more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
What seems so wrong about the 'moving spotlight' theory is that here one time is privileged, but all the times are on a par ontologically.
Gist of Idea
The 'moving spotlight' theory makes one time privileged, while all times are on a par ontologically
Source
Ross P. Cameron (On the Source of Necessity [2010], 4)
Book Ref
'Modality', ed/tr. Hale,B/Hoffman,A [OUP 2010], p.149
A Reaction
The whole thing is baffling, but this looks like a good point. All our intuitions make presentism (there's only the present) look like a better theory than the moving spotlight (that the present is just 'special').
| 15202 | Eternity coexists with passing time, as the centre of a circle coexists with its circumference [Aquinas] |
| 8197 | Maybe past (which affects us) and future (which we can affect) are both real [Dummett] |
| 15024 | The spotlight theorists accepts eternal time, but with a spotlight of the present moving across it [Sider] |
| 17960 | Eternalism says all times are equally real, and future and past objects and properties are real [Merricks] |
| 14020 | 'Eternalism' is the thesis that reality includes past, present and future entities [Crisp,TM] |
| 15104 | The 'moving spotlight' theory makes one time privileged, while all times are on a par ontologically [Cameron] |
| 19026 | If time is symmetrical between past and future, why do they look so different? [Vetter] |
| 22988 | The block universe theory says entities of all times exist, and time is the B-series [Baron/Miller] |