{"title":"时间动力学理论的五个新论点","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.