The Metaphysics of the Thin Red Line

Borghini, Andrea; Torrengo, Giuliano

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5167-5_7

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13 This conclusion is also suggested by Borghini and Torrengo (2013). For the sake of brevity, here we ignore non-standard A-theories such as Fine's (2005) fragmentalism.…”

Section: Scope Issuesmentioning

confidence: 73%

The Actual Future is Open

Spolaore

Gallina

2018

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open futurism is the indeterministic position according to which the future is 'open,' i.e., there is now no fact of the matter as to what future contingent events will actually obtain. Many open futurists hold a branching conception of time, in which a variety of possible futures exist. This paper introduces two challenges to branching-time open futurism, which are similar in spirit to a challenge posed by Kit Fine to (standard) tense realism. The paper argues that, to address the new challenges, (branching-time) open futurists must (i) adopt an objective, non-perspectival notion of actuality and (ii) subscribe to an A-theoretic, dynamic conception of reality. Moreover, given a natural understanding of "actual future," (iii) it is perfectly sensible for open futurists to hold that a unique, objectively actual future exists, contrary to a common assumption in the current debate. The paper also contends that recognising the existence of a unique actual future helps open futurists to avoid potential misconceptions.

show abstract

“…13 This conclusion is also suggested by Borghini and Torrengo (2013). For the sake of brevity, here we ignore non-standard A-theories such as Fine's (2005) fragmentalism.…”

Section: Scope Issuesmentioning

confidence: 73%

The Actual Future is Open

Spolaore

Gallina

2018

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, Belnap et al (2001, p. 151) very strongly object to the idea of the history of the context of use. I find their arguments persuasive (contrary to e.g., Borghini and Giuliano 2011) and it is important to stress at this point that my TRL h should not be thought of as the history of the context of use which changes from one context to another. The history TRL h is ''initialized'' by the world itself and its structure and content rather than the context.…”

Section: Actuality Complaintmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…For sources of motivation of the TRL theory and arguments against the alternative proposals consult (McKim and Davis 1976;Øhrstrøm 1984, 2009Øhrstrøm and Hasle 1995;Braüner et al 1998Braüner et al , 2000Borghini and Giuliano 2011;Malpass and Wawer 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Truth About the Future

Wawer

2013

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a long-standing disagreement among Branching-Time theorists. Even though they all believe that the branching representation accurately grasps the idea that the future, contrary to the past, is open, they argue whether this representation is compatible with the claim that one among many possible futures is distinguished-the single future that will come to be. This disagreement is paralleled in an argument about the bivalence of future contingents. The single, privileged future is often called the Thin Red Line. I reconstruct the history of the arguments for and against this idea. Then, I propose my own version of the Thin Red Line theory which is immune to the major objections found in the literature. I argue that the semantic disagreement is grounded in distinct metaphysical presuppositions. My solution is expressed in a conceptual framework proposed by John MacFarlane, who distinguishes semantics from postsemantics. I extend his distinction and introduce a new notion of presemantics to elucidate my idea.

show abstract

“…In the later development of Prior's tenselogical paradigm for the study of time other interpretations have been developed, e.g. the Molinistic solution that may be seen as a further elaborations of the Ockhamistic solution (see Øhrstrøm 2014;Borghini and Torrengo 2013).…”

Section: In the Paper Tense Logic And The Logic Of Earlier And Latermentioning

confidence: 99%

Prior’s paradigm for the study of time and its methodological motivation

Hasle

Øhrstrøm

2016

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A. N. Prior's writings should obviously be studied already for historical reasons. His inventions of modern temporal logic and hybrid logic are clearly important events in the history of logic. But the enduring importance of studying his works also rests on his methodological approach, which remains highly relevant also for systematical reasons. In this paper we argue that Prior's formulation in the 1950s of a tense-logical paradigm for the study of time should be understood in the light of at least three other principles or perspectives which were manifest already in his studies during the 1940s and further developed in the 1950s: (1) his emphasis on the value of interdisciplinary studies, (2) his reflections on formalisation and (3) his view of the role of symbolic logic in conceptual studies and in the philosophy of science. Our investigation into Prior's basic tenets and principles makes extensive use of Prior's Nachlass. It is thereby also exemplified how his correspondence and unpublished papers contain important information for a deeper understanding of Prior's paradigm for the study of time.

show abstract

The Metaphysics of the Thin Red Line

Cited by 22 publications

References 12 publications

The Actual Future is Open

The Actual Future is Open

The Truth About the Future

Prior’s paradigm for the study of time and its methodological motivation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About