David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Is presentism or possibilism compatible with Relativity ? This question has been much debated since the argument first proposed by Rietdijk and Putnam. The goal of this text is to study the implications of both special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics, on presentism, possibilism, and eternalism. We put the emphasis on the implicit metaphysical preconceptions underlying each of these different approaches to the question of time. We show that there exists a unique version of presentism which is both non trivial, in the sense that it does not reduce the present to a unique event, and compatible with special relativity and quantum mechanics: the one in which the present of an observer at a point is identified with the past light cone of that point. However, this compatibility is achieved at the cost of a renouncement to the notion of an objective, observer-independent reality. We also argue that no non-trivial version of presentism survives in general relativity, although, if some mechanism forbids the existence of closed timelike curves, then precisely one version of possibilism does survive. We remark that the quoted physical theories force the presentist/possibilist's view of reality to shrink and break up, whereas the eternalist, on the contrary, is forced to grant the status of reality to more and more entities. Finally, we identify mathematics as the "deus ex machina" allowing the eternalist to unify his vision of reality into a coherent whole, and propose him a "idealist deal": to accept a mathematical ontology in exchange for the assurance of surviving any physical theory.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Daniel Peterson & Michael Silberstein (2010). Relativity of Simultaneity and Eternalism: In Defense of Blockworld. In Vesselin Petkov (ed.), Space, Time, and Spacetime: Physical and Philosophical Implications of Minkowski's Unification of Space and Time. Springer.
Steven D. Hales (2010). No Time Travel for Presentists. Logos and Episteme 1 (2):353-360.
Cord Friebe (2012). Twins' Paradox and Closed Timelike Curves: The Role of Proper Time and the Presentist View on Spacetime. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43 (2):313-326.
Bradley Monton (2003). Presentists Can Believe in Closed Timelike Curves. Analysis 63 (3):199–202.
M. Oreste Fiocco (2007). A Defense of Transient Presentism. American Philosophical Quarterly 44 (3):191 - 212.
Christian Wuthrich (2010). No Presentism in Quantum Gravity. In Vesselin Petkov (ed.), Space, Time, and Spacetime: Physical and Philosophical Implications of Minkowski's Unification of Space and Time. Springer.
Steven Frederick Savitt (ed.) (1995). Time's Arrows Today: Recent Physical and Philosophical Work on the Direction of Time. Cambridge University Press.
Bradley Monton (2006). Presentism and Quantum Gravity. In Dennis Dieks (ed.), The Ontology of Spacetime.
Joshua Rasmussen (2012). Presentists May Say Goodbye to A-Properties. Analysis 72 (2):270-276.
Yuri Balashov & Michel Janssen (2003). Presentism and Relativity. [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (2):327-346.
Rafael De Clercq (2006). Presentism and the Problem of Cross-Time Relations. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72 (2):386-402.
Sean Enda Power (2013). Perceiving External Things and the Time-Lag Argument. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (1):94-117.
Added to index2010-09-24
Total downloads18 ( #100,258 of 1,139,859 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #165,020 of 1,139,859 )
How can I increase my downloads?