Re: SUO: RE: Continuants and Occurrents in 4D
Matthew West wrote:
>I also notice a theme developing here, that a 3D viewpoint can be seen as a
>view on a 4D viewpoint. I mention this because it accords with my own
>expectation. I will be interested to see if it is justified.
To a large extent, I would agree with that. And by the way,
there is nothing especially new about the 4-D point of view.
It was discussed by the medieval Scholastics, including
St. Thomas Acquinas, who used a 4-D description in discussing
how God's foreknowledge could be consistent with human free
will.
His basic point was that God sees everything from a 4-D
point of view, but mere mortals can't see ahead. God's view
doesn't prevent mere mortals from making choices from their
particular point of view.
And I don't believe that there is any inconsistency between
these points of view. They are just different ways of
describing the same universe.
Perhaps some predicates that are easy to define in one view
don't map into the other view. That may be an inconvenience,
but it is certainly not an inconsistency.
When I try to speak French or German, I find that there are
many things that I can't express. That is an inconvenience,
but not an inconsistency.
John Sowa