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

Analysis 64 (4):358–362 (2004)
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
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.0003-2638.2004.00510.x
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 20,856
External links
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
C. Bourne (2002). When Am I? A Tense Time for Some Tense Theorists? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80 (3):359 – 371.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Daniel Deasy (2015). The Moving Spotlight Theory. Philosophical Studies 172 (8):2073-2089.

View all 32 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

204 ( #14,577 of 1,906,958 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

40 ( #20,737 of 1,906,958 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.