Scielo RSS <![CDATA[Manuscrito]]> http://www.scielo.br/rss.php?pid=0100-604520170001&lang=en vol. 40 num. 1 lang. en <![CDATA[SciELO Logo]]> http://www.scielo.br/img/en/fbpelogp.gif http://www.scielo.br <![CDATA[The Passage of Time and its Enemies: an Introduction to Time and Reality II]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100005&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT This essay is a critical introduction to the second part of the special issue Time and Reality. The volume contains responses to papers appeared in the first part, as well as many original articles. The aim of this introduction is to frame these works within the general arena of the philosophy of time, highlighting a number of recurrent themes. A central theme that emerges is a difficulty in pinning down the ontological structure underlying dynamicity and passage without postulating a primitive notion of transiency that is conceptually independent from the instantiation of tense properties. I argue that this has far reaching implications. <![CDATA[What Is Time?]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100043&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT In this paper, I answer the question of what time is. First, however, I consider why one might ask this question and what exactly it is asking. The latter consideration reveals that in order to answer the question, one must first engage in a more basic investigation of what a thing, anything at all, is. Such radical investigation requires a special methodology. After briefly characterizing this methodology, I show how it can be employed to answer the titular question. This answer is significant not merely because it illuminates something of perennial interest, but because it is essential to a comprehensive and fully satisfactory metaphysics of time and, hence, to a view of the full structure in reality. <![CDATA[Reply to Oaklander]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100067&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT In September, 2016, I replied to an earlier draft of Oaklander’s Critique of my view of time for Manuscrito. Now he has published an extremely complex 50-page expanded version. There is no way that a reply in a journal could cover all the topics Oaklander discusses. So, I will stick mainly to my own view to which Oaklander was responding. My reply is in two parts. In the first, directed at Oaklander’s earlier draft, I say what I want to do in philosophy in general, and in the philosophy of time in particular. In the second part, I mention some places where he (apparently) misunderstands my view. <![CDATA[A Rate of Passage]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100075&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT In “Temporal Passage and the ‘No Alternate Possibilities Argument’”, Jonathan Tallant takes up one objection based on the observation that if time passes at the rate of one second per second there is no other possible rate at which it could pass. The argument rests on the premise that if time passes at some rate then it could have passed at some other rate. Since no alternative rate seems to be coherent, one concludes that time cannot pass at all. The obvious weak point of the NAP is the premise itself. <![CDATA[Gunky time and indeterminate existence]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100081&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT The paper criticizes an argument recently presented by Ross Cameron. The argument purports to show that, if time is gunky (that is, if there are no time atoms), and if changes in existence are underwritten by events of coming to be, then there are cases of indeterminate existence. The putative reason is that, if time is gunky, then events of coming to be cannot be instantaneous, and hence, changes in existence must be gradual, non-clear-cut. The paper argues that this argument conflates two different readings of “event of coming to be”. Under one reading, the argument is unsound. Under the other, the argument is valid only if a further, nontrivial premise is added, which concerns the relation between time atoms, instants, and instantaneous events. <![CDATA[Challenging the Grounding Objection to Presentism]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100087&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT The grounding objection to presentism rests on two premises: (i) every true proposition P has a truthmaker T, and (ii) some claims about the future and past are obviously true. However, if the future and past do not exist, there can be no truthmakers for future and past tensed expressions. Presentists tend not to challenge the premises of the objection. Instead they argue that the present contains all the truthmakers we need. Presentists should challenge the premises instead. First, finding truthmakers in the present only results in the postulation of implausible and/or ethereal entities that ultimately fail to solve the grounding objection. Second, no manifestly absurd consequences follow from accepting the lack of truth-values for tensed expressions. Third, the grounding objection does not just require the assumption that for every truth there is a truthmaker, but also that for every truthmaker there is a truth. I show how one can deny the latter without denying the former. <![CDATA[Time, Fission, Fusion: An Argument against the Block Universe with Endurance]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100109&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT Many philosophers believe in the Block Universe containing all objects and events - those that we intuitively call past, present, and future. But some of those who endorse this ontology of time also believe that objects persist by enduring - by being present in their entirety at all moments at which they exist. This combination of views, the Block Universe with Endurance, has survived the initial assault of the problem of temporary intrinsics and of several later objections. But I argue that the Block Universe with Endurance fails to account for a striking feature of our temporal experience and must be rejected in favor of the Block Universe with Exdurance. <![CDATA[Temporal Experience and Metaphysics]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100145&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT The well-known phenomenological argument draws metaphysical conclusions about time, specifically about change through time and the resulting passage or flow of time, from our temporal experience. The argument begins with the phenomenological premise that there is a class of properties which underlies our experience of time and change through time, and its conclusion is that these properties are not merely experienced but exemplified. I argue that the phenomenological argument is best served by the adoption of a representational theory of perception. I then present a representational theory of temporal experience. <![CDATA[A and B Theories of Closed Time]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100183&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT Closed time is possible in several senses of ‘possible’. One might like to know, therefore, whether closed time is possible in the sense that it is compatible with standard metaphysical theories of time. In this paper I am concerned with whether closed time is compatible with A and/or B theories of time. A common enough view amongst philosophers is that B theories do but A theories do not allow closed time. However, I show that prima-facie neither approach allows closed time, but that with a little work standard versions of both approaches do. This shows that there’s no special problem with the notion of eternal return. <![CDATA[Closed Time and Local Time: A Reply to Dowe]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100197&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT In his contribution to this issue, “A and B Theories of Closed Time”, Phil Dowe argues that A- and B-theories of time are equally compatible with closed time, though it is commonly supposed that only B-theories are compatible with it. With some reservations to be noted below I agree with Dowe’s general conclusion, but in the course of his argument there are a number of false statements and misrepresentations of detail that require comment. I will not be able to deal with all of them in this brief note. <![CDATA[Fine’s McTaggart: Reloaded]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100209&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT In this paper I will present three arguments (based on the notions of constitution, metaphysical reality, and truth, respectively) with the aim of shedding some new light on the structure of Fine’s (2005, 2006) ‘McTaggartian’ arguments against the reality of tense. Along the way, I will also (i) draw a novel map of the main realist positions about tense, (ii) unearth a previously unnoticed but potentially interesting form of external relativism (which I will label ‘hyper-presentism’) and (iii) sketch a novel interpretation of Fine’s fragmentalism (which I contrast with Lipman’s 2015, 2016b, forthcoming). <![CDATA[Einstein’s physical chronogeometry]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100241&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT In Einstein’s physical geometry, the geometry of space and the uniformity of time are taken to be non-conventional. However, due to the stipulation of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light in the synchronization of clocks (or definition of simultaneity), as it stands, Einstein’s views do not seem to apply to the whole of the Minkowski space-time. In this work we will see how Einstein’s views can be applied to the Minkowski space-time. In this way, when adopting Einstein’s views, chronogeometry is a physical chronogeometry. <![CDATA[Note on “The Art of Time Travel: An Insoluble Problem Solved”]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100279&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT In their contribution to the first part of this special issue Craig Bourn and Emily Caddick Bourne claim to have solved a puzzle I put forward in my ‘An Insoluble Problem’ (2010). Here I argue that their attempt fails. <![CDATA[The Art of Time Travel: A Bigger Picture]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452017000100281&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT In his contribution to the second part of this special issue, Storrs McCall criticizes the solution to his puzzle that we put forward in the first part of the issue. In this paper, we expand on our solution and defend it from his objections.