display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
12 ideas
22618 | In modern physics the first and second laws of motion (unlike the third) fail at extremes [Ingthorsson] |
Full Idea: While the first and second laws of motion are known to fail in the domain of very fast-moving and massive objects (i.e. where relativity deviates from classical mechanics) as well as in the quantum realm, the third law is still assumed to hold good. | |
From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 4.04) | |
A reaction: This implies a universal status for the third law (equal and opposite reactions), which the other two lack. Ingthorsson sees this as crucial for our understanding of causation. |
22630 | If particles have decay rates, they can't really be elementary, in the sense of indivisible [Ingthorsson] |
Full Idea: We may wonder whether the fact that physics has calculated (and for some, confirmed) the decay rate of elementary particles can be a reason to think that they cannot really be ‘elementary’ in the philosophical sense of ‘indivisible’. | |
From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 7.6) | |
A reaction: I don't think anything can ever conclusively be labelled as 'elementary', but this idea offers a reason for doubting whether a candidate particle is so basic. Does decay imply having parts? |
13990 | Presentism is the view that only present objects exist [Markosian] |
Full Idea: According to Presentism, if we were to make an accurate list of all the things that exist (within the range of our most unrestricted quantifiers) there would not be a single non-present object on the list. | |
From: Ned Markosian (A Defense of Presentism [2004], 1) | |
A reaction: An immediate problem that needs examing is what constitutes an 'object'. It had better not range over time (like an journey). It would be hard to fit a description like 'the oldest man in England'. |
13992 | Presentism says if objects don't exist now, we can't have attitudes to them or relations with them [Markosian] |
Full Idea: If there are no non-present objects (according to Presentism), then no one can now stand in any relation to any non-present object. You cannot now 'admire' Socrates, and no present event has a causal relation to Washington crossing the Delaware. | |
From: Ned Markosian (A Defense of Presentism [2004], 2.2) | |
A reaction: You can have an overlapping causal chain that gets you back to Washington, and a causal chain can connect Socrates to our thoughts about him (as in baptismal reference). A simple reply needs an 'overlap' though. |
13994 | Presentism seems to entail that we cannot talk about other times [Markosian] |
Full Idea: It is very natural to talk about times, ...but Presentism seems to entail that we never say anything about any such times. | |
From: Ned Markosian (A Defense of Presentism [2004], 2.4) | |
A reaction: I'm beginning to think that Markosian is in the grips of a false notion of proposition, as something that exists independently of thinkers, and is entailed by the facts and objects of reality. This is not what language does. |
13995 | Serious Presentism says things must exist to have relations and properties; Unrestricted version denies this [Markosian] |
Full Idea: Mark Hinchliff distinguishes between 'Serious' Presentism (objects only have relations and properties when they exist) and 'Unrestricted' Presentism (objects can have relations and properties even when they don't exist). | |
From: Ned Markosian (A Defense of Presentism [2004], 3.1) | |
A reaction: [Hinchliff 1996:124-6] Markosian votes for the Serious version, as being the only true Presentism. I think he is muddling language and reality, predicates and properties. |
13996 | Maybe Presentists can refer to the haecceity of a thing, after the thing itself disappears [Markosian] |
Full Idea: Some Presentists (such as Adams) believe that a haecceity (a property unique to some entity) continues to exist even after its object ceases to exist. A sentence about Socrates still expresses a proposition, about 'Socraticity'. | |
From: Ned Markosian (A Defense of Presentism [2004], 3.4) | |
A reaction: [Adams 1986] This is rather puzzling. In what sense could a haecceity 'exist' to be referred to? Existence, but not as we know it, Jim. This smacks of medieval theology. |
13997 | Maybe Presentists can paraphrase singular propositions about the past [Markosian] |
Full Idea: Maybe Presentists can paraphrase singular propositions about the past, into purely general past- and future-tensed sentences. | |
From: Ned Markosian (A Defense of Presentism [2004], 3.5) | |
A reaction: I'm not clear why Markosian worries about singular propositions, but is happy with general ones. Surely the latter refer as much as the former to what doesn't exist? Markosian objects that the paraphrase has a different meaning. |
13993 | Special Relativity denies the absolute present which Presentism needs [Markosian] |
Full Idea: The objection to Presentism from Special Relativity is this: 1) Relativity is true, 2) so there is no absolute simultaneity, 3) so there is no absolute presentness, but 4) Presentism entails absolute presentness, so 5) Presentism is false. | |
From: Ned Markosian (A Defense of Presentism [2004], 3.9) | |
A reaction: I don't accept this objection. There may be accounts that can give Relativity one present (Idea 12689-90). Maybe Einstein was too instrumentalist in his account. Maybe we can have Presentism with multiple present moments. |
22610 | It is difficult to handle presentism in first-order logic [Ingthorsson] |
Full Idea: Contemporary philosophers are not comfortable with presentism, because it is difficult to deal with presentism in the language of first-order predicate logic. | |
From: R.D. Ingthorsson (A Powerful Particulars View of Causation [2021], 1.8) | |
A reaction: Presumable that logic relies on objects which endure through time, or at least have a past. Second-order logic is better able to deal with processes, which only exist in the present, but nevertheless have an integral past and future. ? |
13998 | Objects in the past, like Socrates, are more like imaginary objects than like remote spatial objects [Markosian] |
Full Idea: Maybe putative non-present objects like Socrates have more in common with putative non-actual objects like Santa Claus than they have in common with objects located elsewhere in space, like Alpha Centauri. | |
From: Ned Markosian (A Defense of Presentism [2004], 3.7) | |
A reaction: We can see Alpha Centauri, so we need an example beyond some 'event horizon'. He credits Arthur Prior with this line of thought. He seems to me to drift towards a Descriptive Theory of Reference (shock!). Does the nature of reference change with death? |
13999 | People are mistaken when they think 'Socrates was a philosopher' says something [Markosian] |
Full Idea: People sometimes think that 'Socrates was a philosopher' expresses something like a true, singular proposition about Socrates. They're making a mistake, but still, this explains why they think it is true. | |
From: Ned Markosian (A Defense of Presentism [2004], 3.8) | |
A reaction: A classic error theory, about our talk of the past. Personally I would say that the sentence really is true, and that needing a tangible object to refer to is a totally bogus requirement. 'I wonder if there are any scissors in the house?' |