Avoiding or changing the past

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):11-17 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Some philosophers argue that any attempt to model changing the past will either be contradictory or really model avoiding the past. Using Nicholas Smith's (1997) argument as a basis, I formulate a generic version of this Avoidance Argument. I argue that the Avoidance Argument fails because (i) it involves an equivocation of what is meant by ‘bifurcation of the time of an event’ and (ii) resolving the equivocation results in the falsity of at least one of the premises. Hence, the Avoidance Argument will not support the claim that changing the past is logically impossible



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,264

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Why Does Time Pass?Bradford Skow - 2012 - Noûs 46 (2):223-242.
Mctaggart's argument.Denis Corish - 2005 - Philosophy 80 (1):77-99.
A useful time machine.G. C. Goddu - 2002 - Philosophy 77 (2):281-282.
Time travel and changing the past.Larry Dwyer - 1975 - Philosophical Studies 27 (5):341 - 350.
Changing the past.Peimin Ni - 1992 - Noûs 26 (3):349-359.
Freedom and the Fixity of the Past.Wesley H. Holliday - 2012 - Philosophical Review 121 (2):179-207.


Added to PP

116 (#109,124)

6 months
2 (#298,443)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

G. C. Goddu
University of Richmond

Citations of this work

Time Enough for Explanation.Sam Baron & Mark Colyvan - 2016 - Journal of Philosophy 113 (2):61-88.
Back to the Unchanging Past.Sam Baron - 2017 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98 (1):129-147.
Against Non‐Ludovician Time.Robert E. Pezet - 2017 - Analytic Philosophy 58 (4):330-359.

View all 14 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references