The Invisible Thin Red Line

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to argue that the adoption of an unrestricted principle of bivalence is compatible with a metaphysics that (i) denies that the future is real, (ii) adopts nomological indeterminism and (iii) exploits a branching structure to provide a semantics for future contingent claims. To this end, we elaborate what we call Flow Fragmentalism, a view inspired by Kit Fine's non‐standard tense realism, according to which reality is divided up into maximally coherent collections of tensed facts. In this way, we show how to reconcile a genuinely A‐theoretic branching time model with the idea that there is a branch corresponding to the thin red line, that is, the branch that will turn out to be the actual future history of the world.

Human Foreknowledge

“…These are not the only attempts to reconcile bivalence and the openness of the future. There are related approaches within the broad family of "Thin Red Line" views (Malpass and Wawer, 2012;Borghini and Torrengo, 2013;Iacona, 2013;Torrengo and Iaquinto, 2020). These views are not equivalent to the bivalent indeterminist view I adopt in the paper, but they might also be leveraged to support the present epistemological development.…”

“…146-148, 238). 3 For a variety of (incompatible) contributions on the open future, see Łukasiewicz (1970); Thomason (1970); Belnap et al (2001);MacFarlane (2003MacFarlane ( , 2014; Hirsch (2006); Cameron (2009, 2011); Torre (2011); Correia and Iacona (2013); Cariani and Santorio (2018); Torrengo and Iaquinto (2020). 4 For critiques, see Cameron (2011), Cameron (2015, ch.5), Cariani (2021, section 11.2).…”