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 »
One form of the infamous Liar Paradox asks us to consider a person uttering the phrase “I am lying right now” and to determine if they are or are not lying. The paradox is supposed to emerge once one notices that if the person is lying then it follows that they are not lying, and… Read More »
Sorry, folks, about being absent from my blog for so long. I’m currently under a crunch-time of sorts regarding several different projects. Blogging for me is a spare-time thing, not an obsession, so when things get too hectic I have to take a break. And with this year’s philosophy job search fast approaching, posting will… Read More »
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 »
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 »
Just a few quick, not fully thought-out ideas on this topic. Consider the present-tensed statement “It is now 3 o’clock”. How should we articulate truth conditions for this statement? The dominant view is that the truth conditions must take into account the de facto time of utterance. Thus, (1) “It is now 3 o’clock” uttered… Read More »
There are many lame arguments. I’m going to focus on two. One is an argument for theism. The other is often used an argument against theism. Both are guilty of the same mistake: A
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 »
I don’t think so. Let me explain. To say that God freely creates is to say that he could have refrained from creating and that he could have created a different sort of world, one with different initial and boundary conditions. To say that God is timeless is to say that he undergoes no change… Read More »