Sorites 10:60-73 (1999)

Some philosophers contend that the notion of temporal passage is illusory. But if the flow of time is an illusion, what gives rise to the notion that an event is in the future and then becomes present? In this paper, I hypothesize that there is a relation between the degree to which the conditions necessary for an event to occur have been met and the perception that a future event is “distant” or “near” in time. An event is perceived to be “distant” when few or none of the conditions necessary to cause the event have been met. As the conditions necessary to cause the event are attained, the event is perceived to be “near” or “about to happen.” This hypothesis would explain the perception that an event “moves” from the future to the present, but it would not explain why an event that has occurred seems to move from the near past into the distant past.
Keywords Temporal Passage  Causation
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

The Direction of Time.Hans Reichenbach - 1956 - Dover Publications.
The Unreality of Time.John Ellis McTaggart - 1908 - Mind 17 (68):457-474.
Events and Their Names.Jonathan Bennett - 1988 - Oxford University Press UK.

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
54 ( #201,797 of 2,462,330 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #65,074 of 2,462,330 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes