Non-proxy Reductions of Eternalist Discourse

  • Fabrice Correia
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 361)


Eternalists believe that there are past things and future things which are not present. In contrast, presentists hold that only present objects exist. In this chapter, I discuss presentist reductions of eternalist discourse which do not involve quantification over proxies—i.e. presentistically acceptable surrogates for merely past and merely future entities.


Home Language Existential Quantifier Presentist View Translation Scheme Priorean Operator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Belnap, N., and M. Green. 1994. Indeterminism and the Thin Red Line. Philosophical Perspectives 8: Logic and Language: 365–388.Google Scholar
  2. Burgess, J.P. 2002. Basic tense logic. In Handbook of philosophical logic, ed. D. Gabbay, and F. Guenthner. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Correia, F. 2007. Modality, quantification, and many Vlach-Operators. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36: 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Correia, F. 2009. Commentary on Arthur Prior. In Past, Present and Future, ed. R. Ciuni Models of Time, Humana.Mente 8: 177-184.Google Scholar
  5. Fine, K. 1977. Postscript. In Worlds, times and selves, ed. A. Prior, and K. Fine. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  6. Fine, K. 1985. Plantinga on the reduction of possibilist discourse. In Alvin plantinga, reidel profile series 5, ed. J.E. Tomberlin and P. van Inwagen. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  7. Fine, K. 2005. The problem of possibilia. In Modality and tense, ed. K. Fine. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forbes, G. 1989. Languages of possibility. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Forbes, G. 1992. Melia on modalism. Philosophical Studies 68: 57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hajnicz, E. 1991. Time structures. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Hodkinson, I., and M. Reynolds. 2006. Temporal logic. In Handbook of modal logic, ed. P. Blackburn, J. van Benthem, and F. Wolter. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. Linsky, B., and E. Zalta. 1994. In defense of the simplest quantified modal logic. In Philosophical Perspectives 8: Logic and Language, ed. J. Tomberlin, 431–458. Atascadero: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
  13. Melia, J. 1992. Against modalism. Philosophical Studies, 68: 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Peacocke, C. 1978. Necessity and truth theories. Journal of Philosophical Logic 7: 473–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Prior, A. 1957. Time and modality. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Prior, A. 2002. Past, present and future. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Prior, A. 2003. ‘Now’. In Papers on time and tense, ed. P. Hasle, P. Øhrstrøm, T. Brauner, and J. Copeland. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Sider, T. 2006. Quantifiers and temporal ontology. Mind 115: 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomason, R.H. 1970. Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria 36: 264–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vlach, F. 1973. ‘Now’ and ‘Then’: a formal study in the logic of tense and anaphora. Ph.D. ­dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations