Powerful Persistence

International Journal of Philosophical Studies, published online: 5 December 2018, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09672559.2018.1548634?af=R, 2019

This paper aims to motivate a new beginning in metaphysical thinking about persistence by drawing attention to the disappearance of change in current accounts of persistence. I defend the claim that the debate is stuck in a dilemma which results from neglecting the constructive role of change for persistence. Neither of the two main competing views, perdurantism and endurantism, captures the idea of persistence as an identity through time. I identify the fundamental ontological reasons for this, namely the shared commitment to what I call 'thing ontology': an ontology that gives the ontological priority to static things. I conclude by briefly indicating how switching to a process ontological framework that takes process and change to be ontologically primary may allow for overcoming the dilemma of persistence.

Philosophical Studies, 2016

David Lewis famously introduces the debate over persistence as follows: Let us say that something persists iff, somehow or other, it exists at various times; this is the neutral word. Something perdures iff it persists by having different temporal parts, or stages, at different times, though no one part of it is wholly present at more than one time; whereas it endures iff it persists by being wholly present at more than one time. (1986: 202) This passage suggests that there are two different theories about how objects persist through time—the perdurantist theory that objects persist through time by having different temporal parts at different times, and the endurantist theory that objects persist through time by being wholly present at different times. This way of framing the debate over persistence involves both an important insight and an important error. Unfortunately , the error is often embraced and the insight is often ignored. This paper aims to correct both of these mistakes, and thus clarify the debate over persistence.

Philosophia-international Journal of Philosophy, 2021

Theories of persistence are often motivated on the grounds that they can account for or solve certain problems that accompany persistence as a metaphysical problem. These problems are what I will call the problems of persistence: change, cohabitation, and vagueness. In this paper, I claim that any theory of persistence should be able to account for these problems. Any theory of persistence which fails to do so should be rejected or, at the very least, be seen as unsatisfactory. Kristie Miller introduces a possible contender, terdurantism, which is a “non-perdurantist fourdimensionalism,” as she puts it. This view is attractive because it avoids the usual objections raised against its rivals: perdurantism and endurantism. Miller and I both ultimately argue against the plausibility of terdurantism as a theory of persistence, but our motivations differ. Miller’s argument is based on the presumption that any theory of persistence which is non-perdurantist ultimately fails. She argues th...

This is Appendix A of my PhD thesis, Time, Persistence, and Causality: Towards a Dynamic View of Temporal Reality. I extend here the account of causation presented in Chapter 3 of the thesis—published independently as 'Causal Production as Interaction', (2002), which is available on my Academia page—and argue it can also be used to provide a causal account of persistence.

2016

After two years of reading and writing about four dimensionalism, I still do not feel finished! I have learned a lot, though, and this is not merely due to reading, but also widely due to the many people I have met, listened and talked to throughout the last few years. Firstly, I want to thank my supervisor Øystein Linnebo for positive supportive guidance, informative suggestions and ideas. I have always felt uplifted and positive about my thoughts and progress after our talks. There is no doubt that this essay would not be what it is without these conversations. Secondly, I would like to thank Quentin and Elena for conversations about Theodore Sider's book Four Dimensionalism, as well as our lecturer Ephraim Glick for insights into the topics of three and four dimensionalism. Our semester together gave me a fantastic foundation for my dissertation. Another important person in the start of my work was my first and temporary supervisor Professor Olav Gjelsvik. Thank you for guidance on my topic and first draft. I also want to give a big thanks to Jørgen Dyrstad, Sivert Thomas Ellingsen, Mariona Sturm, Julie Lauvsland and Margrete Haldorsen Nygaard for reading and commenting on my text. Your suggestions have contributed to raising the quality of my essay.

*Time and Identity*, edited by Campbell, O’Rourke, and Silverstein, MIT Press, 2010

Topoi, 1994

A fundamental question in reasoning about change is, what information does a reasoning agent infer about later times from earlier times? I will argue that reasoning about change by an agent is to be modeled in terms of the persistence of the agent's beliefs over time rather than the persistence of truth and that such persistence is explained by pragmatic factors about how agents acquire information from other agents rather than by general principles of persistence about states of the world. AI accounts of persistence have focused on 'closed world' examples of change, in which the agent believes that the truth of a proposition is unaltered so long as he or she has no evidence that it has been changed. AI principles of persistence seem plausible in a closed world where one assumes the agent knows everything that is happening. If one drops the assumption of omniscience, however, the analysis of persistence is implausible. To get a good account of persistence and reasoning about change, I argue we should examine 'open world' examples of change, in which the agent is ignorant of some of the changes occurring in the world. In open world examples of change, persistence must be formulated, I argue, as a pragmatic principle about the persistence of beliefs. After elaborating my criticisms of current accounts of persistence, I examine how such pragmatic principles fare with the notorious examples of reasoning about action that have collectively characterized the so-called frame problem.

Journal of the History of Philosophy

Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 2003

Our topic is the ontology and persistence conditions of material objects. One widely held doctrine is that identity-over-time has causal commitments. Another is that identity-over-time is just identity (simpliciter) as it relates one object that exists at two times. We believe that a tension exists between these two apparently sensible positions: very roughly, if identity is the primary conceptual component of identity-over-time and—as is plausible—identity is noncausal, then the conceptual origins of the causal commitments of identity-over-time become a mystery. We will begin by formulating the two widely held doctrines and our puzzle more fully and more carefully. Then, the remainder of the paper will be devoted to analyzing views one might adopt that could minimize the tension.

E.J. Lowe and Ontology, 2022

In The Possibility of Metaphysics, Jonathan Lowe hoped that the future would bring a causal account of persistence. I argue that my account of causation in terms of interaction between powerful particulars allows an understanding of the persistence and constitution of compound entities-roughly as these phenomena are standardly explained by the empirical sciences-as causal phenomena. Powerful particulars views of causation have in the past assumed that interactions are unidirectional; one object acts while another is acted upon. However, modern science does not recognise any form of unidirectional action. It insists that whenever one object exerts an influence on another, the latter simultaneously exerts a proportional influence of the same kind on the first, but in the opposite direction. My account accepts the reciprocity of causal interactions, which allows me to include in the class of causal phenomena all physical bonds postulated by the sciences to explain the constitution of material entities and why they continue to exist over time. Such bonds are standardly described in terms of reciprocal interactions between constituent parts of any given compound. On my view, constitution and persistence are merely different sides of the same coin: causation.