{"title":"未来还有很多:理解Correia和Rosenkranz的成长块","authors":"Natalja Deng","doi":"10.2478/disp-2021-0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Fabrice Correia and Sven Rosenkranz’s book Nothing to Come: a Defence of the Growing Block Theory of Time offers an incredibly rich and skillful defense of the growing block theory (GBT), a view of time that arguably has much intuitive appeal, and which has been under attack from many sides. Nonetheless, I have to report that the book’s tense-logical course of treatment has not worked for me; I still struggle with making sense of the GBT. This article begins by drawing out some implications of the book’s set up. First, the notion of existence in play here is not interpretable on the basis of ordinary usage. Second, it would be a mistake to take the tense-logical framework to have any metaphysical significance. I then articulate two main worries about their version of the GBT. The first worry takes a familiar shape: it is just hard to see how their view is dynamic in the relevant sense. The second worry is that the topic seems to have been changed. C&R’s logical system helps itself to key notions whose intended interpretation includes a solution to every metaphysical puzzle about the GBT, so that these puzzles are not so much addressed as enshrined in a formal system. That is, their view seems to answer the question of how language should behave, if the GBT were (somehow) true.","PeriodicalId":52369,"journal":{"name":"Disputatio (Spain)","volume":"7 1","pages":"363 - 372"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Plenty to Come: Making Sense of Correia & Rosenkranz’s Growing Block\",\"authors\":\"Natalja Deng\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/disp-2021-0019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Fabrice Correia and Sven Rosenkranz’s book Nothing to Come: a Defence of the Growing Block Theory of Time offers an incredibly rich and skillful defense of the growing block theory (GBT), a view of time that arguably has much intuitive appeal, and which has been under attack from many sides. Nonetheless, I have to report that the book’s tense-logical course of treatment has not worked for me; I still struggle with making sense of the GBT. This article begins by drawing out some implications of the book’s set up. First, the notion of existence in play here is not interpretable on the basis of ordinary usage. Second, it would be a mistake to take the tense-logical framework to have any metaphysical significance. I then articulate two main worries about their version of the GBT. The first worry takes a familiar shape: it is just hard to see how their view is dynamic in the relevant sense. The second worry is that the topic seems to have been changed. C&R’s logical system helps itself to key notions whose intended interpretation includes a solution to every metaphysical puzzle about the GBT, so that these puzzles are not so much addressed as enshrined in a formal system. That is, their view seems to answer the question of how language should behave, if the GBT were (somehow) true.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52369,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disputatio (Spain)\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"363 - 372\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Disputatio (Spain)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/disp-2021-0019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disputatio (Spain)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/disp-2021-0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
法布里斯·科雷亚(Fabrice Correia)和斯文·罗森克兰茨(Sven Rosenkranz)的《无事可做:为时间增长块理论辩护》(a Defence for the Growing Block Theory of Time)为时间增长块理论(GBT)提供了令人难以置信的丰富和熟练的辩护。GBT是一种可以说具有很大直觉吸引力的时间观,但它受到了来自许多方面的攻击。尽管如此,我不得不说,这本书的紧张逻辑治疗过程对我不起作用;我仍然在努力理解同性恋者。这篇文章首先引出了这本书设置的一些含义。第一,这里所起作用的存在概念,是不能根据一般的用法来解释的。其次,认为时态逻辑框架具有任何形而上学意义是错误的。然后,我阐明了对他们版本的GBT的两个主要担忧。第一个担忧的形式很熟悉:只是很难看出他们的观点在相关意义上是如何动态的。第二个担忧是,主题似乎已经改变。C&R的逻辑系统帮助自己找到关键的概念,这些概念的意图解释包括对每一个关于GBT的形而上学难题的解决方案,所以这些难题不是那么多地被解决,而是被庄严地置于一个正式的系统中。也就是说,他们的观点似乎回答了语言应该如何表现的问题,如果GBT(在某种程度上)是正确的。
Plenty to Come: Making Sense of Correia & Rosenkranz’s Growing Block
Abstract Fabrice Correia and Sven Rosenkranz’s book Nothing to Come: a Defence of the Growing Block Theory of Time offers an incredibly rich and skillful defense of the growing block theory (GBT), a view of time that arguably has much intuitive appeal, and which has been under attack from many sides. Nonetheless, I have to report that the book’s tense-logical course of treatment has not worked for me; I still struggle with making sense of the GBT. This article begins by drawing out some implications of the book’s set up. First, the notion of existence in play here is not interpretable on the basis of ordinary usage. Second, it would be a mistake to take the tense-logical framework to have any metaphysical significance. I then articulate two main worries about their version of the GBT. The first worry takes a familiar shape: it is just hard to see how their view is dynamic in the relevant sense. The second worry is that the topic seems to have been changed. C&R’s logical system helps itself to key notions whose intended interpretation includes a solution to every metaphysical puzzle about the GBT, so that these puzzles are not so much addressed as enshrined in a formal system. That is, their view seems to answer the question of how language should behave, if the GBT were (somehow) true.