Synthese

, Volume 188, Issue 1, pp 23–39 | Cite as

On individuals in branching histories

Open Access
Article

Abstract

Against the background of the theory of branching space-times (BST), the paper sketches a concept of individuals. It discusses Kripkean modal intuitions concerning individuation, and, finally it addresses Lewis’s objections to branching individuals.

Keywords

Individuals Modality Space-times Branching space-times 

References

  1. Belnap, N. (1992). Branching space-time. Synthese, 92, 385–434. ‘Postprint’ archived at PhilSci Archive. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001003.
  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). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  3. Belnap N. (2011) Prolegomena to norms in branching space-times. Journal of Applied Logic 9: 83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belnap N., Perloff M., Xu M. (2001) Facing the future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Borge S. (2006) Counterpart theory and the argument from modal concerns. Theoria 72: 269–285. doi:10.1111/j.1755-2567.2006.tb00965.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garson J. W. (2006) Modal logic for philosophers. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kripke S. (1980) Naming and necessity. Basil Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewis D. (1986a) On the plurality of worlds. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Lewis, D. (1986b). Postscripts to causation. In: Philosophical papers (Vol. II, pp. 172–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. McGlone, M. W. (2008). The inadequacy of Lewis’s response to the Humphrey objection. Read at at the Pacific APA in March 2008; McGlone’s longer paper on this subject, “The Humphrey objection and the problem of De Re Modality” is downloadable from http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~mmcglone/projects.html.
  11. 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 Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  12. Müller T. (2010) Towards a theory of limited indeterminism in branching space-times. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39(4): 395–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Placek T. (2000) Is nature deterministic? A branching perspective on EPR phenomena. Jagiellonian University Press, KrakówGoogle Scholar
  14. Placek, T. (2001). Against Lewis: Branching or divergence? In C. U. Moulines & K.-G. Niebergall (Eds.), Argument & Analyse, (pp. 485–492). Mentis Verlag: Paderborn.Google Scholar
  15. Placek T. (2011) Possibilities without possible worlds/histories. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40: 737–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Placek, T. & Belnap, N. (2010). Indeterminism is a modal notion: branching spacetimes and Earman’s pruning. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-010-9846-8.
  17. Prior A. (1967) Past, present, and future. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quine W. V. (1953) From a logical point of view. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomason R. H. (1970) Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria 36(3): 264–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilson J. (1999) Biological individuality: The identity and persistence of living entities. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wroński L., Placek T. (2009) On Minkowskian branching structures. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40: 251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyJagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations