Talk:Four-dimensionalism

message: 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)
thread_title: disambig

message: 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)
thread_title: Material removed from article

message: 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 Wikipedia'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)
replies: text: Wikipedia 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)
thread_title: Course Assignment

message: 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)
thread_title:  Four Dimensionalism in IT 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia style guidelines. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text:  >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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  It is not "dreadful";  it merely does not comply with Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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' [my bold] ... suggests an obvious loophole! :)
Stho002 (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

text:  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's voice into the perspective of those making the claim. Vesal (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lede reads like an essay 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  citation requests 

message: Could someone clarify the big picture. Do we really need to separate articles on the four -isms, this article, and also [[temporal parts]? I really don't like such redundancy on Wikipedia. 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  PS: that makes for rather a fitting slogan, "the four -isms of four-dimensionalism!" :) Stho002 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before going any further 

message: Without more citations it is not possible to verify most of this article.
* The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: this applies to claims being made in an article, not to explanations or illustrative examples Stho002 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A suggested simplification of the lead 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  lede 

message: As a concrete proposal, I suggest the Presentism vs. eternalism section be removed and the original “Presentism and eternalism” section be restored as shown above from .—Machine Elf 1735 21:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with that and have imnplemented same— Philogos (talk)  01:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore original §Presentism and eternalism 

message: Stho002 (talk has reverted the recent  changes to (a) the lede and (b) the introduction here
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four-dimensionalism&action=historysubmit&diff=436071109&oldid=436054267>. No reasons were given or disussed on the talk page. Do any editors support his revert? — Philogos (talk)  01:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted:  (Undid revision 436071109 by Stho002 (talk) WP:DISRUPT rv edit warring by Stho002 against consensus, see talk)—Machine Elf 1735 03:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ganging up to exclude a new editor is not "consensus", as any admin will easily see ... so, if you want to get yourselves blocked, pls carry on this pathetic dummy spitting performance ... Stho002 (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Reverted:  (Undid revision 436083902 by Stho002 (talk) WP:DISRUPT rv edit warring by Stho002, note aggressive post to Talk:Four-dimensionalism#EditWarring at 03:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Reverted:  (Undid revision 436096679 by Stho002 / WP:DISRUPT In compliance with 3RR, I've exhausted the reverts at my disposal due to the relentless WP:TENDENTIOUS reverts of Stho002's edit war against the consensus)—Machine Elf 1735 08:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Reverted:  (rv see talk) — Philogos (talk)  11:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

text: reverted edit of User: 202.36.224.9 (sockpuppet of User: User: Stho002, as previous sockpuppet user:130.216.201.45?) to last version of User: Machine Elf 1735 of  June 25. The edit of User: 202.36.224.9 looks remarkedly like previous edits by User: Stho002 and user:130.216.201.45 and  may be another  sockpuppet to evade the 24h ban on User: Stho002 for violation of the 3RR. Note User: Stho002 admits at User talk:130.216.201.45 that he sometimes logs on as user:130.216.201.45
— Philogos (talk)  20:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  EditWarring 

message: I have removed entire contents of Four-dimensionalism#Temporal parts as being unverifiable and replaced them with ref to main article. — Philogos (talk)  02:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It could stand to be rewritten in places, but it was referenced to the Sider paper. It didn't give the page numbers and we could tag it for that, or, I could look those up? A summary and link to the main article is fine (but it was barely more than a summary as it was). If folks are invited to come check out the article, it seems better to keep as much of it possible... If you don't mind, I'll see if I can merge the old material in with what you've and see about sourcing it. Thanks.—Machine Elf 1735 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK by me if you put anything relevant in the para so long as it's verifiable and (preferably) terse.  I have a .DOC version of the Sider paper if we want quotes.  PS It would be god to quote some article/books other than Prof. Sider.  I generated a list of articles/books mentioning 4Dism (ex Google scholar) et. and pasted on this talk page somewhere. — Philogos (talk)  19:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Temporal Parts 

message: I have removed the entire contents of Four-dimensionalism#A-series and B-series as being unverifiable OR and replaced them with ref to main article. — Philogos (talk)  02:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me, I would wish this article into the corn field too, after all that fuss... but inquiries would be made. Anywho, it didn't have the proper citation info (beyond wikisource) for McTaggart, and again, it had no page numbers... But, I've looked those up and it verifies, so I'll go ahead and try to merge it back in. OK?—Machine Elf 1735 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m a new editor and I’m not even sure this is allowed, but wouldn’t it be easier to revert the article to before all these shenanigans took place, and then incorporate the new material in? JonPF (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Machine Elf: It's OK by me if you put anything relevant in the para so long as it's verifiable and (preferably) terse. JonPF: I am not sure what the article looked like before the shenanigans; if you look above at Elephant in the room you will see that I am not personally 100% convinced that the article is not redundant (but not may other editors have come back on this point).  Pro tem I felt that there was a consensus to remove all the OR.  I thought we might keep pro-tem the para headings and put something in each, terse, that was verifiable, and then see what it looks like. It's fairly straightforward to edit a para with verifiable material; there is usually room for adding material like: This position of X was criticised by Y who argued that ... but faced with a "wall of text" which is just OR it's just impossible. If anything showed the wisdom the policy of No Original Research then this article is it. — Philogos (talk)  19:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section A-series and B-series 

message: I ahve added some external links to other texts and in the lede I have quoted REA M's use of the term 4Dism which is (apparently) distict from Sider's.  If the distiction is sound, then we will new to revise the lede along the lines of 4Dism can be used to mean (Sider use) or (Rea use). — Philogos (talk)  21:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sources 

message: I don't understand why there are two pages for articles that say pretty much the same thing. Perdurantism and Four-dimensionalism, as far as I can tell, are interchangable, and the article even mentions it. Both of them should be merged (personally preferred under the Perdurantism name since it is less misleading and matches up nicely with the already existing endurantism page).99.234.145.34 (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Perdurantism page? 

message: The section Four-dimensionalism relies upon the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy but fails to reflect this.  In particular, the concepts of "object" and "temporal part" are conflated in the text.  This gives rise to multiple issues, some of which I've attempted to highlight.  However the section needs an overall edit to accurately describe the differences between the two perspectives that are being addressed in it. 
LookingGlass (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four-dimensionalism - 3D / 4D confusion 

message: My knowledge of philosophy of time is greater than my knowledge of physics, but it seems to me that the physics concept of a light cone, assuming a four-dimensionalist eternalist ontological view (which modern physicists largely seem to), amounts to a particular form of a "space-time worm," the worm of an event (especially the event of a trajectory of photons) projected into four-dimensional time-space. 128.114.255.6 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put "light cone" under "see also"?