more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 23023
[filed under theme 27. Natural Reality / D. Time / 1. Nature of Time / h. Presentism
]
Full Idea
If Presentism is true, how do we manage to travel from this moment to the next moment, a moment that is, at present, a future and hence non-existent moment?
Gist of Idea
How can presentists move to the next future moment, if that doesn't exist?
Source
Baron,S/Miller,K (Intro to the Philosophy of Time [2019], 8.3.1)
Book Ref
Baron,S/Miller,K: 'Introduction to the Philosophy of Time' [Polity 2019], p.213
A Reaction
The reply would have to be that the metaphor of 'travel' is inappropriate for the movement through time. Travel needs a succession of existing places. The advancement of time is nothing like that. Nice question, though.
The
30 ideas
with the same theme
[only the present moment exists]:
20819
|
The past and the future subsist, but only the present exists
[Chrysippus, by Plutarch]
|
5979
|
If the past is no longer, and the future is not yet, how can they exist?
[Augustine]
|
8167
|
If Presentism is correct, we cannot even say that the present changes
[Dummett]
|
15188
|
If things don't persist through time, then change makes no sense
[Le Poidevin]
|
14409
|
I am a presentist, and all language and common sense supports my view
[Bigelow]
|
14724
|
Presentists must deny truths about multiple times
[Sider]
|
14756
|
For Presentists there must always be a temporal vantage point for any description
[Sider]
|
4473
|
'Presentism' is the view that only the present moment exists
[Moreland]
|
14026
|
Presentists can talk of 'times', with no more commitment than modalists have to possible worlds
[Crisp,TM]
|
14406
|
Presentists say that things have existed and will exist, not that they are instantaneous
[Merricks]
|
14407
|
Presentist should deny there is a present time, and just say that things 'exist'
[Merricks]
|
14411
|
Maybe only presentism allows change, by now having a property, and then lacking it
[Merricks]
|
14007
|
How can presentists talk of 'earlier than', and distinguish past from future?
[Bourne]
|
14011
|
Presentism seems to deny causation, because the cause and the effect can never coexist
[Bourne]
|
14017
|
Since presentists treat the presentness of events as basic, simultaneity should be define by that means
[Bourne]
|
14938
|
A fixed foliation theory of quantum gravity could make presentism possible
[Ladyman/Ross]
|
13990
|
Presentism is the view that only present objects exist
[Markosian]
|
13992
|
Presentism says if objects don't exist now, we can't have attitudes to them or relations with them
[Markosian]
|
13994
|
Presentism seems to entail that we cannot talk about other times
[Markosian]
|
13995
|
Serious Presentism says things must exist to have relations and properties; Unrestricted version denies this
[Markosian]
|
13996
|
Maybe Presentists can refer to the haecceity of a thing, after the thing itself disappears
[Markosian]
|
13997
|
Maybe Presentists can paraphrase singular propositions about the past
[Markosian]
|
13993
|
Special Relativity denies the absolute present which Presentism needs
[Markosian]
|
22974
|
Presentists lack the materials for a realist view of change
[Price,H]
|
19041
|
Presentists explain cross-temporal relations using surrogate descriptions
[Vetter]
|
22994
|
Erzatz Presentism allows the existence of other times, with only the present 'actualised'
[Baron/Miller]
|
22998
|
How do presentists explain relations between things existing at different times?
[Baron/Miller]
|
23017
|
Presentism needs endurantism, because other theories imply most of the object doesn't exist
[Baron/Miller]
|
23023
|
How can presentists move to the next future moment, if that doesn't exist?
[Baron/Miller]
|
22610
|
It is difficult to handle presentism in first-order logic
[Ingthorsson]
|