Scholarlink

<p>Meyer (Erkenntnis 89:463–478, 2024) argues that the Moving Spotlight Theory (MST) of time entails the falsehood of the widely-accepted tense-logical principles that what is true always will have been true (∀<i>p</i>(<i>p</i> → GP<i>p</i>)) and that what is true always was going to be true (∀<i>p</i>(<i>p</i> → HF<i>p</i>)). In this article, I describe Meyer’s argument as I understand it (Sect.&#xa0;<InternalRef RefID="Sec2">2</InternalRef>); argue that MST does not have this strange consequence (Sect.&#xa0;<InternalRef RefID="Sec3">3</InternalRef>); and attempt to diagnose the source of Meyer’s error (Sect.&#xa0;<InternalRef RefID="Sec4">4</InternalRef>). My aim is not simply to respond to Meyer’s argument on behalf of MST, but to gain a better understanding of the theory and of the source of a certain family of objections that are typically raised against it.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

How the Present will be: Reply to Meyer

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月6日

查看全文
  • Daniel Deasy

摘要

Meyer (Erkenntnis 89:463–478, 2024) argues that the Moving Spotlight Theory (MST) of time entails the falsehood of the widely-accepted tense-logical principles that what is true always will have been true (∀p(p → GPp)) and that what is true always was going to be true (∀p(p → HFp)). In this article, I describe Meyer’s argument as I understand it (Sect. 2); argue that MST does not have this strange consequence (Sect. 3); and attempt to diagnose the source of Meyer’s error (Sect. 4). My aim is not simply to respond to Meyer’s argument on behalf of MST, but to gain a better understanding of the theory and of the source of a certain family of objections that are typically raised against it.