Advertisement

Against Detensers

Not for tensers
  • Helena Eilstein
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 309)

Abstract

The T/P dispute, between transientism and permanentism, concerns the objectivity of the concept of becoming. By detensers I mean those permanentists who try to make their point by semantical analysis of ‘temporal language’. I criticize that type of argumentation as well as some other arguments leveled by either party. If the dispute might be at least hypothetically resolved, that would have to be by means of analyzing the basic theories of contemporary science. It turns out, however, against that background that permanentism is irrefutable even in case it is false. The commitment to transientism is cognitively unwarranted although it is the attitude we tend to assume in practical life.

Keywords

Special Relativity Contemporary Physic Ontological Status Standard Interpretation Conceptual Frame 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Belnap, N. ‘Branching Space-time’, 1992, Synthese, 92.Google Scholar
  2. Broad, C, ‘Ostensible Temporality’, in the collection of R. Gale.Google Scholar
  3. Beauregard de, O., Time, the Physical Magnitude 1987, Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel Publishing House.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butterfield, J., ‘Seeing the Present’ in the collection of Le Poidevin.Google Scholar
  5. Čapek, M., Bergson and Modern Physics, 1971, Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.Google Scholar
  6. Čapek, M., ’Two Types of Continuity’, in the collection of R.S. Cohen and M.W. Wartofsky, Logical and Epistemological Studies in Contemporary Physics, 1974, Reidel.Google Scholar
  7. Čapek, M., ‘The Unreality and Indeterminacy of the Future in the Light of Contemporary Physics’ in the collection of D. Griffin.Google Scholar
  8. Davies, P. (ed.), The New Physics, 1992, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Deutsch, D., The Fabric of Reality, 1997, London: The Penguin Press, Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  10. Earman, J., Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers and Shrieks, 1995, Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  11. Earman, J., ‘Recent Work on Time Travel’, in the collection of S. Savitt.Google Scholar
  12. Earman, J. and Gale, R., ‘Time’ in: R. Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eilstein, H., ‘Prof. Shimony and the Transient Now”‘ 1996, Synthese, 107.Google Scholar
  14. Eilstein, H., Life Contemplative, Life Practical, an Essay on Fatalism, in the series Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 1997, Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  15. Ford, L., Roman, T., ‘Negative Energy, Worm Holes and Warp Drive’, Scientific American, Jan. 2000.Google Scholar
  16. Gale, R.M., The Language of Time, 1968, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  17. Gale, R.M., (ed.), The Philosophy of Time, 1978, New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  18. Griffin, D.R. (ed.), Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time, 1986, State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goldstein, S., ‘Quantum Theory without Observers’, Physics Today, March and April, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. Gödel, K., ‘Relativity and Idealistic Philosophy’, in: P. A. Schilpp (ed), Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist; The Library of Living Philosophers, 1951, New York: Tudor Publ. Co.Google Scholar
  21. Hawking, S.W., ‘The Edge of Spacetime’, in the collectoin of P. Davies.Google Scholar
  22. Heller, M, ‘Granice przestrzeni i czasu [The Limits of Space and Time]’ in the collection of M. Heller, J. Mączak and J. Urbaniec.Google Scholar
  23. Heller, M., Mączak J., Urbaniec, J.,(eds), Granice nauki [The Limits of Science], 1997, Tarnów: Biblos Publ. House.Google Scholar
  24. Heller, M., Sasin, W., ‘Emergence of Time’,1998, Physics Letters A, 250.Google Scholar
  25. — ‘Time and Physics — a Noncommutative Evolution’, this collection.Google Scholar
  26. — ‘Cosmological Singularity and the Creation of the Universe’, Zygon, September 2000, vol. 35, no. 3Google Scholar
  27. Jones, W.B., ‘Physics and Metaphysics: Henry Stapp on Time’,in the collection of D.R. Griffin.Google Scholar
  28. Le Poidevin, R. ‘The Past, Present and Future of the Debate about Tense’, in his collection.Google Scholar
  29. Le Poidevin, R. (ed.), Questions of Time and Tense, 1998, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lockwood, M., 1997, ‘As Time Goes By’, International Studies in the Philosophy of science, vol. 11.Google Scholar
  31. McCall, S., A Model of the Universe, 1994, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  32. McTaggart, J.M.E., ‘Time’, in he collection of R. Gale.Google Scholar
  33. Mellor, D.H., ‘The Need for Tense’, in the collection of Q. Smith and L.N. Oaklander.Google Scholar
  34. Nerlich,G., ‘Time as Spacetime’, in the collection of R. Le Poidevin.Google Scholar
  35. Oaklander, L.N., ‘A Defense of the New Tenseless Theory of Time’ in the collection of L.N. Oaklander and Q. Smith.Google Scholar
  36. — ‘Freedom and the New Theory of Time’ , in the collection of R. Le Poidevin.Google Scholar
  37. Temporal Relations and Temporal Becoming, 1984, Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  38. Oaklander, L.N., Smith, Q. (eds.), The New Theory of Time, 1994, New Haven and London: The University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Placek, T., ‘Branching for a Transient Time’, this collection.Google Scholar
  40. Prior, A., ‘Thank Goodness That’s Over’, 1959, Philosophy 34.Google Scholar
  41. Putnam, H., ‘Time and Physical Geometry’, in his Philosophical Papers, vol.I, 1975, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rakič, N., ‘Past, Present, Future, and Special Relativity’, 1997, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, volume 48. Nr. 2. Google Scholar
  43. Rietdijk, C.W., ‘Special Relativity and Determinism’, 1976, Philosophy of Science, 43. Google Scholar
  44. Rosenthal, S. Time, Continuity and Indeterminacy; A pragmatic Engagement with Contemporary Perspectives, 2000, SUNY.Google Scholar
  45. Rovelli, C, ‘Analysis of the Distinct Meanings of the Notion of Time in Different Physical Theories’, 1995, Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 110 B, N. 1, pp. 81 and 86.Google Scholar
  46. Saunders, S., ‘The Quantum Mechanics and Tense’, 1996, Synthese, 107.Google Scholar
  47. Savitt, S.F., (ed.), Time’s Arrows Today, 1995, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Shimony, A., ‘The Transient Now’, in: A. Shimony, Search for the Naturalistic World-View, 1993, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, Q., ‘Absolue Simultaneit and the Infinity of Time’ in the collection of R. Le Poidevin.Google Scholar
  50. — ‘General Introduction’, in the collection of L.N. Oaklander and Q. Smith.Google Scholar
  51. Language and Time, 1993, Oxford University Press,Google Scholar
  52. — ‘The Phenomenology of A-Time’, in the collection of L.N. Oaklander and Q. Smith.Google Scholar
  53. Stapp, H., ‘Einstein Time and Process Time’ in the collection of D.R. Griffin.Google Scholar
  54. Teichman, R., a review of the collection of Le Poidevin, The Britsh Journal for the Philosophy of Science, December 1999. Google Scholar
  55. Whitrow, G.J., The Natural Philosophy of Time, 1980, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  56. Weyl, H., Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science, 1946, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Zeh, H.-D., The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time, 1986, Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  58. Zeilicovici, D. ‘A [Dis]solution of MCTaggart’s Paradox’, 1986, Ratio, 28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helena Eilstein
    • 1
  1. 1.WarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations