Bivalence, Future Contingents and the Open Future

  • Fabrice Correia
  • Sven Rosenkranz
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 395)


In this chapter we critically discuss the objection that since truths require grounds, the Growing Block Theory must take bivalence to fail for future contingents, while it proves at odds with the best account of such a failure. We challenge the version of the grounding requirement driving this objection, devise a better formulation, and show that the theory can retain bivalence and accommodate an interesting form of indeterminism. After rehearsing the objection in Sect. 7.1, in Sect. 7.2 we review different ways to articulate the grounding requirement, conclude that it should suffice that, for any tensed truth, sometimes there be grounds for it, and show how this requirement can be met by contingent truths about the future. In Sect. 7.3 we explicate a conception of the asymmetry between the open future and the fixed past, consistent with bivalence and available to the Growing Block Theory but none of its rivals.


  1. Baia, A. (2012). Presentism and the grounding of truth. Philosophical Studies, 159, 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belnap, N., Perloff, M., & Xu, M. (2001). Facing the future. Agents and choices in our indeterminist world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bigelow, J. (1996). Presentism and properties. Philosophical Perspectives, 10, 35–52.Google Scholar
  4. Broad, C. D. (1923). Scientific thought. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Broad, C. D. (1937). The Philosophical Implications of Foreknowledge, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 16, 177–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broad, C. D. (1938). Examination of McTaggart’s philosophy (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Correia, F., & Schnieder, B. (2012). Metaphysical grounding. Understanding the structure of reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dummett, M. (2004). Truth and the past. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gallois, A. (2004). Comments on ted sider: Four-Dimensionalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 68, 648–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kierland, B., & Monton, B. (2007). Presentism and the objection from being-Supervenience. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 85, 485–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacFarlane, J. (2003). Future contingents and relative truth. The Philosophical Quarterly, 53, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Markosian, N. (1995). The open past. Philosophical Studies, 79, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McTaggart, J. M. E. (1927). The Nature of Existence, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mellor, H. (1998). Real time II. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merricks, T. (2007). Truth and ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Prior, A. N. (1953). Three-valued logic and future contingents. The Philosophical Quarterly, 3, 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Prior, A. N. (1967). Past, present and future. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosenkranz, S. (2012). In Defence of Ockhamism, Philosophia – Philosophical Quarterly of Israel 40, 617–31, reprinted as ‘In Defense of Ockhamism’ in J. M. Fischer and P. Todd (eds.), Freedom, Fatalism, and Foreknowledge, New York 2015: Oxford University Press, 343–60.Google Scholar
  19. Rosenkranz, S. (2013). Determinism, the open future and branching time. In Correia and Iacona 2013 (pp. 47–72).Google Scholar
  20. Ross, W. D., et al. (1908). The works of Aristotle, volume 8: Metaphysica. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sider, T. (2001). Four-Dimensionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tallant, J., & Ingram, D. (2015). Nefarious Presentism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 65, 355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomason, R. H. (1970). Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria, 36, 264–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Westphal, J. (2006). The future and the truth-value links: A common sense view. Analysis, 66, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Williams, D. C. (1951b). The sea fight tomorrow. In P. Henle, H. M. Kallen, & S. K. Langer (Eds.), Structure, method and meaning (pp. 282–306). New York: Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrice Correia
    • 1
  • Sven Rosenkranz
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Département de PhilosophieUniversité de GenèveGenèveSwitzerland
  2. 2.ICREABarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Departament de FilosofiaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations