Philosophy_of_space_and_time

qas: question: Which philosophy branch is concerned with issues surrounding ontology?
answers: text: Philosophy of space and time

question: The philosophy of space and time was inspired by what kind of philosophy?
answers: text: early analytic philosophy

question: The  philosophy of space and time focuses on whether or not time and space exist independently of what?
answers: text: the mind

question: The  philosophy of space and time focuses what kind of flow within time? 
answers: text: unidirectional

question: What philosophy does ontology concern?

question: What was the study of space and time inspired by?

question: What does not change over time?

question: The flow within what is multidirectional?
context: Philosophy of space and time is the branch of philosophy concerned with the issues surrounding the ontology, epistemology, and character of space and time. While such ideas have been central to philosophy from its inception, the philosophy of space and time was both an inspiration for and a central aspect of early analytic philosophy. The subject focuses on a number of basic issues, including whether or not time and space exist independently of the mind, whether they exist independently of one another, what accounts for time's apparently unidirectional flow, whether times other than the present moment exist, and questions about the nature of identity (particularly the nature of identity over time).

qas: question: Who expounded the earliest recorded Western philosophy of time?
answers: text: Ptahhotep

question: When do the Vedas date back to?
answers: text: late 2nd millennium BC

question: Which philosophies are the Vedas oriented with?
answers: text: Indian philosophy and Hindu philosophy

question: What do the Vedas describe?
answers: text: ancient Hindu cosmology

question: How long is the cycle of rebirth discussed in the Vedas?
answers: text: 4,320,000 years

question: What was first recorded in the 26th century BC.

question: Who warned people not to increase the time o following desire?

question: What is the name of the earliest Egyptian texts?

question: What texts date to 2000 BC?

question: How long did the Greeksd think a cyle of time was?
context: The earliest recorded Western philosophy of time was expounded by the ancient Egyptian thinker Ptahhotep (c. 2650–2600 BC), who said, "Do not lessen the time of following desire, for the wasting of time is an abomination to the spirit." The Vedas, the earliest texts on Indian philosophy and Hindu philosophy, dating back to the late 2nd millennium BC, describe ancient Hindu cosmology, in which the universe goes through repeated cycles of creation, destruction, and rebirth, with each cycle lasting 4,320,000 years. Ancient Greek philosophers, including Parmenides and Heraclitus, wrote essays on the nature of time.

qas: question: Which christian philosopher ruminated on time?
answers: text: St. Augustine

question: What did St. Augustine comment on in Book 11, regarding thinking about time?
answers: text: the difficulty

question: Who presented the first philosophical argument for the reality of Creation? 
answers: text: Augustine

question: What did Augustine say that the knowledge of time depended on?
answers: text: the knowledge of the movement of things

question: Where did Augustine say time could not appear?
answers: text: where there are no creatures to measure its passing

question: Who deiscusses the nature of time in his first book?

question: What does St Augustine think common speech adiquetly describes?

question: What did Aristotle present the first philisophical argument for?

question: Who said time exists everywhere?
context: In Book 11 of St. Augustine's Confessions, he ruminates on the nature of time, asking, "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not." He goes on to comment on the difficulty of thinking about time, pointing out the inaccuracy of common speech: "For but few things are there of which we speak properly; of most things we speak improperly, still the things intended are understood."  But Augustine presented the first philosophical argument for the reality of Creation (against Aristotle) in the context of his discussion of time, saying that knowledge of time depends on the knowledge of the movement of things, and therefore time cannot be where there are no creatures to measure its passing (Confessions Book XI ¶30; City of God Book XI ch.6).

qas: question: Which 11th century Muslim physicist discussed space perception and its epistemological implications? 
answers: text: al-Haytham

question: Which 11th century book discussed space perception and its epistemological implications?
answers: text: Book of Optics

question: Whose definition of topos did Alhazen reject?
answers: text: Aristotle's

question: Alhazen's  experimental proof of the intromission model of vision led to the change of understanding of what?
answers: text: Without tangible notions of distance and size for correlation, sight can tell us next to nothing about such things

question: Alhazen stated that without tangible notions of distance and size for correlation, sight can tell us what about spatial perception?
answers: text: next to nothing

question: Who discussed space perceptions in the 1100's?

question: What book was written in the the 11th century about time?

question: Who disputed al-Haytham's definition of topos?

question: What did Euclid and Ptolemy tie the visual perception of space to?

