Advertisement

The Metaphysics of the Thin Red Line

Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 361)

Abstract

The thin red line is the view that time branches towards the future, but future contingent has already in the present a determinate truth-value. On the face of it, such a view avoids determinism and fatalism, while also representing the fact that there is a future which is ‘special’ because it is the one that will be the case. However, many have objected to the tenability of the thin red line theory by arguing that either it collapses on linear time or it compels us to endorse thick metaphysical theses about the future. In this chapter, we argue against such attacks and show that TRL’s metaphysical grounds are solid.

Keywords

Branching time theory Thin red line Metaphysics of the thin red line 

References

  1. Belnap, N. 1992. Branching space-time. Synthese 92: 385–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belnap, N., and M. Green. 1994. Indeterminism and the Thin Red Line. Philosophical Perspectives 8: 365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belnap, N.D., et al. 2001. Facing the future. Agents and choices in our indeterministic world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burgess, J. 1978. The unreal future. Theoria 44: 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Horwich, P. 1987. Asymmetries in time. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Iacona, A. 2012. Timeless truth. This volume. In Around the tree, ed. Fabrice Correia and Andrea Iacona, 29–46. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Lewis, D.K. 1986. On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Lockwood, M. 2005. The Labyrinth of time. Introducing the Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. MacFarlane, J. 2003. Future contingents and relative truth. Philosophical Quarterly 53: 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. MacFarlane, J. 2008. Truth in the garden of forking paths. In Relative truth, ed. M. Kölbel and M. Garcia Carpintero. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. McArthur, R. 1974. Factuality and modality in the future tense. Nous 8: 283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCall, S. 1984. A dynamic model of temporal becoming. Analysis 44(4): 172–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller, K. 2005. Time travel and the open future. Disputatio I n 19: 197–206.Google Scholar
  14. Miller, K. 2008. Backwards causation, time, and the open future. Metaphysica 9: 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Øhrstrøm, P. 2009. In defence of the Thin Red Line: A case for Ockhamism. Models of Time: Humana.mente 8: 17–32.Google Scholar
  16. Prior, A. 1967. Past, present and future. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reichenbach, H. 1956. The direction of time. Dover: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thomason, R. 1970. Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria 36: 264–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomason, R. 1984. Combinations of tense and modality. In Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. II. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  20. Von Wright, G.H. 1984. Determinism and future truth. In Truth, knowledge and modality, 1–13. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCollege of the Holy CrossWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Departament de Lògica, Història i Filosofia de la CiènciaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations