Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that B-occurring entails A-occurring.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
A-series temporal predicates like 'now' are mind-dependent indexicals, not objective features of reality (McTaggart, Russell).
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
In eternalist B-theory, all temporal locations are equally real and none is ontologically privileged as 'now' (Price, Sider).
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
If something occurs at a temporal B-location t that is now, it occurs now.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.