Replies to Cameron, Wilson and Leininger

Analysis 78 (1):128-138 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

© The Author 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Analysis Trust. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected] Cameron thinks that MST-Supertime, MST-Supertense and MST-Time are defective as versions of the moving spotlight theory and goes on to describe what he thinks they are missing. But I don’t think they are defective; and what Cameron says is missing from these theories is actually present in a version of MST-Time that appears in the book.Cameron thinks that MST-Supertime, to start with, is inconsistent, and so the worst of the lot. He thinks McTaggart’s argument shows it to be inconsistent. But the theory is not inconsistent. We can draw a picture of what reality is like according to the theory, and the picture doesn’t confuse us the way M. C. Escher's pictures of inconsistent situations do. Figure 1 contains such a picture: the arrows...

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-02-16

Downloads
61 (#258,521)

6 months
6 (#504,917)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Bradford Skow
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Citations of this work

Skow on Robust Passage and The Moving Spotlight Theory.Daniel Deasy - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (7):1791-1805.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The End of Counterpart Theory.Trenton Merricks - 2003 - Journal of Philosophy 100 (10):521-549.

Add more references