The Real Truth About the Unreal Future

In Karen Bennett & Dean Zimmerman (eds.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, volume 7 (2012)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Growing-Block theorists hold that past and present things are real, while future things do not yet exist. This generates a puzzle: how can Growing-Block theorists explain the fact that some sentences about the future appear to be true? Briggs and Forbes develop a modal ersatzist framework, on which the concrete actual world is associated with a branching-time structure of ersatz possible worlds. They then show how this branching structure might be used to determine the truth values of future contingents. They point out three different ways of interpreting the logical connectives, which give rise to three different logics of the open future: one supervaluationist, one corresponding to Lukasiewicz's strong Kleene logic, and one intuitionist.
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2013-01-11
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
The Future, and What Might Have Been.Forbes, Graeme A. & Briggs, R. A.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
525 ( #3,993 of 37,265 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
22 ( #15,886 of 37,265 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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