Scholarlink

<p>This paper examines a 1996 debate with Nuel Belnap on the thin red line (TRL) in branching-time semantics. While A.N. Prior’s tense-logic did not incorporate a privileged future, he discussed the idea as a possible interpretation of Ockham’s logic. The TRL asserts that one future among many is “true”, preserving bivalence, but Belnap and Green (Philos Perspect 8:365–388, 1994) argued that this contradicts indeterminism. The paper explores the origins of the term “thin red line”, Belnap and Green’s objections, and refinements to the TRL, conceived as a dynamic function for selecting a privileged chronicle at each moment in a branching time model. It also examines Belnap’s response to these refinements and situates the debate within broader discussions on Ockhamism and Molinism.</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

A 1996 Debate with Nuel Belnap on the Thin Red Line

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月20日

查看全文
  • Peter Øhrstrøm

摘要

This paper examines a 1996 debate with Nuel Belnap on the thin red line (TRL) in branching-time semantics. While A.N. Prior’s tense-logic did not incorporate a privileged future, he discussed the idea as a possible interpretation of Ockham’s logic. The TRL asserts that one future among many is “true”, preserving bivalence, but Belnap and Green (Philos Perspect 8:365–388, 1994) argued that this contradicts indeterminism. The paper explores the origins of the term “thin red line”, Belnap and Green’s objections, and refinements to the TRL, conceived as a dynamic function for selecting a privileged chronicle at each moment in a branching time model. It also examines Belnap’s response to these refinements and situates the debate within broader discussions on Ockhamism and Molinism.