The real but dead past: A reply to braddon-Mitchell

Analysis 64 (4):358–362 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In "How Do We Know It Is Now Now?" David Braddon-Mitchell (Analysis 2004) develops an objection to the thesis that the past is real but the future is not. He notes my response to this, namely that the past, although real, is lifeless and (a fortiori?) lacking in sentience. He argues, however, that this response, which I call 'the past is dead hypothesis', is not tenable if combined with 'special relativity'. My purpose in this reply is to argue that, on the contrary, 'special relativity' supports the thesis that the future is unreal

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
619 (#26,769)

6 months
29 (#104,925)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Nothing to Come: A Defence of the Growing Block Theory of Time.Fabrice Correia & Sven Rosenkranz - 2018 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag. Edited by Sven Rosenkranz.
Presentism, eternalism, and the growing block.Kristie Miller - 2013 - In Heather Dyke & Adrian Bardon (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Time. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 345-364.
The Moving Spotlight Theory.Daniel Deasy - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (8):2073-2089.
What is Presentism?Daniel Deasy - 2017 - Noûs 51 (2):378-397.
The Growing Block’s past problems.Graeme A. Forbes - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (3):699-709.

View all 86 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

How do we know it is now now?David Braddon-Mitchell - 2004 - Analysis 64 (3):199–203.
When am I? A tense time for some tense theorists?Craig Bourne - 2002 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80 (3):359 – 371.

Add more references