Can we describe possible circumstances in which we would have most reason to believe that time is two-dimensional?

Ratio 17 (1):68–83 (2004)
Abstract
I argue that no one has yet successfully managed to describe possible circumstances in which it would be correct to say that we have most reason to believe that time is two-dimensional. I also argue--using a similar strategy--that Shoemaker's famous case for time without change does not describe possible circumstances in which it would be correct to say that we have most reason to believe that there is time without change.
Keywords Two-dimensional time  Time without change  Shoemaker  MacBeath  Thomson  Lycan  spectrum inversion  Meiland  Putnam  Universal Doubling
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9329.2004.00237.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 Graham Oppy, Can we describe possible circumstances in which we would have most reason to believe that time is two-dimensional?
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
Sydney Shoemaker (1969). Time Without Change. Journal of Philosophy 66 (12):363-381.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

19 ( #196,542 of 1,907,063 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

7 ( #109,520 of 1,907,063 )

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.