Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    B-occurring entails A-occurring. — Carmelics
    Home/Afterlife & Death
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    B-occurring entails A-occurring.

    Afterlife & Death
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • If something occurs at a temporal B-location t that is now, it occurs now.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A-series temporal predicates like 'now' are mind-dependent indexicals, not objective features of reality (McTaggart, Russell).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.B-series locations are tenseless relational facts that obtain independently of any observer's present moment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A fact about B-location cannot entail a mind-dependent A-determination without smuggling in a privileged observer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.In eternalist B-theory, all temporal locations are equally real and none is ontologically privileged as 'now' (Price, Sider).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no B-location is intrinsically 'now,' then occupying a B-location does not entail occupying the A-position of presentness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Afterlife & Death

    Related

    A fact about B-location cannot entail a mind-dependent A-determination without s...A-series temporal predicates like 'now' are mind-dependent indexicals, not objec...B-series locations are tenseless relational facts that obtain independently of a...If no B-location is intrinsically 'now,' then occupying a B-location does not en...
    +2 moreShow less
    If something occurs at a temporal B-location t that is now, it occurs now.In eternalist B-theory, all temporal locations are equally real and none is onto...

    Similar

    A-occurring does not entail B-occurring.91%Something can A-occur without B-occurring.80%If two events are B-simultaneous and they B-occur, they are A-simultan...76%If two events occur at the same atemporal now and A-occur, they are A-...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: eternity
    View source passageHide passage
    Now return to Leftow’s view. Let A-occurring be occurring now, and let B-occurring be occurring at a certain temporal location t that is now. (This is intended to be continuous with McTaggart’s distinction.) B-occurring entails A-occurring: if something occurs at a temporal B-location t that is now, it occurs now. But not vice versa. Something can occur now without occurring at a temporal B-location t that is now. Something can, that is, A-occur without B-occurring. Now define A-simultaneity as occurring “at the same now”. B-simultaneity, by contrast, is having the same temporal B-location in ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit