Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 737–765 | Cite as

Possibilities Without Possible Worlds/Histories

Article

Abstract

The paper puts forward a theory of historical modalities that is framed in terms of possible continuations rather than possible worlds or histories. The proposal is tested as a semantic theory for a language with historical modalities, tenses, and indexicals.

Keywords

Tense logic Modalities Branching space-times 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Belnap, N. (1992). Branching space-time. Synthese, 92, 385–434. ‘Postprint’ archived at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belnap, N. (2001). Double time references: Speech-act reports as modalities in an indeterminist setting. In F. Wolter, H. Wansing, M. de Rijke, & M. Zakharyaschev (Eds.), Advances in modal logic (Vol. 3, pp. 1–21).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belnap, N. (2002). EPR-like “funny business” in the theory of branching space-times. In T. Placek & J. Butterfield (Eds.), Nonlocality and modality. NATO science series (pp. 293–315). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belnap, N. (2005a). Agents and agency in branching space-times. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought, and action (pp. 291–313). Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belnap, N. (2005b). A theory of causation: causae causantes (originating causes) as inus conditions in branching space-times. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56, 221–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belnap, N. (2007). An indeterminist view on the parameters of truth. In T. Müller (Ed.), Philosophie der Zeit (pp. 87–113). Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belnap, N., Perloff, M., & Xu, M. (2001). Facing the future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kowalski, T., & Placek, T. (1999). Outcomes in branching space-time and GHZ-Bell theorems. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50, 349–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Müller, T. (2002). Branching space-time, modal logic and the counterfactual conditional. In T. Placek & J. Butterfield (Eds.), Nonlocality and modality. NATO science series (pp. 273–291). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Müller, T. (2005). Probability theory and causation: A branching space-times analysis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56(3), 487–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Müller, T. (2010), Towards a theory of limited indeterminism in branching space-times. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39(4), 395–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Müller, T., Belnap, N., & Kishida, K. (2008). Funny business in branching space-times: Infinite modal correlations. Synthese, 164(1), 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Øhrstrøm, P., & Hasle, P. F. V. (1995). Temporal logic: From ancient ideas to artificial intelligence. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Placek, T., & Wroński, L. (2009). On infinite EPR-like correlations. Synthese, 167(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prior, A. (1967). Past, present, and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomason, R. H. (1970). Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria, 36(3), 264–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    von Kutschera, F. (1986). Zwei Modallogische Argumente für den Determinismus: Aristoteles und Diodor. Erkenntnis, 24, 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weiner, M., & Belnap, N. (2006). How causal probabilities might fit into our objectively indeterministic world. Synthese, 149(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wroński, L., & Placek, T. (2009). On Minkowskian branching structures. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 40, 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyJagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations