tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post6641679249212597614..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: An open future precludes present motionAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-6525424419340792722016-07-26T14:03:55.917-05:002016-07-26T14:03:55.917-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-22153734108153596812016-07-26T09:49:11.238-05:002016-07-26T09:49:11.238-05:00If it stopped, then the statement would cease bein...If it stopped, then the statement would cease being true, and the person would normally change course and say it isn't moving anymore. In the course of their saying that, it might start moving again, in which case they'd change course again and say "there it goes again". They have yet to speak falsely....Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-30145579815014968582016-07-25T10:09:25.154-05:002016-07-25T10:09:25.154-05:00But at any particular time during the speaking, th...But at any particular time during the speaking, the arrow might have stopped (that depends on the future). It's only in hindsight that we can say it was moving.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-86962064686991961062016-07-25T09:35:39.253-05:002016-07-25T09:35:39.253-05:00Why isn't it true during the course of the sen...Why isn't it true during the course of the sentence that the arrow is moving? If a person reports about a current, ongoing event, they speak truthfully unless they are still calling it current and ongoing after it has stopped.Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-36993241539747682016-07-25T08:45:17.561-05:002016-07-25T08:45:17.561-05:00While she's yet speaking, the truth value of t...While she's yet speaking, the truth value of the sentence isn't fixed (assuming an open future). Only just after she has spoken is it fixed. But by then the statement is about the past.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-47512445232541021432016-07-25T07:11:03.066-05:002016-07-25T07:11:03.066-05:00The open future presentist says "the arrow is...The open future presentist says "the arrow is moving", and she means during the course of her speaking the sentence. It is indeed moving during that time; she does not speak falsely in saying it. Moreover, I think the B-theorist has a harder time of this, since the arrow actually never moves, but exists statically and unchangingly as a 4-dimensional smear.Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-39121964850689302782016-07-23T08:35:57.726-05:002016-07-23T08:35:57.726-05:00Michael:
Take the tensed proposition p expressed ...Michael:<br /><br />Take the tensed proposition p expressed by "The arrow is moving". If my argument is right, then on open future views p is never true. What may be true, however, is that the arrow was moving: that the open futurist presentist can say with a clear conscience.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-67193825761209988172016-07-22T10:45:18.420-05:002016-07-22T10:45:18.420-05:00Richard H: Do you mean "where it ISN'T&qu...Richard H: Do you mean "where it ISN'T" at some future point in time? If so, then I doubt a presentist can accept that. There just aren't any facts at all about the future, on presentism, and we normally point to the present tense phrasing of "is" or "isn't" in questions like yours to further emphasize the cognitive dissonance of talking about future facts.Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-52501988625115964312016-07-22T09:07:04.026-05:002016-07-22T09:07:04.026-05:00With regard to Premise 2: How about a negative fac...With regard to Premise 2: How about a negative fact:If an arrow is moving, there might not be an identifiable fact about where it IS, but could there be a fact of where it ISN'T?Richard Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04787755397416393855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-53062753835317209262016-07-22T08:44:23.604-05:002016-07-22T08:44:23.604-05:00You could just rephrase it as "an arrow is ne...You could just rephrase it as "an arrow is never moving <i>forward</i> at any instant", and the argument would go through just fine. I don't think there are any instants, but, even if there were the real issue is what I mentioned about single frames vs. what the presentist actually means when they say "the arrow is moving". They mean that it is in motion during the course of their uttering the sentence. They don't mean that it will definitely continue in motion (perhaps it will; perhaps it won't).Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-22512626828366234762016-07-22T08:11:35.253-05:002016-07-22T08:11:35.253-05:00I assumed that if an arrow is moving, it is moving...I assumed that if an arrow is moving, it is moving in some direction.<br />I guess it could in principle also be rotating, but that isn't happening in the case at hand.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-73892759454876119882016-07-22T07:54:15.914-05:002016-07-22T07:54:15.914-05:00Premise 1 is worded with regard to mere movement; ...Premise 1 is worded with regard to mere movement; the defense of Premise 1 is worded with regard to <i>forward vs. backward</i> movement. Whether the arrow is moving forward or backward doesn't change the fact that it is moving.<br /><br />In any case, even if I granted that there are instants, I don't think we should grant that objects are EVER moving at an instant. If you think of it like frames of a film, doesn't it seem obvious that nothing is ever moving on any given frame? It's a sequence of stills. It seems to me that nothing ever moves on THAT view. On presentism, when one says "the arrow is moving now", they mean during the course of them saying that sentence. And indeed, the arrow could stop during that couple of seconds, in which case the person usually says "oh, I guess it's not anymore".Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.com