Hostname: page-component-8678677fb7-bbpp6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-10-20T07:55:21.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

There's No Time Like the Present (in Minkowski Spacetime)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Steven F. Savitt
Steven F. Savitt*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z1; e-mail: savitt@interchange.ubc.ca.
Get access ImageRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mark Hinchliff concludes a recent paper, “The Puzzle of Change,” with a section entitled “Is the Presentist Refuted by the Special Theory of Relativity?” His answer is “no.”

I respond by arguing that presentists face great difficulties in merely stating their position in Minkowski spacetime. I round up some likely candidates for the job and exhibit their deficiencies.

Information

Type
Philosophy of Physics and Chemistry
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Sep., 2000 , 2000 , pp. S563 - S574
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

I am greatly indebted to Paul Bartha, John Collier, Mark Hinchliff, Paul Jeffries, and Simon Saunders for helpful suggestions and comments. I am grateful to the UBC Hampton Fund for their support of this research.

References

Bigelow, John (1996), “Presentism and Properties,” in Tomberlin, James E. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives 10: Metaphysics, 1966. Cambridge, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dorato, Mauro (1995), Time and Reality: Spacetime Physics and the Objectivity of Temporal Becoming. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna.Google Scholar
Earman, John (1995), Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gödel, Kurt (1949), “A Remark About the Relationship Between Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy,” in Schilpp, P. (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. LaSalle, IL: Open Court. Reprinted with additions and corrections in K. Gödel (1990), Collected Works, vol II. Edited by Feferman, S. et al. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, William (1979), “Special Relativity and the Present”, Philosophical Studies 36: 233–244.10.1007/BF00372628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinchliff, Mark (1996), “The Puzzle of Change”, in Tomberlin, James E. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives 10: Metaphysics, 1996. Cambridge, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Minkowski, Hermann (1908), “Space and Time”, Reprinted in Smart 1964. Translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffrey. Originally an address delivered at the 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians at Cologne.Google Scholar
Misner, Charles, Thorne, Kip, and Wheeler, John (1973), Gravitation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Naber, Gregory (1988), Spacetime and Singularities: An Introduction Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, Ernest (1961), The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace & World.10.1119/1.1937571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, Arthur (1970), “The Notion of the Present”, Studium Generale 23: 245–238. Reprinted in J. T. Fraser, F. C. Haber, and G. H. Miller (eds.), The Study of Time. Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York: Springer-Verlag, 1972.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1967), “Time and Physical Geometry”, Journal of Philosophy 64: 240–247. Reprinted in Putnam's Collected Papers, vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietdijk, Cornellis (1966), “A Rigorous Proof of Determinism Derived from the Special Theory of Relativity”, Philosophy of Science 33: 341–344.10.1086/288106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietdijk, Cornellis. (1976), “Special Relativity and Determinism”, Philosophy of Science 43: 598–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robb, Alfred (1921), The Absolute Relations of Time and Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Savitt, Steven (1994), “The Replacement of Time”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72: 463–474.10.1080/00048409412346261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, Lawrence (1981), “Time, Reality, and Relativity”, in Healy, Richard (ed.), Reduction, Time, and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Philosophy and Spacetime Physics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Smart, John (1964), Problems of Space and Time. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stein, Howard (1968), “On Einstein-Minkowski Space-time”, Journal of Philosophy 65: 5–23.10.2307/2024512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Howard. (1991), “On Relativity Theory and Openness of the Future”, Philosophy of Science 58: 147–167.10.1086/289609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bastiaan (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198244274.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yourgrau, Palle (1991), The Disappearance of Time: Kurt Gödel and the Idealistic Tradition in Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weingard, Robert (1972), “Relativity and the Reality of Past and Future Events”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23: 119–121.10.1093/bjps/23.2.119CrossRefGoogle Scholar