This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
While stubby, I didn't see anything glaringly incorrect with this article, and whoever added it didn't indicate what attention it needed so I've removed the 'expert attention needed tag'. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to add the template back and articulate what specifically the article lacks that requires attention from an expert'. Thanks BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert in philosophy or Wiki editing so I won't change the page but I think the phrase "like the frames of a movie" is wrong. The idea is surely that the object has a continuous temporal existence, not discrete as in the distinct frames of a film. In a conversation on a forum, someone described this model as "creating the universe by knitting spaghetti" (referring to th worldlines of objects) which captures the concept quite well. Describing it as frames of a movie might be more apt for a discussion of the hypothesis of quantised time.
{p.s. Having read Endurantism_and_perdurantism, the above view may not correctly reflect "enduratism" but if so, there appears to be some conflation of discrete vs. continuous and 3D vs. 4D in the categorisation of the philosophies).
Considering the relationship to special (or general) relativity, I understand the endurantist view as being that an object is extended in 3D and moves along its worldline (thus the present can be seen as a plane intersecting the wordline) while the perdurantist view is that the object is extended in 4D and thus has the property of duration as well as length, breadth and width. It can be said that the object is the worldline. An example of the problems for the endurantist view for example occurs in the Twins Paradox where traveller reaches the reunion location while the stay-at-home twin is still in traveller's past though at the same location. The continuous existence/4D view appears to resolve this but I'm not sure if this is appropriate content for the main page though as it is expressing a personal opinion albeit one for which I can cite some support: Endurantism
Hi George and thank you for your comments; I've removed just the phrase 'like frames of a movie' as I agree with your take. I've since found a few sources which I'll consult and see if I can expand the article -- you should feel free to do the same. Best regards, BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
