Five New Arguments for The Dynamic Theory of Time

IF 1.6 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Perspectives Pub Date : 2022-12-28 DOI:10.1111/phpe.12167
N. Markosian
{"title":"Five New Arguments for The Dynamic Theory of Time","authors":"N. Markosian","doi":"10.1111/phpe.12167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the ongoing debates about the nature of time, two main theories have recently come into focus. One is The Static Theory of Time, according to which time is like space in various ways, and there is no such thing as the passage of time. And the other is The Dynamic Theory of Time, according to which time is very different from space, and the passage of time is an all-too-real phenomenon. For various contingent, historical reasons, The Static Theory has been themajority view among scientists and philosophers ever since early in the 20th Century. Lots of arguments have been proposed against The Dynamic Theory, and Dynamic Theorists have mainly played defense, attempting to respond to the arguments that have been raised against our view. In this paper, I am going to get offensive: I want to introduce five new arguments for The Dynamic Theory of Time. But I want to emphasize at the outset that I am going to talk about two views – each one a combination of several different theses – that are among the many views on the table in the metaphysics of time. I will talk about these two because I consider them to be the most plausible and the most interesting. But for each of the two views to be featured here, there are many other possible combinations of theses in the same ballpark, quite a few of which have been defended in the literature. Some of what I say will apply to some of these other combinations, and some of what I say will not. One cannot talk about everything in a single paper. But my main goal is to introduce five new arguments for what I take to be the most plausible and the most interesting version of a dynamic theory of time. Before I get to those arguments, I will start by characterizing the two theories about the nature of time that I want to focus on. This is important partly in order to clarify what is at issue, and also because, as I see it, the two main sides in the dispute over the nature of time have not been formulated in the most perspicuous ways, and I want to be a part of the solution to that problem.","PeriodicalId":51519,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Perspectives","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12167","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In the ongoing debates about the nature of time, two main theories have recently come into focus. One is The Static Theory of Time, according to which time is like space in various ways, and there is no such thing as the passage of time. And the other is The Dynamic Theory of Time, according to which time is very different from space, and the passage of time is an all-too-real phenomenon. For various contingent, historical reasons, The Static Theory has been themajority view among scientists and philosophers ever since early in the 20th Century. Lots of arguments have been proposed against The Dynamic Theory, and Dynamic Theorists have mainly played defense, attempting to respond to the arguments that have been raised against our view. In this paper, I am going to get offensive: I want to introduce five new arguments for The Dynamic Theory of Time. But I want to emphasize at the outset that I am going to talk about two views – each one a combination of several different theses – that are among the many views on the table in the metaphysics of time. I will talk about these two because I consider them to be the most plausible and the most interesting. But for each of the two views to be featured here, there are many other possible combinations of theses in the same ballpark, quite a few of which have been defended in the literature. Some of what I say will apply to some of these other combinations, and some of what I say will not. One cannot talk about everything in a single paper. But my main goal is to introduce five new arguments for what I take to be the most plausible and the most interesting version of a dynamic theory of time. Before I get to those arguments, I will start by characterizing the two theories about the nature of time that I want to focus on. This is important partly in order to clarify what is at issue, and also because, as I see it, the two main sides in the dispute over the nature of time have not been formulated in the most perspicuous ways, and I want to be a part of the solution to that problem.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
时间动力学理论的五个新论点
在关于时间本质的持续争论中,最近有两种主要理论成为焦点。一种是时间的静态理论,根据这种理论,时间在很多方面都像空间,不存在时间的流逝。另一种是时间动力学理论,根据该理论,时间与空间非常不同,时间的流逝是一个非常真实的现象。由于各种偶然的历史原因,自20世纪初以来,静力论一直是科学家和哲学家的主流观点。人们提出了很多反对动力理论的论点,而动力理论家主要是在为自己辩护,试图回应那些反对我们观点的论点。在这篇文章中,我要冒犯一下了:我想为《时间动力学理论》介绍五个新的论点。但我想在一开始就强调,我将讨论两种观点,每一种观点都是几个不同论点的结合,它们是时间形而上学中众多观点中的一种。我将讨论这两个,因为我认为它们是最合理和最有趣的。但是对于这两种观点中的每一种,在相同的范围内,还有许多其他可能的论文组合,其中相当一部分在文献中得到了辩护。我所说的一些内容将适用于其他一些组合,而我所说的一些内容则不适用。一个人不可能在一篇论文中谈论所有的事情。但我的主要目标是介绍五个新的论点,它们是我认为最合理、最有趣的时间动力学理论。在讨论这些论点之前,我将首先描述两种关于时间本质的理论,这两种理论是我想重点讨论的。这一点很重要,一方面是为了澄清争论的焦点,另一方面,在我看来,关于时间本质的争论的两个主要方面还没有以最清晰的方式表述出来,我想成为解决这个问题的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Are there really any dual-character concepts? Functionalism and tacit knowledge of grammar Conditional emotions Mental strength: A theory of experience intensity Disagreement and alienation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1