question: Who said vision is autonomious?
context: In the early 11th century, the Muslim physicist Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen or Alhazen) discussed space perception and its epistemological implications in his Book of Optics (1021), he also rejected Aristotle's definition of topos (Physics IV) by way of geometric demonstrations and defined place as a mathematical spatial extension. His experimental proof of the intromission model of vision led to changes in the understanding of the visual perception of space, contrary to the previous emission theory of vision supported by Euclid and Ptolemy. In "tying the visual perception of space to prior bodily experience, Alhacen unequivocally rejected the intuitiveness of spatial perception and, therefore, the autonomy of vision. Without tangible notions of distance and size for correlation, sight can tell us next to nothing about such things."

qas: question: When did Kant publish one of the most influential works in the history of the philosophy of space and time.
answers: text: 1781

question: What was Kant's influential work on the history of the philosophy of space and time titled?
answers: text: Critique of Pure Reason

question: What did Kant describe time as?
answers: text: a priori notion

question: What did Kant say was similar notion to time?
answers: text: space

question: What did Kant say time and space allow one to do?
answers: text: sense experience

question: Who published Critique of Pure Reason in the 17th century?

question: Who said priori notions allow us to comprehend time?

question: What does Kant claim time and space are?

question: What does Kant say we use as a framework to stucture time?

question: According mto can't what is an illusion?
context: In 1781, Immanuel Kant published the Critique of Pure Reason, one of the most influential works in the history of the philosophy of space and time. He describes time as an a priori notion that, together with other a priori notions such as space, allows us to comprehend sense experience. Kant denies that either space or time are substance, entities in themselves, or learned by experience; he holds, rather, that both are elements of a systematic framework we use to structure our experience. Spatial measurements are used to quantify how far apart objects are, and temporal measurements are used to quantitatively compare the interval between (or duration of) events. Although space and time are held to be transcendentally ideal in this sense, they are also empirically real—that is, not mere illusions.

qas: question: What did Leibniz argue against?
answers: text: the absolutist position

question: Which principles did Leibniz's arguments trade heavily upon?
answers: text: the principle of sufficient reason and the identity of indiscernibles

question: Leibnitz held that there is a reason that is sufficient to explain what and why it is the way it is and not otherwise for every what?
answers: text: fact

question: What states that if there is no way of telling two entities apart, then they are one and the same thing?
answers: text: identity of indiscernibles

question: Who's position does Leibniz support?

question: What two principles did Leibniz argue against?

question: What states that two things are not necessarily the same just because no difference can be identified?
context: Arguing against the absolutist position, Leibniz offers a number of thought experiments with the purpose of showing that there is contradiction in assuming the existence of facts such as absolute location and velocity. These arguments trade heavily on two principles central to his philosophy: the principle of sufficient reason and the identity of indiscernibles. The principle of sufficient reason holds that for every fact, there is a reason that is sufficient to explain what and why it is the way it is and not otherwise. The identity of indiscernibles states that if there is no way of telling two entities apart, then they are one and the same thing.

qas: question: Leibniz's example involves how many universes?
answers: text: two

question: Where are Leibniz's universes situated?
answers: text: absolute space

question: How far are Leibniz's universes situated apart?
answers: text: five feet

question: What is the only way Leibniz's example would be possible?
answers: text: absolute space exists

question: Who's example involves one universe in two places?

question: What does Leibniz place at two points in deep space?

question: What proves the existence of absolute space?
context: The example Leibniz uses involves two proposed universes situated in absolute space. The only discernible difference between them is that the latter is positioned five feet to the left of the first. The example is only possible if such a thing as absolute space exists. Such a situation, however, is not possible, according to Leibniz, for if it were, a universe's position in absolute space would have no sufficient reason, as it might very well have been anywhere else. Therefore, it contradicts the principle of sufficient reason, and there could exist two distinct universes that were in all ways indiscernible, thus contradicting the identity of indiscernibles.

qas: question: What stood out in Clark's response to Leibniz?
answers: text: the bucket argument

question: According to Clark's argument, water in a bucket, hung from a rope and spun, will begin with kind of surface?
answers: text: flat

question: As the buck spins, what happens to the water?
answers: text: the water will become concave

question: If the buck stops, the water will do what?
answers: text: continue to spin

question: What is the surface of the water apparently not caused by?
answers: text: the interaction of the bucket and the water

question: Who makes the bucket argument in response to Clarke and Newton?

question: What becomes flat as the bucket spins?

question: What does the bucket interact with to create the water surface?

question: What becomes flat when the bucket stops spinning?
context: Standing out in Clarke's (and Newton's) response to Leibniz's arguments is the bucket argument: Water in a bucket, hung from a rope and set to spin, will start with a flat surface. As the water begins to spin in the bucket, the surface of the water will become concave. If the bucket is stopped, the water will continue to spin, and while the spin continues, the surface will remain concave. The concave surface is apparently not the result of the interaction of the bucket and the water, since the surface is flat when the bucket first starts to spin, it becomes concave as the water starts to spin, and it remains concave as the bucket stops.

qas: question: Leibniz describes space as existing only as a relation between what?
answers: text: objects

question: According to Leibniz, what has no existence apart from the existence of objections?
answers: text: space

question: What provides the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion?
answers: text: Newtonian space

question: In Newton's system, how does the frame of reference exist between objects within it?
answers: text: independently

question: For how long did the evidence of a concave water surface hold authority in reference to space?
answers: text: many centuries

question: What does space exist independently from?

question: What exists as a relationship between space and objects?

question: What provides the absolute frame of refrence for space?

question: What is dependent on the frame of refrence in Newtonian space?

question: What evidence still holds authority?
context: Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For many centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.

qas: question: How did Mach describe thought experiments like the bucket argument?
answers: text: problematic

question: What is difficult to confirm about the bucket in the absence of anything else in the universe?
answers: text: that the bucket was indeed spinning

question: What was equally possible about the surface of the water in the bucket?
answers: text: would remain flat.

question: Who expanded on thought experiments?

question: What can be confirmed about the bucket independent of other objects in the universe?

question: What could not remain flat in absolute space?
context: Mach suggested that thought experiments like the bucket argument are problematic. If we were to imagine a universe that only contains a bucket, on Newton's account, this bucket could be set to spin relative to absolute space, and the water it contained would form the characteristic concave surface. But in the absence of anything else in the universe, it would be difficult to confirm that the bucket was indeed spinning. It seems equally possible that the surface of the water in the bucket would remain flat.

qas: question: What did Mach argue about the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe?
answers: text: would remain flat

question: What did Mach argue would happen if another object were introduce in the bucket's universe?
answers: text: the bucket could be seen as rotating

question: What does the increase in the number of objects in the universe do to the curvature of the water?
answers: text: increases the curvature

question: The Mach argument is called what?
answers: text: Mach's Principle

question: Mach argued that the momentum of an object exists as a result of the sum of the effects of what?
answers: text: effects of other objects in the universe

question: Who argued that the water experiment in an empty univers would never be flat?

question: What would need to be removed from the universe to prove that the bucket was moving?

question: What decreases as objects are added to the universe?

question: What principle argues that the momentum of an object is independent of other objects in the universe?
context: Mach argued that, in effect, the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe would remain flat. But if another object were introduced into this universe, perhaps a distant star, there would now be something relative to which the bucket could be seen as rotating. The water inside the bucket could possibly have a slight curve. To account for the curve that we observe, an increase in the number of objects in the universe also increases the curvature in the water. Mach argued that the momentum of an object, whether angular or linear, exists as a result of the sum of the effects of other objects in the universe (Mach's Principle).

qas: question: lbert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on what principle?
answers: text: relativity

question: The principle of relativity holds that the rules of physics must be the same for who?
answers: text: all observers

question: In all reference frames, how is the the speed of light?
answers: text: the same

question: Einstein's theory was motivated by who?
answers: text: Maxwell

question: Before Einstein, speed was though to be relative to what?
answers: text: the luminiferous ether

question: Who proposed  that the laws of physics where not dependent on relativity?

question: What did Einstein agrue was dependent on the observers frame of refrence?

question: Whatprinciples that light moves at different speeds depending on the refrence point?

question: What equation was motivated by Einstein's theory?
context: Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity. This principle holds that the rules of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames. This theory was motivated by Maxwell's equations, which show that electromagnetic waves propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light. However, Maxwell's equations give no indication of what this speed is relative to. Prior to Einstein, it was thought that this speed was relative to a fixed medium, called the luminiferous ether. In contrast, the theory of special relativity postulates that light propagates at the speed of light in all inertial frames, and examines the implications of this postulate.

qas: question: In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object without force does what?
answers: text: does not accelerate

question: What follows a geodesic of space-time?
answers: text: an inertial frame of reference

question: An object in free fall does not experience what?
answers: text: force

question: What holds an object standing on earth against the geodesic?
answers: text: the surface of the planet

question: Why will water become concave, according to the relativity theory?
answers: text: it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.

question: What kind of frame includes objects that do not accelerate when force in applied to them?

question: What does an external frame of refrence follow?

question: What is not experienced by objects moving against a geodesic?

question: What is an object in free fall moving against?

question: What is experienced by objects in free-fall?
context: In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object that experiences no forces does not accelerate. In general relativity, an inertial frame of reference is one that is following a geodesic of space-time. An object that moves against a geodesic experiences a force. An object in free fall does not experience a force, because it is following a geodesic. An object standing on the earth, however, will experience a force, as it is being held against the geodesic by the surface of the planet. In light of this, the bucket of water rotating in empty space will experience a force because it rotates with respect to the geodesic. The water will become concave, not because it is rotating with respect to the distant stars, but because it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.

qas: question: How does Einstein advocate Mach's principle?
answers: text: partially

question: How Einstein's theory compared to Leibniz's?
answers: text: contrary

question: What is considered contrary to idealist beliefs in regards to space?
answers: text: objects exist independently of the mind

question: Who advocates Einstein's theory?

question: Who's theory compliments Leibniz?

question: What do idealist believe can not exist independent of the mind?

question: Space and what have a dependent existence?
context: Einstein partially advocates Mach's principle in that distant stars explain inertia because they provide the gravitational field against which acceleration and inertia occur. But contrary to Leibniz's account, this warped space-time is as integral a part of an object as are its other defining characteristics, such as volume and mass. If one holds, contrary to idealist beliefs, that objects exist independently of the mind, it seems that relativistics commits them to also hold that space and temporality have exactly the same type of independent existence.

qas: question: Coordinative definition has how many major features?
answers: text: two

question: The first feature of Coordinative definition involves what?
answers: text: coordinating units of length with certain physical objects

question: What is the first feature motivated by?
answers: text: we can never directly apprehend length

question: The second feature of Coordinative definition involves what?
answers: text: separated objects

question: Sameness of length must be set how?
answers: text: by definition

question: What definition states that units of length can not be coodinated with physical objects?

question: What measurment can be made independently?

question: What can be determined about two objects regardless of their distance from each other?

question: What is always equal rerdless of position?

question: How must diffrence of l;ength be set?
context: Coordinative definition has two major features. The first has to do with coordinating units of length with certain physical objects. This is motivated by the fact that we can never directly apprehend length. Instead we must choose some physical object, say the Standard Metre at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures), or the wavelength of cadmium to stand in as our unit of length. The second feature deals with separated objects. Although we can, presumably, directly test the equality of length of two measuring rods when they are next to one another, we can not find out as much for two rods distant from one another. Even supposing that two rods, whenever brought near to one another are seen to be equal in length, we are not justified in stating that they are always equal in length. This impossibility undermines our ability to decide the equality of length of two distant objects. Sameness of length, to the contrary, must be set by definition.

qas: question: The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes what?
answers: text: all differentiable transformations

question: What else besides  invariance, or symmetry and group part ways in relativistic physics?
answers: text: the covariance group

question: Which theory does the relativity depart from?
answers: text: classical mechanics

question: What are not pair with transformations in the theory of relativity?
answers: text: single formulation

question:  The covariance group of the general theory of relativity is the covariance group of how many theories?
answers: text: every

question: What groups do do not coincide in the classical case?

question: What groups coincide in relative physics?

question: What is absolute according to the theory of relativity?

question: What theory does relativity coincide with?
context: In the classical case, the invariance, or symmetry, group and the covariance group coincide, but, interestingly enough, they part ways in relativistic physics. The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes all differentiable transformations, i.e., all properties of an object are dynamical, in other words there are no absolute objects. The formulations of the general theory of relativity, unlike those of classical mechanics, do not share a standard, i.e., there is no single formulation paired with transformations. As such the covariance group of the general theory of relativity is just the covariance group of every theory.

qas: question: How many contradictory facts does the problem of the direction of time arise from?
answers: text: two

question: What kind of physical laws are time-reversal invariant?
answers: text: fundamental

question: If if a cinematographic film were taken by means of physical  laws and then played backwards, it would still portray what?
answers: text: physically possible process

question: How is our experience of time at the macro level?
answers: text: not time-reversal invariant

question: What do we not have memories of?
answers: text: the future

question: What laws are time-reversal variant?

question: What do we experience as time-reversal invariant?

question: What can we influence besides the future?
context: The problem of the direction of time arises directly from two contradictory facts. Firstly, the fundamental physical laws are time-reversal invariant; if a cinematographic film were taken of any process describable by means of the aforementioned laws and then played backwards, it would still portray a physically possible process. Secondly, our experience of time, at the macroscopic level, is not time-reversal invariant. Glasses can fall and break, but shards of glass cannot reassemble and fly up onto tables. We have memories of the past, and none of the future. We feel we can't change the past but can influence the future.

qas: question: How are things in statistical mechanics? 
answers: text: complicated

question: What are superior to classical thermodynamics?
answers: text: statistical mechanics

question: In order to explain glass breaking, Fundamental laws of physics can be paired with what? 
answers: text: a statistical postulate

question: Is statistical mechanics asymmetric or symmetric in regards to time-reversal?
answers: text: symmetric

question: What kind of law is the second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics?
answers: text: not an absolute law

question: What type of mechanics help to simplify things?

question: What is superior to statistical mechanics?

question: What thermodynamic behavior can not be explained by the fundemental laws of physics?

question: What is an abso;ute law in statistical mechanics?
context: But in statistical mechanics things get more complicated. On one hand, statistical mechanics is far superior to classical thermodynamics, in that thermodynamic behavior, such as glass breaking, can be explained by the fundamental laws of physics paired with a statistical postulate. But statistical mechanics, unlike classical thermodynamics, is time-reversal symmetric. The second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics, merely states that it is overwhelmingly likely that net entropy will increase, but it is not an absolute law.

qas: question: What does the third type of solution to the problem of the direction of time argue?
answers: text: the laws are not time-reversal symmetric

question: What is are kind of nuclear force is not time-reversibile?
answers: text: weak nuclear force

question: Time asymmetric phenomena in quantum mechanics are to few to account what kind of time-asymmetry?
answers: text: macroscopic

question: What does the thirs solution argue is time-reversal symmetric?

question: What processes in quantum mechanics are reversable?

question: What asymmetric phenomena are common in quantum mechanics?
context: A third type of solution to the problem of the direction of time, although much less represented, argues that the laws are not time-reversal symmetric. For example, certain processes in quantum mechanics, relating to the weak nuclear force, are not time-reversible, keeping in mind that when dealing with quantum mechanics time-reversibility comprises a more complex definition. But this type of solution is insufficient because 1) the time-asymmetric phenomena in quantum mechanics are too few to account for the uniformity of macroscopic time-asymmetry and 2) it relies on the assumption that quantum mechanics is the final or correct description of physical processes.[citation needed]

qas: question: Who argues that the fundamental laws of physics are laws of temporal evolution?
answers: text: Tim Maudlin

question: Maudlin argues that the passage of time is what kind of asymmetry?
answers: text: intrinsic

question: What grounds the distinction between sequences?
answers: text: asymmetry

question: Whose suggestion is difficult to assess in regards to the direction of time?
answers: text: Maudlin

question: Who oposses the laws solution?

question: Who says that the laws of physics are not laws of temporal evolution?

question: What does Maudlin claim time is not in the structure of the world?

question: What does the symetry in the temoral structure of the world ground?
context: One recent proponent of the laws solution is Tim Maudlin who argues that the fundamental laws of physics are laws of temporal evolution (see Maudlin ). However, elsewhere Maudlin argues: "[the] passage of time is an intrinsic asymmetry in the temporal structure of the world... It is the asymmetry that grounds the distinction between sequences that runs from past to future and sequences which run from future to past" [ibid, 2010 edition, p. 108]. Thus it is arguably difficult to assess whether Maudlin is suggesting that the direction of time is a consequence of the laws or is itself primitive.

qas: question: Who started the discussion within analytic philosophy on the problem of the flow of time?
answers: text: J. M. E. McTaggart

question: How many "temporal series" did McTaggart propose?
answers: text: two

question: What was McTaggart's first series called?
answers: text: the A-series

question: The A-Series orders events according to their being in the past, present or future and in comparison to what else?
answers: text: each other

question: What is McTaggart's second series called?
answers: text: The B-series

question: Who created a problem with the flow of time?

question: What orders events according to their existance in the past, present or future?

question: What implements refrences to the past?
context: The problem of the flow of time, as it has been treated in analytic philosophy, owes its beginning to a paper written by J. M. E. McTaggart. In this paper McTaggart proposes two "temporal series". The first series, which means to account for our intuitions about temporal becoming, or the moving Now, is called the A-series. The A-series orders events according to their being in the past, present or future, simpliciter and in comparison to each other. The B-series eliminates all reference to the present, and the associated temporal modalities of past and future, and orders all events by the temporal relations earlier than and later than.

qas: question: According to what theory is time an ordering of various realities?
answers: text: Presentism

question: Presentism states that at a certain time some things do what?
answers: text: exist

question: Who believes that time is a dimension of reality on a par with the three spatial dimensions
answers: text: Eternalist

question: According to an Eternalist, what can be said to be just as real as things in the present?
answers: text: all things—past, present, and future

question: According to the Eternalist theory, what must we use to describe Homer?
answers: text: special language

question: What states time is the existance of various relities?

question: What states all things have either always existed or not

question: What do Eterialist say time is independent of?

question: What is more real according to Eternalists?
context: According to Presentism, time is an ordering of various realities. At a certain time some things exist and others do not. This is the only reality we can deal with and we cannot for example say that Homer exists because at the present time he does not. An Eternalist, on the other hand, holds that time is a dimension of reality on a par with the three spatial dimensions, and hence that all things—past, present, and future—can be said to be just as real as things in the present. According to this theory, then, Homer really does exist, though we must still use special language when talking about somebody who exists at a distant time—just as we would use special language when talking about something far away (the very words near, far, above, below, and such are directly comparable to phrases such as in the past, a minute ago, and so on).

qas: question: How similar are the positions on the persistence of objects?
answers: text: somewhat similar

question: Who holds  that for an object to persist through time is for it to exist completely at different times?
answers: text: endurantist

question: Who holds for a thing to exist through time is for it to exist as a continuous reality?
answers: text: perdurantist

question: Which view is seen as conventional?
answers: text: Endurantism

question: Who is an example of a perdurantist?
answers: text: David Lewis

question: Who says that objects existin incompletely in the past present and future?

question: Who states that an object must in different realities?

question: What does endurantism take account of the change in?

question: What says that when we talk to a person we are talking to part of a cross-temeporal being?
context: The positions on the persistence of objects are somewhat similar. An endurantist holds that for an object to persist through time is for it to exist completely at different times (each instance of existence we can regard as somehow separate from previous and future instances, though still numerically identical with them). A perdurantist on the other hand holds that for a thing to exist through time is for it to exist as a continuous reality, and that when we consider the thing as a whole we must consider an aggregate of all its "temporal parts" or instances of existing. Endurantism is seen as the conventional view and flows out of our pre-philosophical ideas (when I talk to somebody I think I am talking to that person as a complete object, and not just a part of a cross-temporal being), but perdurantists have attacked this position. (An example of a perdurantist is David Lewis.) One argument perdurantists use to state the superiority of their view is that perdurantism is able to take account of change in objects.

qas: question: How can asymmetry of causation be observed?
answers: text: in a non-arbitrary way

question: How many features of asymmetry in the cup example can be viewed?
answers: text: two

question: Asymmetry is attributable to a relation of what kind of direction?
answers: text: temporal

question: What else, besides direction, is asymmetry attributable to?
answers: text: implications of form and functional capacity

question: What can be observed in an arbitrary way?

question: How many examples of symetry can be observed in the cup example?

question: Symmetry is atributable to a ralationship of what kind of direction?

question: What else besides direction is symmetry attributed to?
context: However, asymmetry of causation can be observed in a non-arbitrary way which is not metaphysical in the case of a human hand dropping a cup of water which smashes into fragments on a hard floor, spilling the liquid. In this order, the causes of the resultant pattern of cup fragments and water spill is easily attributable in terms of the trajectory of the cup, irregularities in its structure, angle of its impact on the floor, etc. However, applying the same event in reverse, it is difficult to explain why the various pieces of the cup should fly up into the human hand and reassemble precisely into the shape of a cup, or why the water should position itself entirely within the cup. The causes of the resultant structure and shape of the cup and the encapsulation of the water by the hand within the cup are not easily attributable, as neither hand nor floor can achieve such formations of the cup or water. This asymmetry is perceivable on account of two features: i) the relationship between the agent capacities of the human hand (i.e., what it is and is not capable of and what it is for) and non-animal agency (i.e., what floors are and are not capable of and what they are for) and ii) that the pieces of cup came to possess exactly the nature and number of those of a cup before assembling. In short, such asymmetry is attributable to the relationship between temporal direction on the one hand and the implications of form and functional capacity on the other.