CASH‐based account of coexistence in Minkowski spacetime, developed in Chapter 6, is put to work to argue for the perdurance view of persistence against its endurance and exdurance rivals. The chapter starts by reviewing previous versions of these arguments (Balashov 2000a and 2000b), which were subjected to an insightful three‐fold critique by Gilmore (2002). I respond to Gilmore's first two objections. I then grant his observation that anyone who can resist the first objection is liable to succumb to the third one. This, however, opens a way to other closely related relativistic arguments against endurantism and exdurantism that are immune to Gilmore's critique. Two such arguments based on ”contextuality” and ”chronological incoherence” of CASH‐based coexistence are developed. I then reply to further objections by Gibson and Pooley. Some important facts about Minkowski spacetime are discussed along the way, specifically, proper time of composite objects and a theorem establishing the existence of a curved spacelike hypersurface through a collections of pairwise spacelike separated points.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.