In Defence of Ockhamism

Philosophia 40 (3):617-631 (2012)
Abstract
Ockhamism implies that future contingents may be true, their historical contingency notwithstanding. It is thus opposed to both the Peircean view according to which all future contingents are false, and Supervaluationist Indeterminism according to which all future contingents are neither true nor false. The paper seeks to defend Ockhamism against two charges: the charge that it cannot meet the requirement that truths be grounded in reality, and the charge that it proves incompatible with objective indeterminism about the future. In each case, the defence draws on the idea that certain truths are truths only courtesy of others and of what makes the latter true. After introduction of the Ockhamist view, its competitors and implications, a suitable definition of grounded truth is being devised that both is faithful to the spirit of the grounding-requirement and allows the Ockhamist to heed that requirement quite comfortably. Then two senses in which the future might be open are being introduced, indeterminacy as failure of predetermination by past and present facts, and indeterminacy as failure of entailment by past and present truths. It is argued that while openness in the former sense, but not in the latter sense, coheres with the Ockhamist view, it is only openness in the former sense that matters for objective indeterminism.
Keywords Time  Open future  Indeterminism  Future contingents  Grounding
Categories (categorize this paper)
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: 10,788
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

View all 13 references

Citations of this work BETA
Giovanni Merlo (2013). Specialness and Egalitarianism. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):248-257.
Similar books and articles
Nataša Rakić (1997). Past, Present, Future, and Special Relativity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (2):257-280.
Natasa Rakic (1997). Past, Present, Future, and Special Relativity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (2):257-280.
Berit Brogaard (2008). Sea Battle Semantics. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):326–335.
Jc Beall (2012). Future Contradictions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (3):547-557.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-11-05

Total downloads

26 ( #65,687 of 1,099,037 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #175,277 of 1,099,037 )

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.