimensionalism with counterpart theory. This paper argues to the contrary.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1093/analys/65.4.321

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 96,594

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Reply to Stone on Counterpart Theory and Four-Dimensionalism.Antony Eagle - 2007 - Analysis 67 (2):159 - 162.
Counterpart theory and three-dimensionalism: A reply.Jim Stone - 2005 - Analysis 65 (4):325–329.
Why Counterpart Theory and Three-Dimensionalism are Incompatible.Jim Stone - 2005 - Analysis 65 (1):24-27.
Counterpart theory and four-dimensionalism: A reply to Eagle.Jim Stone - 2007 - Analysis 67 (3):263–267.
Why counterpart theory and four-dimensionalism are incompatible.Jim Stone - 2005 - Analysis 65 (4):329-333.
Two Geometrical Models for Pixelism.Fabio Patrone - 2020 - Metaphysica (1):99-113.
Modal realism, counterpart theory, and the possibility of multiversal rectitude.E. Conee - 2011 - Analysis 71 (4):680-684.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
78 (#225,076)

6 months
28 (#140,435)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Simon Langford
United Arab Emirates University

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Survival and identity.David Lewis - 1976 - In Amélie Rorty (ed.), The Identities of Persons. University of California Press. pp. 17-40.

Add more references