Truth in the Garden of Forking Paths

MacFarlane, John

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234950.003.0004

Cited by 112 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Much of the recent literature on the thin red line does not distinguish these two issues as clearly as it should. See also MacFarlane (2003MacFarlane ( , 2008, Torre (2011), and Correia and Iacona (2013). Manuscrito -Rev.…”

Section: The Thin Red Linementioning

confidence: 99%

Fatalism as a Metaphysical Thesis

Meyer

2016

Manuscrito

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Thin Red Linementioning

confidence: 99%

Fatalism as a Metaphysical Thesis

Meyer

2016

Manuscrito

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conservative definition of Actually 1 : M; c; m=h @ 1 / iff M; c; IðcÞ=h 0 / for every h 0 such that IðcÞ 2 h 0 . (Belnap et al 2001, p. 246 The litmus paper that I am going to use to test the definitions is the initialredundancy requirement for the actuality operator proposed by MacFarlane (2008). The requirement, appropriately modified for our notation, should be understood as a demand that for any model M, any sentence /, and any context c:…”

Section: Actuality Complaintmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thomason (1970) carefully defined the Ockhamist semantics but he was far from endorsing it in full generality, he just used it as a tool for his branch-independent supervaluational semantics. Recently, MacFarlane (2003MacFarlane ( , 2008) applied a relativist semantics to explain our predictions with no need of specification of a future branch. Finally, a group of philosophers and logicians, beginning with McKim and Davis (1976), has tried to extend Ockhamism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, I believe that this mode of presentation would affect the clarity of the arguments, so I decided to coin a technical notion of accessible context. This approach seems to be implicitly assumed by Thomason (1970) and MacFarlane (2003MacFarlane ( , 2008, and is almost explicitly stated by Belnap et al (2001). I will call these assumptions ''branching concretism'' to stress Belnap et al's metaphysical view which gives rise to them.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Truth About the Future

Wawer

2013

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a long-standing disagreement among Branching-Time theorists. Even though they all believe that the branching representation accurately grasps the idea that the future, contrary to the past, is open, they argue whether this representation is compatible with the claim that one among many possible futures is distinguished-the single future that will come to be. This disagreement is paralleled in an argument about the bivalence of future contingents. The single, privileged future is often called the Thin Red Line. I reconstruct the history of the arguments for and against this idea. Then, I propose my own version of the Thin Red Line theory which is immune to the major objections found in the literature. I argue that the semantic disagreement is grounded in distinct metaphysical presuppositions. My solution is expressed in a conceptual framework proposed by John MacFarlane, who distinguishes semantics from postsemantics. I extend his distinction and introduce a new notion of presemantics to elucidate my idea.

show abstract

“…10 This point is convincingly vindicated by Loss (2012) in response to an objection of MacFarlane (2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Supervaluationism and the timeless solution to the foreknowledge problem

Cobreros¹

2016

SetF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. If God knew I were going to write this paper, was I able to refrain from writing it this morning? One possible response to this question is that God's knowledge does not take place in time and therefore He does not properly fore-know. According to this response, God knows absolutely everything, it's just that He knows everything outside of time. The so-called timeless solution was one of the influential responses to the foreknowledge problem in classical Christian Theology. This solution, however, seemed to lose support in the recent debate. For example, Pike claims that "the doctrine of God's timelessness entered Christian Theology (only) because Platonic thought was stylish at the time" (Pike, 1970, 190) and Hasker (2001) catalogues this as one of the minor solutions to the problem. One possible source for this general attitude towards timelessness is the thought that the very idea of timelessness is incoherent. In this paper I argue that that the timeless solution to the foreknowledge problem is congenial with the supervaluationist theory of branching time and that this formal framework provides, in fact, a precise characterization of the timeless solution to the foreknowledge problem. The views presented in this paper are in line with those of Kretzmann and Stump (1981), Leftow (1991) andDe Florio andFrigerio (2015).

show abstract

Truth in the Garden of Forking Paths

Cited by 112 publications

References 10 publications

Fatalism as a Metaphysical Thesis

Fatalism as a Metaphysical Thesis

The Truth About the Future

Supervaluationism and the timeless solution to the foreknowledge problem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About