David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (3):259-265 (2001)
The difficulties with formalizing the intensional notions necessity, knowability and omniscience, and rational belief are well-known. If these notions are formalized as predicates applying to (codes of) sentences, then from apparently weak and uncontroversial logical principles governing these notions, outright contradictions can be derived. Tense logic is one of the best understood and most extensively developed branches of intensional logic. In tense logic, the temporal notions future and past are formalized as sentential operators rather than as predicates. The question therefore arises whether the notions that are investigated in tense logic can be consistently formalized as predicates. In this paper it is shown that the answer to this question is negative. The logical treatment of the notions of future and past as predicates gives rise to paradoxes due the specific interplay between both notions. For this reason, the tense paradoxes that will be presented are not identical to the paradoxes referred to above
|Keywords||tense logic tense predicates diagonalization paradox|
|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
George Boolos, John Burgess, Richard P. & C. Jeffrey (2007). Computability and Logic. Cambridge University Press.
Arthur N. Prior (1967). Past, Present and Future. Oxford, Clarendon P..
Richmond H. Thomason (1980). A Note on Syntactical Treatments of Modality. Synthese 44 (3):391 - 395.
Citations of this work BETA
Volker Halbach (2008). On a Side Effect of Solving Fitch's Paradox by Typing Knowledge. Analysis 68 (2):114 - 120.
Leon Horsten (forthcoming). One Hundred Years of Semantic Paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-15.
Johannes Stern & Martin Fischer (2015). Paradoxes of Interaction? Journal of Philosophical Logic 44 (3):287-308.
Volker Halbach (2006). How Not to State T-Sentences. Analysis 66 (4):276–280.
Johannes Stern (2014). Montague's Theorem and Modal Logic. Erkenntnis 79 (3):551-570.
Similar books and articles
Max A. Freund (2001). A Temporal Logic for Sortals. Studia Logica 69 (3):351-380.
James Hawthorne & Luc Bovens (1999). The Preface, the Lottery, and the Logic of Belief. Mind 108 (430):241-264.
Dean W. Zimmerman (2005). The A-Theory of Time, the B-Theory of Time, and 'Taking Tense Seriously'. Dialectica 59 (4):401–457.
M. J. Cresswell (2010). Temporal Reference in Linear Tense Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (2):173 - 200.
Anna Sherratt (2001). Are the Laws of Logic Necessary or Contingent? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 101 (3):379-384.
Ulrich Meyer (2009). 'Now' and 'Then' in Tense Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (2):229-247.
V. Halbach & P. Welch (2009). Necessities and Necessary Truths: A Prolegomenon to the Use of Modal Logic in the Analysis of Intensional Notions. Mind 118 (469):71-100.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #89,182 of 1,726,151 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,151 )
How can I increase my downloads?