Dear all,

Monday's current projects google notice went out claiming the paper was "TBA". 
In fact, TBA could be read as an acronym for "The B- and A-theory" and 
therefore as offering the roughly correct title for the paper. But here is the 
improvement nonetheless:

 On our concept of time and the modal status of the A- and B-theory
What is the modal status of the A- and the B-theory of time? Ought we to be 
necessitarians or contingentists about these views? This paper examines these 
questions by considering a number of different analysis of our concept of time 
in order to determine whether, given each different analysis, one or the other 
of the A- or B-theory is conceptually incoherent. It is argued that whether one 
ought to be a contingentist or a necessitarian about the A- and B-theories 
depends on how sensitive one thinks our concept of time is, to the way our 
world is. This is because analyses fall into two broad categories: straight 
analyses and world sensitive analyses where the latter are analyses according 
to which what time turns out to be is sensitive to facts about the way the 
actual world turns out to be and the former are not sensitive in this way. I 
argue that on almost all of the straight analyses contingentism is vindicated, 
whereas on all the most plausible world sensitive analyses necessitarianism is 
vindicated. 




Dr. Kristie Miller
University of Sydney 
Senior Research Fellow
School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry and
The Centre for Time
The University of Sydney
Sydney Australia
Room 411, A 18

[email protected]
[email protected]
Ph: 02 93569663
http://homepage.mac.com/centre.for.time/KristieMiller/Kristie/Home_Page.html






_______________________________________________
SydPhil mailing list: http://sydphil.info

1000 subscribers now served!!

To UNSUBSCRIBE, change your MEMBERSHIP OPTIONS, find ANSWERS TO COMMON 
PROBLEMS, or visit our ONLINE ARCHIVES, please go to the LIST INFORMATION PAGE: 
http://sydphil.info

Reply via email to