Topics Time

Question Is time a logically coherent notion in the way we commonly understand it?

Accepted:
November 27, 2006

Comments

We normally think of the passage of time in terms of a 'moving present'--a point that moves steadily futurewards along the temporal dimension, so to speak, and carries us along from our births to our deaths. However, many philosophers, from McTaggart on, have argued that this idea is incoherent, and that 'now' no more refers to a genuine feature of reality than 'here' does. On their view (the 'B-series view) 'now' is an indexical term that simply refers to whatever time you are at, just as 'here' refers to whichever place you are at.

It is doubtful whether the idea of a moving present is strictly incoherent. But, even if it isn't, our best theories of reality may well do without it. Perhaps we can explain everything we want to explain, including our experience of the passage of time, without positing a moving present. Indeed some philosophers argue that, even if you do posit a moving present, it is no help at all in explaining the things we want to explain.

There is a huge literature on this issue. A good place to start would be http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/ sections 4-6.

Question Is time a logically coherent notion in the way we commonly understand it? Accepted:November 27, 2006

Question Is time a logically coherent notion in the way we commonly understand it?

Accepted:
November 27, 2006