Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation pp 395–410Cite as

A Locus for “Now”

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective ((PSEP,volume 2))

Abstract

We investigate the concepts of past, present, and future that build upon a modal distinction between the settled past and the open future. The concepts are defined in terms of a pre-causal ordering and of qualitative differences between alternative histories. Finally, we look what an event’s past, present, and future look like in the so-called Minkowskian Branching Structures, in which histories are isomorphic to Minkowski spacetime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Belnap, N. (1992). Branching space-time. Synthese, 92:385–434. ‘Postprint’ archived at PhilSci Archive, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belnap, N. (2002). EPR-like “funny business” in the theory of branching spacetimes. In T. Placek and J. Butterfield, editors, Nonlocality and Modality, pp. 293–315, Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belnap, N. (2003). No-common-cause EPR-like funny business in branching space-times. Philosophical Studies, 114:199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belnap, N. (2007). An indeterminist view on the parameters of truth. In T. Müller, editor, Philosophie der Zeit, pp. 87–113. Klostermann, Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieks, D. (1988). Special relativity and the flow of time. Philosophy of Science, 55(3):456–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieks, D. (2006). Becoming, relativity and locality. In D. Dieks and M. Redei, editors, The Ontology of Spacetime, volume 1, pp. 157–176. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dorato, M. (2008). Putnam on time and special relativity. European Journal Analytic Philosophy, 4(2):51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddington, A. S. (1949). The Nature of Physical World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddington, A. S. (1953). Space, Time, Gravitation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gale, R. M. (1963). Some metaphysical statements about time. The Journal of Philosophy, 60(9):225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61:343–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malament, D. (1977). Causal theories of time and the conventionality of simultaneity. Nous, 11(3):293–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R. (1962). Deterministic theories. In Decisions, Values, and Groups 2, pages 325–370. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Reprinted in his (1974) Formal Philosophy. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. ed. R.H.Thomason.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, T. (2002). Branching space-time, modal logic and the counterfactual conditional. In T. Placek and J. Butterfield, editors, Nonlocality and Modality, NATO Science Series, pp. 273–291, Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, T. (2005). Probability theory and causation: a Branching Space-Times analysis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56(3):487–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, T. (2006). On the problem of defining the present in special relativity: a challenge for tense logic. In Stadler, F. and Stöltzner, M., editors, Time and History. Proceedings of the 28. International Ludwig Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg am Wechsel, Austria 2005, pages 441–458, Frankfurt a.M. Ontos Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, T., Belnap, N., and Kishida, K. (2008). Funny business in branching space-times: Infinite modal correlations. Synthese, 164(1):141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Placek, T. (2009). Possibilities without possible worlds/histories. Journal of Philosophical Logic, DOI/s10992-010-9159-x, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Placek, T. and Belnap, N. (2010). Indeterminism is a modal notion: branching spacetimes and Earman’s pruning. Synthese, DOI 10.1007/s11229-010-9846-8, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archive. Placek, T. and Müller, T. (2007). Counterfactuals and historical possibility. Synthese, 154(2):173–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Placek, T. and Wroński, L. (2009). On infinite EPR-like correlations. Synthese, 167(1):1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior, A. (1967). Past, present, and future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (1967). Time and physical geometry. The Journal of Philosophy, 64(8):240–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakić, N. (1997). Past, present, future, and special relativity. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48(2):257–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rietdijk, C. W. (1966). A rigorous proof of determinism derived from the special theory of relativity. Philosophy of Science, 33(4):341–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savitt, S. F. (2000). There’s no time like the present (in Minkowski spacetime). Philosophy of Science, 67:S563–S574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, H. (1991). On relativity theory and openness of the future. Philosophy of Science, 58(2):147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, R. H. (1970). Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria, 36:264–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem, J. (1991). The logic of time. Kluwer AP, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitrow, G. J. (1961). The Natural Philosophy of Time. Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wroński, L. and Placek, T. (2009). On Minkowskian branching structures. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 40:251–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University, 52 Grodzka, 31-044, Krakow, Poland

    Tomasz Placek

Authors
  1. Tomasz Placek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomasz Placek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inst. History & Foundations of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

    Dennis Dieks

  2. , Faculty of Humanities, University of A Coruña, Dr. Vazquez Cabrera street, w/n, Ferrol, 15.403, Spain

    Wenceslao J. Gonzalez

  3. PO Box 90153, Tilburg, 5000 LE, Netherlands

    Stephan Hartmann

  4. , Philosophy School of Social Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, Montserrat

    Thomas Uebel

  5. Universitätsstr. 10, Konstanz, 78464, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Marcel Weber

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this paper

Cite this paper

Placek, T. (2011). A Locus for “Now”. In: Dieks, D., Gonzalez, W., Hartmann, S., Uebel, T., Weber, M. (eds) Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation. The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1180-8_27

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation