The future, and what might have been

Philosophical Studies 176 (2):505-532 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
We show that five important elements of the ‘nomological package’— laws, counterfactuals, chances, dispositions, and counterfactuals—needn’t be a problem for the Growing-Block view. We begin with the framework given in Briggs and Forbes (in The real truth about the unreal future. Oxford studies in metaphysics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012 ), and, taking laws as primitive, we show that the Growing-Block view has the resources to provide an account of possibility, and a natural semantics for non-backtracking causal counterfactuals. We show how objective chances might ground a more fine-grained concept of feasibility, and furnished a places in the structure where causation and dispositions might fit. The Growing-Block view, thus understood, provides the resources to explain the close link between modality and tense, so that it predicts modal change as time passes. This account lets us capture not only what the future might hold for us, and also what might have been.
Reprint years
2019
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BRITFA-8
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-01-30
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Remarks on Counterpossibles.Brogaard, Berit & Salerno, Joe

View all 41 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2018-01-30

Total downloads
107 ( #20,335 of 37,125 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
21 ( #16,293 of 37,125 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.