Is Time Similar to Space in Terms of Identity and Limitations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dooga Blackrazor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conceptual relationship between time and space, particularly in the context of identity and limitations. Participants explore whether time can be treated similarly to space, especially in terms of coordinates and the implications for identity through time.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that identity cannot exist through time because time is a property of objects that changes, leading to a lack of identity.
  • Another participant argues that spatial configurations are continually changing and that the boundaries of systems vary in persistence.
  • Some participants propose that time can be treated similarly to space, suggesting the use of coordinates (x,y,z at time "t") to describe objects.
  • Two ontological perspectives are introduced: perdurantism, which posits that objects are unchanging and four-dimensional, and endurantism, which asserts that objects are three-dimensional and change through time.
  • A participant identifies as a presentist endurantist, indicating a preference for the endurantist view.
  • There is a claim that the set of spatial coordinates corresponding to objects is associated with a time coordinate, linking spatial and temporal descriptions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of time and space, with no consensus reached on whether time can be treated identically to space or on the implications for identity. The discussion reflects competing ontological perspectives without resolution.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference operational definitions and philosophical implications, but the discussion does not resolve the complexities of these definitions or the assumptions underlying each perspective.

Dooga Blackrazor
Messages
258
Reaction score
0
I don't have a physics background so be as generous as you like in assuming my ignorance. I am studying philosophy and, currently, the idea of identity existing through time. I have an argument that suggests identity can't exist through time because time is a property of objects that changes, thus, making the objects no longer identical.

To get a better understanding of my own argument, I need a better understanding of time. Time is a 4th dimension with respect to space. Can I treat time in a way similar to how I treat space. For instance, an object can't exist in two places at once because of spatial limitations. Can I assume time and space are attached in such a way as you could use coordinates to describe them (space x,y,z, at time "t")?'
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dooga Blackrazor said:
I don't have a physics background so be as generous as you like in assuming my ignorance. I am studying philosophy and, currently, the idea of identity existing through time. I have an argument that suggests identity can't exist through time because time is a property of objects that changes, thus, making the objects no longer identical.
I'd say that spatial configurations are continually changing. Ponderable objects are bounded systems. The boundaries of some systems are more persistent than others.

Dooga Blackrazor said:
To get a better understanding of my own argument, I need a better understanding of time. Time is a 4th dimension with respect to space. Can I treat time in a way similar to how I treat space. For instance, an object can't exist in two places at once because of spatial limitations. Can I assume time and space are attached in such a way as you could use coordinates to describe them (space x,y,z, at time "t")?'
I think of time as referring to indexes of spatial configurations (or sets thereof). This is in keeping with its operational definition per SR and it's usage in ordinary language.
 
As I posted here, there are two ontological schools of thought here: perdurantism and endurantism. Perdurantism says that objects are unchanging and four-dimensional. Endurantism says that objects are three-dimensional and change through time.
 
CRGreathouse said:
As I posted here, there are two ontological schools of thought here: perdurantism and endurantism. Perdurantism says that objects are unchanging and four-dimensional. Endurantism says that objects are three-dimensional and change through time.
I'm definitely a presentist endurantist.

Dooga Blackrazor said:
Can I assume time and space are attached in such a way as you could use coordinates to describe them (space x,y,z, at time "t")?'
Yes, the set of spatial (x,y,z) coordinates corresponding to the 3D shapes and relative positions of some set of objects is associated with a time (t) coordinate corresponding to a clock readout (the accumulated count of some regular periodic oscillator).
 

Similar threads

Undergrad "Exploring Time Perception Across Different Regions of Space"
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad Which theory of time is the most evidence-based?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Graduate Can a causal or time-like structure emerge without assuming a metric?
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
High School Is Einstein's Space-Time Theory Overfitted or Simply a Visualization Tool?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
High School Can We Use Space/Time Fabric to See the Past?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Discussion of "Two-Time Physics" (I. Bars) and its potential cosmological implications
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
High School Is a Universe Without Mass and Energy Possible?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Undergrad Does action at a distance violate any conservation principles?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Undergrad Spacetime expansion - time dimension expansion
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
Undergrad Teaching Minkowski diagrams effectively
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K