Philosophia Verlag (
2013)
Copy
BIBTEX
Abstract
The book is divided into three parts. The first, containing three
papers, focuses on the characterization of the central tenets of previii
sentism (by Neil McKinnon) and eternalism (by Samuel Baron and
Kristie Miller), and on the ‘sceptical stance’ (by Ulrich Meyer), a
view to the effect that there is no substantial difference between
presentism and eternalism.
The second and main section of the book contains three pairs of
papers that bring the main problems with presentism to the fore
and outlines its defence strategy. Each pair of papers in this section
can be read as a discussion between presentists and eternalists,
wherein each directly responds to the arguments and objections
offered by the other. This is a discussion that is sometimes absent
in the literature, or which is at best carried out in a fragmented
way.
The first two papers of the section deal with the problem of the
compatibility of Special Relativity Theory (SRT) and presentism.
SRT is often considered to be a theory that contradicts the main
tenet of presentism, thereby rendering presentism at odds with one
of our most solid scientific theories. Christian Wüthrich’s paper
presents arguments for the incompatibility of the two theories
(SRT and presentism) within a new framework that includes a discussion
of further complications arising from the theory of Qauantum
Mechanics. Jonathan Lowe’s paper, by contrast, develops new
general arguments against the incompatibility thesis and replies to
Wüthrich’s paper.
The second pair of papers focuses on the problem that presentists
face, in providing grounds for past tensed truths. In the first
(by Matthew Davidson), new arguments are provided to defend the
idea that the presentist cannot adequately explain how what is now
true about the past is grounded, since for the presentist the past is
completely devoid of ontological ground. The second paper (by
Brian Kierland) takes up the challenge of developing a presentist
explanation of past truths, beginning by outlining some existing
views in the literature before advancing an original proposal.