Author Archives: Alan Rhoda

Tense Logic, Bivalence, and Open Theism

In previous blog posts I’ve discussed two opposing tense logics: (a) Ockhamist and (b) Peircean. Ockhamist tense logic takes as its characteristic axiom the claim that (O) □(∀p)(∀t)(∀u: u

Peircean vs. Ockhamist Tense Logic – Part 2

In an earlier post, I explained the difference between the ‘Peircean’ and ‘Ockhamist’ systems of tense logic. Simply put, the Ockhamist construes the future tense-operator “will” to mean merely “happens subsequently to the time of the utterance”. Thus, if someone says of a completely indeterministic coin before it is tossed “it will land heads” and… Read More: Peircean vs. Ockhamist Tense Logic – Part 2 »

A Short Note on Tense Logic

Blogging’s been light because I’ve been tied up for most of this month with several projects that are at crunch time. One of those projects is a substantial revision of my paper “A Defense of Prior’s ‘Peircean’ Tense Logic” that I presented at a conference in April 2006. As with most issues, I’ve found that… Read More: A Short Note on Tense Logic »

Propositions and Indexicals

An indexical is a pointing word, one used to refer directly to something. (To remember this, think of your index finger, the one you use to point with.) Examples include ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘it’, ‘we’, ‘they’, ‘this’, ‘that’, ‘here’, and ‘now’. Clearly, indexicals are an important part of our speech. In fact, nearly every… Read More: Propositions and Indexicals »

Pure Actuality and Immutability

Many theists who subscribe to divine immutability and timelessness follow Aquinas in holding that God is Pure Act. For Aquinas, this means not only that God is completely determinate and without any residual indeterminacy or “potency” but also that God is existence or “actuality” pure and simple (ipsum esse subsistens, actus purus, etc.), without any… Read More: Pure Actuality and Immutability »