I’m bored with all the old discourse. Let’s do something different. How about endurantism versus perdurantism?
There is no fact of the matter, because there’s no cosmic database.
We need not have any concept of a cosmic database to say that there are objects in the world and ask what they are made of, if anything.
But suppose there were a such a cosmic database. Would it consist of a union of temporal parts, or would it exist wholly in each instant of time?
Chairs exist in the sense that there is some arrangement of matter out there in the world that can truly be said to be a chair – it has legs holding up a platform to sit on, etc. But there’s no fact of the matter about whether chairs are objects, or whether they’re only arrangements of objects, or whether there are no objects at all (only “stuff” as a whole arranged in a certain way). Trying to figure out what objects there are in the world (as separate from trying to figure out what exists e.g. empirically) is guessing at the contents of a nonexistent cosmic database. So is trying to figure out what (temporal) parts an object is made of.
I think you’re hanging more meaning on “object” than I am, so let’s just avoid the word. Take anything that you know to exist – a chair, yourself, the totality of stuff in the universe, an electron, whatever. Does this thing exist entirely in the one instant of the present, or is there more to it than that?
(To be perfectly up front, I don’t think the question is well-posed, and perhaps you agree. But I’m curious about your reasons for rejecting the question, and if they’re anything like mine. Also trying to discuss something that’s not just the same old thing.)
I always think this debate should be applied to Conway’s Life.
We have to deal with Entropy and the irreversibility of Physics because our universe is implemented on the blockchain.