Abstract
The aim of this paper is to argue that the adoption of an unrestricted principle of bivalence is compatible with a metaphysics that (i) denies that the future is real, (ii) adopts nomological indeterminism, and (iii) exploits a branching structure to provide a semantics for future contingent claims. To this end, we elaborate what we call Flow Fragmentalism, a view inspired by Kit Fine (2005)’s non-standard tense realism, according to which reality is divided up into maximally coherent collections of tensed facts. In this way, we show how to reconcile a genuinely A-theoretic branching-time model with the idea that there is a branch corresponding to the thin red line, that is, the branch that will turn out to be the actual future history of the world.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 354-382 |
| Number of pages | 29 |
| Journal | Pacific Philosophical Quarterly |
| Volume | 101 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2020 |
Keywords
- Branching Time
- Fragmentalism
- Presentism
- Principle of Bivalence
- Thin Red Line