Getting back in shape: Persistence, shape, and relativity

Abstract In this paper, we will introduce a novel argument (the “Region Argument”) that objects do not have frame‐independent shapes in special relativity. The Region Argument lacks vulnerabilities present in David Chalmers' argument for that conclusion based on length contraction. We then examine how views on persistence interact with the Region Argument. We argue that this argument and standard four‐dimensionalist assumptions entail that nothing in a relativistic world has any shape, not even stages or the regions occupied by them. We also argue that endurantists have viable ways of preserving shape despite the Region Argument. The upshot of these arguments is that contrary to conventional wisdom, considerations about shape in relativity support endurantism rather than four‐dimensionalism. We conclude by examining the implications of our discussion for the debate over Edenic shapes, noting that endurantists have a satisfying response to skeptical arguments about Edenic shapes similar to the one they have against the Region Argument.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
Published
2024-08-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.13092
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.51
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Getting back in shape: Persistence, shape, and relativity

Sebastián Murgueitio Ramírez, Jack Himelright
1 citations
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
0.51
article

Getting back in shape: Persistence, shape, and relativity

Sebastián Murgueitio Ramírez, Jack Himelright
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract In this paper, we will introduce a novel argument (the “Region Argument”) that objects do not have frame‐independent shapes in special relativity. The Region Argument lacks vulnerabilities present in David Chalmers' argument for that conclusion based on length contraction. We then examine how views on persistence interact with the Region Argument. We argue that this argument and standard four‐dimensionalist assumptions entail that nothing in a relativistic world has any shape, not even stages or the regions occupied by them. We also argue that endurantists have viable ways of preserving shape despite the Region Argument. The upshot of these arguments is that contrary to conventional wisdom, considerations about shape in relativity support endurantism rather than four‐dimensionalism. We conclude by examining the implications of our discussion for the debate over Edenic shapes, noting that endurantists have a satisfying response to skeptical arguments about Edenic shapes similar to the one they have against the Region Argument.

Philosophy and Phenomenological ResearchVol. 110(1)
Kansas State University (US), Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
0.51
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.