Ratio 24 (2):167-175 (2011)
|Abstract||It is often said that, according to common sense, there is a fundamental asymmetry between the past and future; namely, that the past is closed and the future is open. Eternalism in the ontology of time is often seen as conflicting with common sense on this point. Here I argue against the claim that common sense is committed to this fundamental asymmetry between the past and the future, on the grounds that facts about the past often depend on facts about the future.1|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Josh Parsons (2005). Truthmakers, the Past, and the Future. In Helen Beebee & Julian Dodd (eds.), Truthmakers: The Contemporary Debate. Clarendon.
John Beatty & Isabel Carrera (2012). When What Had to Happen Was Not Bound to Happen: History, Chance, Narrative, Evolution. Journal of the Philosophy of History 5 (3):471-495.
Elizabeth Barnes & Ross Cameron (2009). The Open Future: Bivalence, Determinism and Ontology. Philosophical Studies 146 (2):291 - 309.
Kristie Miller (2008). Backwards Causation, Time, and the Open Future. Metaphysica 9 (2):173-191.
Matthew H. Slater (2005). The Necessity of Time Travel (On Pain of Indeterminacy). The Monist 88 (3):362-369.
Natasa Rakic (1997). Past, Present, Future, and Special Relativity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (2):257-280.
Nataša Rakić (1997). Past, Present, Future, and Special Relativity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (2):257-280.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads96 ( #6,704 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #8,781 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?