Logos and Episteme 2 (3):455-464 (2011)
AbstractSteven Hales constructs a novel argument against the possibility of presentist time travel called the suicide machine argument. Hales argues that if presentism were true, then time travel would result in the annihilation of the time traveler. But such a consequence is not time travel, therefore presentism cannot allow for the possibility of time travel. This paper argues that in order for the suicide machine argument to succeed, it must make (at least) one of two assumptions, each of which beg the question. The argument must either assume that the sequence of moments is invariant, or that time travel requires distinct, co-instantiated moments. Because the former disjunct assumes that presentist time travel is impossible and the latter assumes that presentism is impossible, the suicide machine argument fails.
Similar books and articles
Still No Suicide for Presentists: Why Hales’ Response Fails.Jimmy Alfonso Licon - 2012 - Logos and Episteme (1):149-155.
Why Would Time Travelers Try to Kill Their Younger Selves?Nicholas J. J. Smith - 2005 - The Monist 88 (3):388-395.
Time Travel and Time Machines.Douglas Kutach - 2013 - In Adrian Bardon & Heather Dyke (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Time. Blackwell.
Time Travel: The Popular Philosophy of Narrative.David Wittenberg - 2013 - Fordham University Press.
Time Travel, Coincidences, and Counterfactuals.Theodore Sider - 2002 - Philosophical Studies 110 (2):115 - 138.
Presentists Can Believe in Closed Timelike Curves.Bradley Monton - 2003 - Analysis 63 (3):199–202.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads