Immediate download Experiencing time 1st edition prosser ebooks 2024

Page 1


Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/experiencing-time-1st-edition-prosser/

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...

Experiencing mis David M. Kroenke

https://textbookfull.com/product/experiencing-mis-david-mkroenke/

What s in it for me Self interest and political difference 1st Edition Prosser

https://textbookfull.com/product/what-s-in-it-for-me-selfinterest-and-political-difference-1st-edition-prosser/

Experiencing MIS [Canadian Edition] David M. Kroenke

https://textbookfull.com/product/experiencing-mis-canadianedition-david-m-kroenke/

Memories on the Move: Experiencing Mobility, Rethinking the Past 1st Edition Monika Palmberger

https://textbookfull.com/product/memories-on-the-moveexperiencing-mobility-rethinking-the-past-1st-edition-monikapalmberger/

Consuming Atmospheres : Designing, Experiencing, and Researching Atmospheres in Consumption Spaces 1st Edition

https://textbookfull.com/product/consuming-atmospheres-designingexperiencing-and-researching-atmospheres-in-consumptionspaces-1st-edition-chloe-steadman/

Experiencing the Body: A Psychoanalytic Dialogue on Psychosomatics Jacques Press

https://textbookfull.com/product/experiencing-the-body-apsychoanalytic-dialogue-on-psychosomatics-jacques-press/

The Sensing Body in the Visual Arts Making and Experiencing Sculpture 1st Edition Rosalyn Driscoll

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-sensing-body-in-the-visualarts-making-and-experiencing-sculpture-1st-edition-rosalyndriscoll/

Victorian Children’s Literature: Experiencing Abjection, Empathy, and the Power of Love 1st Edition

Ruth Y. Jenkins (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/victorian-childrens-literatureexperiencing-abjection-empathy-and-the-power-of-love-1st-editionruth-y-jenkins-auth/

Experiencing ACT from the Inside Out A Self Practice Self Reflection Workbook for Therapists 1st Edition

Tirch

https://textbookfull.com/product/experiencing-act-from-theinside-out-a-self-practice-self-reflection-workbook-fortherapists-1st-edition-dennis-tirch/

ExperiencingTime

ExperiencingTime

SimonProsser

GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom

OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries

©SimonProsser2016

Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted

FirstEditionpublishedin2016

Impression:1

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove

Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer

PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica

BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData

Dataavailable

LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015956236

ISBN978–0–19–874894–6

PrintedinGreatBritainby ClaysLtd,StIvesplc

LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.

Contents

Acknowledgements vii

Preface ix

ListofFigures xiii

ListofTables xv

1.Introduction:TheMetaphysicsofTime1

1.1.TheA-theoryandtheB-theory2

1.2.OntologicalVariantsoftheA-theory3

1.3.OtherVariantsoftheA-theory7

1.4.TheB-theory10

1.5.TheDirectionofTime11

1.6.ArgumentsfortheB-theory13

2.ExperienceandthePassageofTime22

2.1.ExperiencingOnticBecoming27

2.2.L.A.Paul’sArgument28

2.3.ThePrivilegedPresent31

2.4.TheDetectorArgument33

2.5.HuwPrice’sArgumentandTimMaudlin’sReply39

2.6.TheMulti-DetectorArgument42

2.7.SomeObjectionstotheMulti-DetectorArgument47

2.8.CanExperienceRepresentthePassageofTime?51

2.9.TheUnintelligibilityoftheA-theory54

3.AttitudestothePast,Present,andFuture61

3.1.TheDateTheoryandtheToken-Re flexiveTheory62

3.2.ThankGoodnessThat’sOver65

3.3.ThePerson-Re flexiveTheory66

3.4.WhyThankGoodness?70

3.5.SEFRelations72

3.6.UnarticulatedConstituentsandFirst-PersonRedundancy76

3.7. ‘Now’,andtheProblemofCognitiveDynamics81

4.ExperiencingRatesandDurations84

4.1.LifeataDifferentPace84

4.2.Intentionalism90

4.3.TheContentof ‘Rate’ and ‘Duration’ Experience95

4.4.FunctionalistIntentionalism100

4.5.MoreAboutTemporalSEFRelations103

4.6.TheMultipleContentsofExperience

5.IsExperienceTemporallyExtended?

5.1.PerceivingChange

5.2.TheSpeciousPresent

5.3.AnArgumentfortheSpeciousPresent?

5.4.TheDynamicSnapshotTheory

6.WhyDoesChangeSeemDynamic?

6.1.ExistingAccountsoftheIllusionofPassage

Acknowledgements

Ihavebenefitedfromconversationsabouttemporalexperiencewithmanyphilosophersovertheyears,andIcannothopetothankthemallindividuallyhere.But IwouldliketoparticularlythankGeoffLee,LauriePaul,AkikoFrischhut,Vasilis Tsompanidis,DerekBall,EricStromquist,andtwoanonymousOUPreadersfor theirveryhelpfulcommentsonsomeorallofthechaptersofthebook.Thanksalso toMichaelTraynorforpointerstosomeadditionalliterature.Iamalsogratefulto audiencesinDurham,Glasgow(twice),Barcelona(twice),TrinityCollegeDublin, Gargnano,Geneva(twice),Aberdeen,Edinburgh,Krakow,andseveralaudiences inStAndrewsforfeedbackonideasthatappearinthebook.Finally,Iamgrateful toPeterMomtchiloffofOxfordUniversityPressforhishelpfulnessand encouragement.

Duringtheautumnof2012Ispentaveryenjoyableandproductivetermasa FellowatDurhamUniversity’sInstituteofAdvancedStudy,workingontemporal experienceandespeciallythematerialthatappearsinChapter5.Iamhugelygrateful toVeronicaStrangandtherestoftheteamattheInstitute,andalsotoSimonHackett andthestaffofStMary ’sCollege,fortheirwarmwelcomeandforcreatingan environmentsoconducivetoresearch.WhileattheInstituteIbenefitedgreatlyfrom conversationswithUdoWill,RobertLevine,andtheotherIASFellows.

Noneofthematerialinthisbookhasbeenpublishedpreviouslyinitscurrent form,thoughChapters2,3,and6dodrawonideasandargumentsfromProsser 2013a,2006,and2012respectively.Chapter6containsafewbriefsectionsthat duplicatesometextfromProsser2012,andIamgratefultoJohnWiley&Sonsfor permissiontoreusethismaterial.

PartsoftheresearchleadingtothisworkreceivedfundingfromtheEuropean Community ’sSeventhFrameworkProgrammeFP7/2007–2013undergrantagreementno.FP7-238128.Inparticularthisallowedmetopresentmaterialfrom Chapter4atthePETAFworkshoponspaceandtimeinBarcelonain2012.

Preface

Iwakeearlyinthemorning.DawncomeslateinthewinterinScotlandanditisstill completelydark,butsomehowitjust feels likemorning,andIcantellthatIhavebeen asleepforseveralhours.Later,withtheskyglowingpinkfromthesunrise,Ihead outside.Allaroundmethetreessway,leaves flutter,lights flash,andcarspassmein thestreet.Theworldseemsconstantlyin flux,aseaofmovementandchange.Ihead towardmyoffice,thinkingofthemeeting.Ineedtohurry.AsItravel,Iseemtomove notonlythroughspacebutalsothroughtime.Astheofficedrawscloser,sodoes thetimeofthemeeting.Allthewhile,yesterday’sconversationsseemtorecede intothepast.

Ourengagementwithtimeisaubiquitousfeatureofourlives.Weareawareof timeonmanyscales,fromthebriefest flickerofchangetothewayourlivesunfold overmanyyears.Buttowhatextentdoesthisengagementrevealthetruenatureof temporalreality?Totheextentthattemporalrealityisasitseems,whatisthe mechanismbywhichwecometobeawareofit?Andtotheextentthattemporal realityisnotasitseems,whydoesitseemthatway?Thesearethecentralquestions addressedbythisbook.

Thesequestionstakeonaparticularimportanceinphilosophy,fortworeasons. Firstly,thereisaviewconcerningthemetaphysicsoftime,knownastheB-theoryof time,accordingtowhichtheapparentlydynamicqualityofchange,thespecialstatus ofthepresent,andeventhepassageoftimeareallillusions.Instead,theworldisa four-dimensionalspace-timeblock,lackinganyoftheapparentdynamicfeaturesof time.IftheB-theoryiscorrect,whichIshallarguetobethecase,thenitmustbe explainedwhyourexperiencesseemtotellusotherwise.Secondly,thetemporal featuresofexperienceareofindependentinterestbecauseofcertainconceptual puzzlesthatarisewhenweconsidertheexperienceoftemporalphenomenasuch aschanges,rates,anddurations.Untilrecentlytheseissueshavebeenratherneglectedinanglophonephilosophyofmind,yettheymaytellusmuchthatisimportant aboutconsciousexperience.

Thisbookdealswithelementsofboththephilosophyofmindandthemetaphysics oftime,andnotallreaderswillbefamiliarwithboth.ConsequentlyIshallassume onlythatthereaderhasageneralphilosophicalbackground,andIshallexplain specificideasfromthephilosophyofmindorfrommetaphysicswhereveritseems appropriate.IbeginthisinChapter1,inwhichIgiveabrieftourofthoseelementsof themetaphysicsoftimethatarerelevanttothebook.

Chapter2beginsthemainargumentofthebook.Ithasoftenbeenclaimedthat experiencetellsusthattimepasses;indeedthisseemstobethemainreason,and quitepossiblytheonlyreason,toacceptthatthereisanobjectivepassageoftime.

Iargue,however,thatnoexperience,ofanykind,cangiveusagenuinereasonto believethattimepasses,andthateveniftimedidpassitwouldbequiteimpossible foranyexperiencetobeanexperienceoftimepassing.Moreover,Iarguethatit followsfromthisthatwecanhavenoinsightwhatsoeverintothecharacterofthe putativephenomenonofpassage;wesimplydonot,andcannot,understandwhatit wouldbefortimetopass.Consequently,intheabsenceofanintelligiblealternative,we shouldaccepttheB-theory.Evenwithoutthislast,metaphysicalconclusion,however, theargumentsofChapter2aresufficienttoshowthatthenatureoftemporalexperiencecannotbeexplainedinanytermsthatappealtoanobjectivepassageoftimeor anyotherputativefeatureofrealityincompatiblewiththeB-theory.

Thebiggesttaskfortheremainderofthebook thoughcertainlynottheonly one istoexplainthosefeaturesofourexperienceoftimeandchangethatseem incompatiblewiththeB-theory.Thiswasalreadyanimportantandneglectedtask forB-theorists;theargumentsofChapter2justmakeitevenmorepressing.The questionofwhetherexperiencecanbeexplainedwithoutappealtoanobjective passageoftimeisimportantforthedebatebetweentheB-theoryanditsopposite, theA-theory,forifsuchanexplanationcanbegiventhentheclaimthatthenatureof experiencefavourstheA-theoryisfurtherundermined.Butthereisalsoplentyin thisbookthatshouldinterestthosewhohavenoopinionaboutthemetaphysicsof timebutareinterestedinthenatureoftemporalexperience.

Chapter3concernsourattitudes,suchasbeliefordesire,topast,present,and futureevents.Althoughthemainfocusofthebookisonexperience,anyaccountof temporalexperiencewillneedtomeshwithanaccountoftheseattitudes.Themain questionaddressedconcernsthecontentsoftheseattitudes thewaytheworld wouldhavetobe,inorderforbeliefsaboutthepastorfuturetobetrue,forexample. InaddressingthisissueIshallintroducethenotionofacertainkindofrelation betweenapersonandthatperson’senvironment,arelationthatisrelevanttothe possibilitiesforcausalinteractionbetweenthem.Ishallcallthisa subjectenvironmentfunctionalrelation,or ‘SEFrelation’ forshort.Thistypeofrelation willbeimportantinmanyofthechaptersthatfollow.

Itisplausiblethatourputativeexperienceoftimepassingisconnectedtotheway thatweexperiencechange.Chapters4,5,and6allconcerntheexperienceofchange inonewayoranother.Chapter4concernsexperienceddurationsandratesof change.AtthispointIintroduce intentionalism :roughly,theviewthatthesubjective characterofanexperienceisentirelydeterminedbyits representationalcontent,the waytheexperiencepresentstheworldasbeing.Iarguethatmoststandardversions ofintentionalismcannotgiveasatisfactoryaccountofthecontentofthoseaspectsof temporalexperiencethatconcerndurationsandratesofchange;butanon-standard versionofintentionalism,accordingtowhichexperienceessentiallyrepresentsSEF relations,candoso.Ithenconsidersomepossibleconnectionsbetweenexperienced ratesofchangeandtherateatwhichtimeseemstopass.This,inturn,maybeofhelp intheprojectoftryingtoexplainwhytimeseemstopassatall.

InChapter5Iaddressanissuethathasreceivedfarmoreattentioninrecent anglophonephilosophythananyoftheotherissuesdiscussedinthisbook.There seemstobealmostaconsensusthatourabilitytoperceivechangecanonlybeexplained bythedoctrineofthe speciouspresent theideathattheexperiencedpresenthasa durationgreaterthananinstant.Muchrecentdiscussionhasfocusedonwhichversion ofthisdoctrineiscorrect;therehasbeencomparativelylittlediscussionofwhywe shouldacceptthedoctrineatall.AgainstthistrendIsuggestthatthestandardarguments infavourofthespeciouspresentare flawed,andthatthereisnoclearreasontoaccept thatallexperiencedchangerequiresatemporallyextendedcontent.Ifurtherillustrate thisbydevelopinganalternativetheorythatIcallthe dynamicsnapshot theory.Ialso argue,however,thattheverydistinctionbetweenviewsthatacceptaspeciouspresent andthosethatdonotbecomesdubiousoververysmalltimescales,asdoesthedistinctionbetweenthetwomainaccountsofthespeciouspresent.Althoughthediscussionsof thischaptershednodirectlightonthequestionofwhytimeseemstopass,theyareof intrinsicinterestandwillbehelpfulforthesubsequentargumentofChapter6.

Thequestionofwhytimeseemstopassiscloselyrelatedtothequestionofwhy changeisexperiencedashavingacertainkindofdynamicqualitythatseemstobe lackingfromthestaticspace-timeblockpositedbytheB-theory.Chapter6proposes anexplanationofthis.Istartwithamethodologyforsuchexplanations:ifonewishes toexplainthephenomenologicalnatureofanexperienceinthewaythatisrelevant here,itissuf ficienttodescribetherepresentationalcontentoftheexperienceand explainwhytheexperiencehasthatrepresentationalcontent.Ithenargueforthe viewthatchangeisexperiencedasdynamicbecausechangingobjectsarerepresented inexperienceasbeingnumericallyidenticalfromonemomenttothenext;theyseem to endure throughthechange,where ‘enduring’ meanspersistingthroughtimewitha singleidentity,andnotemporalparts.

Chapter7addressestwofurtheraspectsofourengagementwithtimethatmay seemtosupporttheA-theory.The firstiswhatmightbecalledthe ‘senseoftemporal motion’:thesensethatthefutureisapproachingandthepastrecedingor,whatItake tobeequivalent,thesenseofmovingtowardthefutureandawayfromthepast. IregardthisasanimportantpartoftheintuitiveappealoftheA-theory,andhaveleft ituntilthe finalchapteronlybecausetheproposalthatIwishtomakeiseasierto understandinthelightofcertainideasdescribedearlierinthebook.Iaskthereader nottoneglectthissection;itcontainsanideathatIregardasratherpromising,albeit speculative.GatheringsomethreadsfromChapters3,4,and6,Iproposean explanationintermsoftheSEFrelationsinwhichwestandtopastandfuture events.Iarguethatfromthepointofviewofouractiveengagementwiththeworld, thereismuchincommonbetweenthe ‘approach’ ofafutureeventandtheliteral approachofamovingphysicalobject.Thereisacommoncoreinone ’srelationto both.Thisgivesrisetoasenseofsomethingverymuchlikemotionwhenwethink aboutpastandfutureevents.Ifthisiscorrect,thenithelpsexplainwhyweuseso manymotion-relatedmetaphorswhentalkingabouttime.

SecondlyinChapter7Idiscusstheideathatthefutureis ‘ open ’,orthatthefacts aboutthefuturearenotyet fixed.Someversionoftheopenfutureiscommonto severalversionsoftheA-theory.Mostsuchtheoriesclaimthatthereisacontrast betweenthe fixedpastandtheopenfuture,andthatwhatisnowopenbecomes fixed astimepasses.Iarguethatthisistobeexplainedbythefactthatweexperiencethe worldfromtheperspectiveofanagentembeddedwithinthatworld.Totakethe perspectiveofanagentistoadoptwhatIcalla ‘blackbox’ viewoftheself,wherein theagentisanextendedpartofreality.Anagentthusconstruedhaschoices,and hencethefutureisopenrelativetotheagent,evenifnotopeninthemoreobjective senserelevanttothemetaphysicsoftime.ThenotionofaSEFrelationreappears here,fortheexperiencingsubjectthatstandsinSEFrelationsisthesameblackbox subjectforwhomthefutureisopen.Thereisthereforeacloseconnectionbetween experiencingSEFrelationsinwhichonestandstofutureeventsandexperiencingthe futureasopen.

Finally,thelastsectionofChapter7gatherstogetherthethreadsfromprevious chapterstosummarizethebook’soverallaccountofwhytemporalexperienceseems tosupporttheA-theory.Theoverallaccountisoneinwhichthereareseveral differentaspectsofourengagementwithtime,andthesedifferentaspectscorrespond todifferentA-theoreticclaims.

Whetherornotthereaderissatisfiedbythespeci ficaccountsthatIoffer,Ihopeto achieveatleasttwothings.Firstly,Ihopetoconvincethosewhobelieveinan objectivepassageoftimethattheycannotaffordtobecomplacentabouttherole ofexperienceintheirview.Theyoweusadetailedexplanationofhowexperienceand realitycouldpossiblyberelatedinthewaythattheysuppose.Secondly,Ihopeto showthattheprojectofreconcilingtheB-theorywiththenatureoftemporal experienceisnotintractable.Aswithmanyotherinitiallybafflingphenomena,we canmakegoodprogressbydividingthebroadquestionwithwhichwestartinto smaller,easierquestions.

1.1.McTaggart

2.1.Apassage-of-timedetector

2.2.Consciousnessandmotionthroughtime

2.3.AB-theoreticequivalentofWeyl

1

Introduction:TheMetaphysics ofTime

Theworldaroundusisconstantlychanging.Objectsmove,lights flickerand changecolour,soundscomeandgo.Thehandsmovearoundtheclock,daysfollow nightsandnightsfollowdays.Sometimesweknowthatachangehasoccurred becausewerememberthingsbeingdifferentfromhowtheyarenow;butsometimes,forexamplewhenweobservemotion,weobservethechangedirectly.Allthe while,wehaveasenseoftimeconstantlypassingfromonemomenttothenext. Firstitseemsweareatonepointintime,withtheworldinonestate;thenat anotherpointintime,withtheworldinanotherstate.Perhapsthedetailsofthe descriptionmightbecontested,butweareallfamiliarwiththegeneralideathatthe worldchangesastimepasses.

Accordingtoonefairlypopulartheoryinthemetaphysicsoftime,knownasthe B-theory oftimeorthe tenselesstheory oftime,noneoftheapparentdynamic featuresoftimearereal.By ‘dynamic’ featuresoftimeImean,roughly,those apparentfeaturesoftimeforwhichthereisnospatialanalogue.Objectsand propertiesaredistributedoverspace,justaseventsaredistributedthroughtime. Whenonelooksalongalineinspace,oneseesaseriesofdifferentobjectsand propertiesatdifferentlocations.Butthereisnosenseofany change,no dynamic variationfromoneplacetothenext.Andthereisnosenseofspace passing from oneplacetothenext.And,whereasitseemstousthatthereisanobjective now,a timewithaspecialstatus,whichourconsciousmindsseemalwaystooccupy,there isnocorrespondingobjective here.WhenIcallaplace ‘here’ itisonlybecause Ihappentobelocatedatthatplace.Ifyouareatadifferentplace,youarejustas entitledtocallthatplace ‘here’,forthereisnoperspective-independentfactabout whichplaceis here.Butwhenitcomestotime,thereseemstobeadifference:there seemstobeatimethatisobjectively now or present,whileeveryothertimeis objectivelypastorfuture.

TheB-theory,asIsaid,deniesthatanyoftheseputativedynamicfeaturesoftime arereal.AccordingtotheB-theory,timeiscloselyanalogoustospace.TheB-theory’ s rivalisthe A-theory or tensedtheory oftime,accordingtowhichtimepassesand changeisdynamic.ThereseemslittledoubtthattheA-theorybestcapturestheway mostofusthinkoftheworldpriortophilosophicalreflectiononthematter.

1.1.TheA-theoryandtheB-theory

AlthoughtheoriesoftimeareusuallycategorizedaseitherA-theoriesorB-theories therearemanyversionsoftheA-theoryandatleasttwopossibleversionsoftheBtheory.ButletusstartwithasimplewaytodistinguishA-theoriesfromB-theories, andthenwecanconsidersomecomplications.

Thenames ‘A-theory’ and ‘B-theory’ derivefromJ.M.E.McTaggart’s(1908, 1927)A-seriesandB-series,whichhediscussedinthecourseofanargumentagainst therealityoftime.IshallreturntoMcTaggart’sownargumentbelow.TheA-series andB-seriesaredepictedinFigure1.1.

TheA-seriesandB-seriesbothdescribethesameseriesofphysicalevents,butthey describeitindifferentways.InanA-series,onetimeispresent,andallothertimesare eitherpasttosomedegreeorfuturetosomedegree.Oneobviouswaytotalkaboutthe ‘degree’ towhichatimeispastorpresentwouldbesaythatitis n secondsintothepast orfuture(where ‘ n ’ standsforsomenumber).SomeversionsoftheA-theorytreat pastness,presentness,andfuturityasprimitivepropertiesoftimesorevents.Others treatthemasoperators.Ishallexplainthenotionofatemporaloperatorlaterinthis chapter,whenIdiscusspresentism.Forconvenience,however,Ishalltendtoput thingsneutrallyorintermsofpropertiesinmuchofwhatfollows,thoughIshall discussoperatorswhenthedifferencematters.Letususetheexpression ‘A-property’ foranyA-seriesproperty,suchasbeing present, nsecondspast,or nsecondsfuture. Thus,onanA-series,eachtimehasauniqueA-propertythatlocatesitataunique positionalongtheseries.TimescanthusbeorderedaccordingtotheirA-properties.1

1 OnecandebatewhetheritistimesoreventsthatinstantiateA-properties.AsfarasIcanseethiswill makenodifferencetotheissuesdiscussedinthisbook,soIshalllargelyignorethedistinction.

Figure1.1. McTaggart’sA-seriesandB-series

TimesarealsoorderedalongtheB-series,buttheirorderingisdeterminedonlyby therelationsbetweenthem:therelations earlierthan and laterthan.Forany twodistincttimes, tx and ty,either tx isearlierthan ty or tx islaterthan ty.Thus,on theB-series,alltimesareorderedintermsoftheirrelationstooneanother;whereas onanA-serieseverytimehasanabsoluteposition.

ThedistinctionbetweentheA-seriesandtheB-seriescanbeusedtocapturethe basicdistinctionbetweentheA-theoryandtheB-theory.Putsimply,theA-theory saysthatrealityisbestdescribedintermsoftheA-series,whereastheB-theorysays thattimeisbestdescribedintermsoftheB-series.AccordingtotheA-theory,thereis justonetimethatisreallypresent;thisisaprimitive,objectivefact,independentof us.But which timeispresentconstantlychangesastimepasses.Thereisthereforean ever-changingsuccessionofA-series,alwaysconsistingofthesameseriesofphysical eventsbutwithadifferenttimebeingpresentoneachseries,andwithothertimes’ A-seriespositionsdifferingaccordingly.AccordingtotheB-theory,bycontrast,there arenoA-properties,andnothinghasanobjectiveA-seriesposition.Everytimehas anequalstatus.Whensomeonesaysthatatimeispresentthismaybetrue,butonly becausethetimesaidtobepresentisthetimeatwhichthespeakerislocated,justas ‘here’ denotestheplaceatwhichthespeakerislocated.Correspondingly,according totheB-theory,thereisnopassageoftime;thereisno ‘movement’ ofthepresent alongthetimeline,oranythingofthatkind.

1.2.OntologicalVariantsoftheA-theory

That,atleast,isoneverystandardwaytodescribethedifferencebetweenthe A-theoryandtheB-theory.Weneedtocomplicatethingsalittle,however,in ordertoaccommodateanumberofdifferentversionsoftheA-theory.Wecan startbydistinguishingsomeofthemorecommonontologicalvariants.Theseare showninFigure1.2,alongwiththeB-theory.Inthediagramtimerunsfromleftto right,andthediagonallystripedareasindicatetheextentofrealityaccordingtothe theory.Thedarkgreycirclerepresentstheobjectivepresent(thefactthatitisshown asslightlyextendedisnotsigni ficant;themetaphysicalpresentisnormallyunderstoodtohavenoduration).Alsoshown,asafainterdottedarea,areregionsthatare notpresentlyapartofrealitybuteitherwereorwillbe thatistosay,theybelonged torealitywhenthepresentwaslocatedatanearliertime,orwilldosowhenthe presentislocatedatalatertime.Thesediagramsshouldnotbeconflatedwith standardspace-timediagrams.Thefainterregionsarenottimesatwhichnoobjects oreventsexist,asweshouldexpectinthedepictionofahistoryinwhicheverything comesintoexistence exnihilo atsomeparticulartime,orinwhicheverything suddenlyceasestoexist.Theyareregionsofnon-reality,notemptyregionsofreality. The firstversionoftheA-theoryisthe movingspotlighttheory.Accordingtothis theoryobjects,orevents,areequallyrealregardlessoftheirlocationintime.So Socrates’sexistenceisjustasrealasyoursormine,andsoistheexistenceofpersons livinginthefuture.Wearejustlocatedatdifferentpointsalongthetimeline.The

Figure1.2. OntologicalvariantsoftheA-theory,withB-theoryalsoshownforcomparison

viewthatthepast,present,andfutureareallequallyrealisknownas eternalism (thoughbewareofconflatingthisontologicalvarietyofeternalismwith propositional eternalism,whichisdiscussedlater).TheB-theoryisalsoaneternalisttheory.The movingspotlightA-theorydiffersfromtheB-theoryinthataccordingtothemoving spotlighttheorythereisasingletimethathastheA-propertyofbeingpresent,andall othertimespossessvariousdifferentA-propertiesaccordingtotheirtemporal distancefromthepresent.Butthetemporallocationatwhichpresentnessisinstantiatedconstantlychangesastimepasses.Thusthepresentislikeaspotlightthat shinesononemomentafteranother, ‘moving’ alongthetimeline.

TheimageofthemovingspotlightcomesfromC.D.Broad’s(1923,1938) discussion,butBroaddidnotacceptthetheoryhimself(insteadatvarioustimes heacceptedtheB-theory(1921),thegrowingblocktheory(1923),andatheoryof ‘absolutebecoming’ (1959)thatishardertocategorize).Hisobjectiontothemoving spotlighttheorywasalongthefollowinglines.Whenthemovingspotlightofthe presentshinesononepointalongthetimeseries,thenanother,andsoon,thisis itselfaseriesofevents.Butthetimeseriesuponwhichitshinesissupposedtoalready containallevents.Soitwouldseemthatafurthertimeserieswouldbeneededin

Moving Spotlight Theory
Growing Block Theory
Shrinking Tree Theory
B-Theory
Presentism
Reality
The Present Non-Reality

ordertoaccommodatetheeventofanevent ’sbecomingpresent.Butitseems extravaganttopositanothertimeseries,andinanycasethispresumablywould notreally fixtheproblembutwouldinsteadleadtoaninfiniteregressoffurthertime series.ApartfromBroad ’sobjection,asaneternalisttheorythemovingspotlight theoryhasincommonwiththeB-theorythatallfutureeventsalreadyexistandall factsaboutthefuturearealready fixed.Thismaybeunappealingtothosewhoregard itasanadvantageofanA-theorythat(supposedly,atleast)itmakesiteasierto defendtheexistenceoflibertarianfreewill(IsaymoreaboutfreewillinChapter7). Becauseofthesedifficultiesthemovingspotlighttheoryhasnotprovenpopular, thoughithasreceivedsomerenewedattentionrecently(seee.g.Skow2009,2012a, 2015,whoalsodevelopsversionsofthemovingspotlighttheoryintermsofoperators ratherthanA-properties;seealsoZimmerman2005onthesubtletiesofdistinguishingthemovingspotlighttheoryfromaversionoftheB-theorythat ‘takes tenseseriously’,meaningthatitacceptsthatthereareineliminablyperspectival propositions).2

ThesecondmainvariantoftheA-theoryshowninFigure1.2isthegrowingblock theory.Accordingtothistheoryrealityconsistsofthepastandpresent,butnotthe future;itisafour-dimensionalblockofhistorythatgrowsastimepasses.Atthe present,whichislocatedatthegrowingedgeoftheblock,thereisobjectivebecoming;newrealityconstantlycomesintoexistenceastimepasses.Thusthelocationof thepresentmovesalongthetimelineastheblockgrows.Onepossibleadvantageof thegrowingblocktheoryoverthemovingspotlighttheoryisthattheformer accommodatesthecommonintuitionthatthepastis fixedandthefutureisopen. AfterbeingadvocatedbyBroad(1923),however,thegrowingblocktheoryhashad onlyasmallnumberofadvocates(seee.g.Forrest2004;seealsoTooley1997fora relatedview).

ItisnotcleartomewhyBroadthoughtthegrowingblocktheoryavoidedhisown objectiontothemovingspotlighttheory;afterall,itdoesseemthatthecominginto existenceofaneventwoulditselfbeanevent,giventhegrowingblocktheory,justas muchasaneventbecomingpresentwouldbeanevent,giventhemovingspotlight theory.Sucheventswouldbemissingfromthetimeseries.Another,morerecent objectionhasbeenraisedindependentlybyCraigBourne(2002)andDavid Braddon-Mitchell(2004)(seealsoMerricks2006).Theobjectionisthis:ifthepast isreal,thenallpasteventsarejustasrealaspresentevents.Nowconsideryour experienceofreadingthissentence.Ifthisexperienceisnowpresent,theninone hour’stimeitwillbeonehourintothepast.Butaccordingtothegrowingblock theoryitwillstillbejustasreal,anditscharacterwillbeunchanged.Inthatcase, whatreasondoyouhaveforthinkingthatyourexperience is inthepresent?Wereit

2 Theveryexistenceofineliminablyperspectivalor dese propositionsischallengedbyCappelenand Dever2014.SeeProsser2015foranexplanationofthe ‘essential’ natureofindexicalthoughtsthatdoesnot appealtosuchpropositions.

inthepast,itwouldnotdifferinanyqualitativerespect.Itisthereforefarmorelikely thatitisoccurringinthepastthaninthepresent;infactthereisonlyavanishingly smallprobabilitythatitisoccurringinthepresent,assuminganinstantaneous present.Butthisunderminestheideathatthereisanythingmetaphysicallyspecial abouttheexperiencedpresent;oursenseofthepresentbeingaspecialmoment,the uniquelocusofbecoming,startstolooklikenothingmorethanadubiouslymotivatedspeculation.3

PeterForrest(2004)repliesthatconsciousnessoccursonlyattheedgeofbeing; itisonlytherethatthereisgenuinecausation,becauseitistherethatnewrealityis causedtocomeintoexistencebywhatwentbefore.Consciousnessisintimately connectedwiththisactivity.Consequentlywecanknowthatourexperiencesarein thepresentbecausepresentexperiencesaretheonlyconsciousexperiencesthat exist.ChrisHeathwood(2005)hasrepliedthatbecauseForrest ’sobjectionineffect combinesagrowingblocktheoryabouteverythingnon-consciouswithpresentism aboutconsciousnessitlosesanyadvantagesthatthegrowingblockwassupposed tohaveoverpresentism(towhichweshallturnshortly).ThereareotherconsequencesofForrest’sviewthatmaybefeltundesirable.Inparticular,aconscious experiencecannotbeidenticalto,orlogicallysuperveneupon,aphysicalstateon thisview,becausethephysicalstatesallexistinthepastbutconsciousnessdoes not.Atbest,consciousnesswouldsuperveneupontheconjunctionofthephysical stateoftheworldandafurthercondition(namely,beinglocatedattheedgeof being).Consequentlyacceptingtheviewrequiresdenyingallconventionalmaterialisttheoriesofmind.Whetherthisisregardedasacostwilldependonone’ s antecedentviewsaboutthemind –bodyrelation,butitisafeatureoftheviewthat shouldatleastbenoted.

PresentismiscurrentlythemostpopularversionoftheA-theory.Accordingto presentism,realityconsistsentirelyofthepresent;neitherthepastnorthefutureis real.Presentismthusdifferssignificantlyfromothertheoriesoftime.Itdoesnot treatthepassageoftimeasconsistinginaconstantchangingoftheA-properties instantiatedbyevents.Rather,thepassageoftimeconsistsinaconstantchangein thenatureofthetemporallyunextendedreality.4 Presentismthusavoidstaking metaphorssuchas ‘movingalongthetimeline ’ quiteasliterallyasotherversions oftheA-theory.InsteadofA-properties,presentistsuseoperatorstodealwiththe pastandfuture.Considersomeproposition,say,thepropositionthattheleavesare falling.Iftheleavesarefallingnow,thenthetruthabouttheworldissimplythat theleavesarefalling.Ifthesameeventisinthepastorfuture,however,then realitydoesnotcontainthestateofaffairsthattheleavesarefalling.Rather,it

3 WhilethisargumentisnotthesameasthemainargumentstobediscussedinChapter2,thekindof epistemologicalworriesexpresseddohavesomethingofacommon flavour.

4 SeePrior1968forthisputativeadvantageofpresentism,andforthedetailsoftheformulationinterms ofoperators.

eitherwill,ordid,containthatstateofaffairs.Thiscanbeformalizedusingthe PASTorFUTUREoperatorsoftenselogic,asfollows:iftheleaveswerefalling thenPAST(theleavesarefalling),oriftheleaveswillbefallingthenFUTURE(the leavesarefalling).

Therehasbeenmuchcontroversyaboutpresentisminrecentyears.Itsadvantages includethefactthatexperienceisalwaysofthepresentbecauseonlythepresent exists;ourfeelingthatthereissomethingspecialaboutthepresentisthusexplained. Itsbest-knowndifficultyisinaccountingforthefactthattherearetruesentences aboutthepastandthefuture.Consider,forexample,thesentence ‘Socrateslivedin thepast’.Ifthepastwerereal,thenanaturalthoughtwouldbethattheexistenceof Socratesinthepastmakesthissentencetrue.Butif,asthepresentistclaims,thepast andfutureareunreal,whatmakessentenceslikethistrueorfalse?Asimilardif ficulty concernscross-temporalrelations.Ontheassumptionthatarelationcanonlybe instantiatedifbothofitsrelataexist,howcantherebeanyrelationbetweenentities existingatdifferenttimes?Sincetheliteratureonpresentismhasbecomequite extensiveandsincemypurposehereisjusttointroducethereadertothemain variantsoftheA-theory,Ishallnotattemptafulldiscussionofthestrengthsand weaknessesofpresentismhere.Forfurtherreading,however,seethearticlescollected inMagalhãesandOaklander2010;seealsoCaplanandSanson2009forasurveyof thedebateaboutthetruthmakingproblemsforpresentism;seeSider2001:ch.2fora statementofseveralofthemainobjectionstopresentism;andforabook-length defenceofpresentismseeBourne2006.

Lastly,Ishallbrieflymentionthe ‘shrinkingtree’ theory,mostcloselyassociated withStorrsMcCall(1976,1994).Accordingtothisviewthepast,present,andfuture areallreal,buttheydifferinextent.Inparticular,whilethereisonlyasinglepastand present,therearemany(perhapsinfinitelymany)differentfuturesbranchingforwardinatreestructurefromthepresent.Butastimepassesjustonefutureis retained;theotherbranchesfalloutofexistence.Hence,whereasonthegrowing blocktheoryrealityisconstantlygrowing,ontheshrinkingtreetheoryrealityis constantlyshrinking.

The finalpartofFigure1.2showstheB-theory.TheB-theoryisanontologically eternalisttheory,butaccordingtotheB-theorythereisnoobjectivepresenttime,and nopassageoftime.(SomeB-theoristssaythattheB-theorydoespositpassage,butby ‘ passage ’ theyusuallymeanonlythattimehasadirectionandorderingaccordingto the ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ relations.WhenIrefertopassage,throughoutthisbook,Irefer onlytothestronger,A-theoreticnotionofpassage.)

1.3.OtherVariantsoftheA-theory

Inadditiontotheontologicalvariantslistedabove(andthelistisprobablynot exhaustive)thereareseveralotherwaystodistinguishA-theories.Ihavealready mentionedthedifferencebetweenA-theoriesthatpositA-propertiesandthosethat

workwithoperators.ButevenamongA-theoriesthatpositA-properties,thereare differencesintheextenttowhichtheyrequire primitive A-properties(by ‘primitive’ propertiesImeanthosethatarenotreducibleto,nordotheysuperveneupon, combinationsofotherproperties).

Themovingspotlighttheory,forexample,isusuallydescribedasholdingthat everytimeinstantiatesanA-property.Butthereareatleasttwopossiblewaysto understandthis.Firstlyonecouldholdthatthereisacontinuumofdifferent primitiveA-properties,oneforeachinstantonthecontinuoustimeseries(assuming thattimeiscontinuous).Secondly,onecouldholdthatthereisjustoneprimitive A-property mostplausibly,presentness andalloftheotherA-propertiescanbe reducedtorelationstothepresent.Thiswouldrequiretwothings:anindependent waytodeterminedistancealongthetimeline,andanindependentdeterminationof thedirectionoftime.Fortheformeronemightappealtoaphysicalmeasureoftime, suchasthestandardscientificdefinitionofonesecondintermsofaphysicalprocess:

Thesecondisthedurationof9,192,631,770periodsoftheradiationcorrespondingtothe transitionbetweenthetwohyperfinelevelsofthegroundstateofthecaesium133atom.

(ThompsonandTaylor2008:39)

Letuscallsecondsdefinedinthisway physical seconds,or P-seconds forshort. WiththesecondthusdefinedindependentlyofanyspecificallyA-theoreticnotions, wecouldsaythattheA-propertyofbeingpasttodegree n isjustthepropertyofbeing located n secondsearlierthanthepresent,andtheA-propertyofbeingfutureto degree n isthepropertyofbeinglocated n secondslaterthanthepresent.Hencethere needbeonlyoneprimitiveA-property,thatofbeingpresent.Thedifferencebetween pastandfuture,orbetweenearlierandlater,wouldbedefinedintermsofthe directionoftime,whichmustthereforebedefinedindependentlyoftheA-series. TheA-theoristcouldeitherappealtoaphysicallydefinedarrowoftime(onwhich seemylaterdiscussion)orelsearguethatthedirectionoftimeisthedirectiontoward whichthespotlightofthepresentismoving.Isuspectthatforreasonsofontological parsimonymostA-theoristswouldprefertherelationalconstrualofnon-present A-propertiestotheviewthatthereisacontinuumofprimitiveA-properties,butfew movingspotlightA-theoristshavebeenexplicitaboutthis.

TodetermineanA-series,allthatisneededisawaytodeterminethelocationof thepresent,adirectiontodistinguishthepastfromthefuture,andawayto determinedegreesofpastnessandfuturityalongtheseries.Anytheorywhose ontologyprovidestheseingredientsmakespossibleanA-theorywithoutanyprimitiveA-propertiesatall.ThemovingspotlightcannoteliminateallA-properties (exceptbyusingoperatorsinstead,thoughonemightwonderwhetherthisamounts toagenuineontologicaldifference).SomeotherA-theoreticontologies,however,can doso.Consider,forexample,thegrowingblocktheory.Thegrowingedgeofthe blockdetermineswhichtimeispresent;andthefutureisdistinguishedfromthepast becausethepastiswhatalreadyexists(thebodyoftheblock)whereasthefuturedoes

notyetexist.Degreesofpastnessandfuturitycanthenbeunderstoodintermsofthe numberofP-secondsfromthepresent.

Presentismisalittledifferent.Clearlythereisnoproblemwithdeterminingwhich timeispresent:thepresentistheonlytimeatwhichanythingexists.Consequently thereisnoneedforaprimitiveA-propertyofpresentness.5 Forthedirectionoftime, however,thepresentistmustappealeithertothedirectionofthepassageoftime, whichmustbetakenasprimitive,orelsetoaphysicaldefinitionofthedirectionof time(seelaterdiscussion).Degreesofpastnessandfuturitycanonceagainbe reducedtothenumberofP-secondsbeforeorafterthepresent.Theremaybe concernsabouttruthmakersandcross-temporalrelationsthataffecttheseclaims, butnonethatthepresentistdidnothavetoansweranyway.

Finally,theshrinkingtreetheoristhasnoproblemsreducingallA-propertiesto propertiesofthetree.Thepointfromwhichthebranchesextendisthepresent;the directioninwhichthereisasinglebranchisthepast,andthedirectioninwhichthere aremultiplebranchesisthefuture.DegreesofpastnessorfuturityareagaindeterminedintermsofP-seconds.

Afurthercomplication,leadingtofurthervariantsoftheA-theory,arisesfromthe questionofwhethertimepasses.Now,Iwishtobeveryclearthatthroughoutthis bookIshallbeusingtheterm ‘A-theory’ asanumbrellatermforalltheories accordingtowhichthereistemporalpassage.Ifoneweretoinsteaduse ‘A-theory’ torefertoanytheoryaccordingtowhichtherearepropertiesthatformanA-series, however,andifoneweretoplacenofurtherconstraintsonwhatkindsofproperties thesewere,thensomefurthertheorieswouldcomeintoplay.Forexample,thereare logicallypossibleworldsinwhichthereissomepropertyoftheuniversethat increasesinmagnitudethroughouttime,andeachmagnitudeofthepropertyata timecouldthereforebethoughtofasadistinctA-property(seeParsons2003fora moresophisticatedtheoryofthiskind;andperhapsalsothe ‘four-dimensionalist tensism’ describedbyLudlow(2013)).Onemight,however,thinkitimplausibleto usethewords ‘past’ , ‘present’,and ‘future’ forjustanyoldproperties;onemight reasonablyinsistthat,necessarily,ifeventshaveA-propertiesthentimeispassing. Ishallbeusing ‘A-property’ inthisway.Butthisisaterminologicalmatter;nothing substantialturnsonit.

InprincipletherecanalsobetheoriesclearlydistinctfromtheB-theoryaccording towhichtherearenoA-propertiesorineliminabletenseoperators,andnopassageof time.Consider,forexample,aversionofpresentismaccordingtowhichtimedoes notpass.Iftherewereonlyonemomentoftimeinrealitythenitwouldberedundant toascribepresentnesstoit.Soaccordingtothisview,thereisjustoneinstantoftime, andnothingchanges;timedoesnotpass,andnoothertimesexist.Thisviewisaform ofsolipsism,comparabletotheviewthatrealityconsistsentirelyofthespatial

5 Manypeoplehavemadethepointthatpresentismdoesnotrequireanirreduciblepropertyof presentness.Seee.g.Zimmerman1996:117,Craig1997.

locationthatIoccupy.Suchviewsarenotobviouslyincoherentandarenotoriously hardtodisprove,butofcoursethisgivesusnoreasontotakethemseriously.

Finally,therearepossibleviewsaccordingtowhichthereistemporalpassagebut noobjectiveA-propertiesandhencenouniquepresenttime.Inparticular,CianDorr hasrecentlysuggestedthatifanobject’sfour-dimensionalspace-timeline(thesetof space-timepointsthatitoccupies,sometimescalleda ‘worldline’ byphysicists) consistedofaninfinityoftemporalpartseachofwhichhadanindividualessenceor haecceity thenthepassageoftimecouldconsistineachhaecceitypassingdownthe object’sworldlineuntilitreachedtheend,afterwhichitwouldceasetoexist.Each lifewouldbelikeaconveyorbelt,livedbyinfinitelymanynumericallydistinct individualsoneafteranother,yettherewouldbenoreasontopickanyparticular timeasthepresent(atimewouldbepresentonlyrelativetoanindividual).6

Itcanbeimportant,then,todistinguishtheclaimthattimepassesfromtheclaim thatthereareprimitiveA-properties.Thelatterentailstheformer,buttheformer doesnotentailthelatter.Nevertheless,forthepurposesofthisbook,asmentioned earlier,Ishalluse ‘A-theory’ foranydynamicviewoftimeaccordingtowhichthereis temporalpassage.

1.4.TheB-theory

BynowtheclaimsmadebytheB-theoryshouldbefairlyclear,butabriefsummary mightneverthelessbehelpful.AccordingtotheB-theorytimedoesnotpass,and therearenoprimitiveA-properties.Insofarasthereischangethisismerely ‘at-at’ change thatis,tosaythatobjectOchangesfrombeing F tobeingnot-F isjusttosay thatattime t1 Ois F andat t2 Oisnot-F,inmuchthesamewaythatapokermaybe hotatoneendandnothotattheotherend.ThemostcommonviewamongBtheoristsisthatachangingobjecthasdifferenttemporalparts;itchangesfrombeing F tobeingnot-F byhavingapartat t1 thatis F andapartat t2 thatisnot-F.Butthe temporalpartstheorydoeshaverivalsandisnotobviouslyessentialtotheB-theory. Onceoneacceptsthattimedoesnotpass,theB-theoryfollowsprettyquickly.For iftimedoesnotpassthen,barringsolipsisticno-passagepresentism,itfollowsthat thereisnothingspecialaboutthepresentmoment.Alltimesareonanequalfooting. Consequentlytheworldisakindoffour-dimensionalblock(threedimensionsof spaceandoneoftime,orhowevermanydimensionsacompletedphysicsrequires), withnoobjectivepresentandnopassageoftime.

OnecandistinguishdifferentB-theories,thoughthereislessvarietyamong B-theoriesthanamongA-theories.AllB-theoriesareontologicallyeternalist.The

6 Thisview,orsomethinglikeit,waspresentedbyDorrinatalkentitled ‘TheA-theory,theB-theory, andTemporalCounterpartTheory’ attheUniversityofStAndrewsinFebruary2012.Iamdescribingit herefrommemory,soanyincoherenceorinaccuracyintheviewasdescribedhereislikelytobemine ratherthanDorr’ s.

majormetaphysicaldistinctionsconcerntherelationbetweentimeandspaceandthe natureofthe ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ relations.OneversionoftheB-theorysaysthattimeis verysimilartospace,nothingbutafurtherdimensionofspace-time.This fitswellwith currentphysics,whichpositsacontinuumofspace-timepointswithnoabsolute distinctionbetweentimeandspace.Anotherversionsaysthattimeisinsomeway fundamentallydifferentfromspace,eventhoughitcanoftenhelpfullybethoughtabout byanalogywithspace.Forourpurposes,however,thisdistinctionwillnotmatter. Anotherimportantdistinctionconcernsthenatureofthe ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ relations.(Ishallcontinuetospeakofboth ‘earlier’ and ‘later’,thoughthetheory couldjustaseasilybeexpressedintermsofoneorotheroftheserelationsplusthe relationofsimultaneity).Ononequitecommonview,thesenotionsarereducibleto somethingelse;forexample,theyarereducibletothedirectionofcausation,orthe directionoftimeasdefinedintermsofentropygradients(onwhichseethelater discussion).Thereis,however,roomforadifferentkindofviewaccordingtowhich directionaltemporalrelationsarefundamental,andevenifsomephysicalphenomenonhappenstobeconsistentlyorientedinrelationtotime,itdoesnotfollowthat this is thedirectionoftime. 7 NathanOaklander(2012)hascapturedthisintermsof hisdistinctionbetweentheB-theory(whichheequateswiththereductiveview)and theR-theory(the ‘R’ standsfor ‘Russell’,whoseviewisofthelatter,non-reductive kind).IshalltakenoviewonwhichoftheseversionsoftheB-theoryiscorrect;when IclaimthattheB-theoryiscorrect,Iclaimonlythatoneofthesetheoriesiscorrect. InfactIamevenneutralwithregardtowhetherthereisagenuinedirectionoftime; Idonot finditimplausiblethatthedifferencebetweenthepastandfuturedirections oftimeisassubjectiveasthedistinctionbetween ‘left’ and ‘right’ (andinfactIshall takethisanalogyfurtherinChapter3).AttheendofChapter2,however,Ishallhave somethingtosayaboutourknowledgeofthenatureofthe ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ relations,insofarastheyareirreducible.

TherearealsosomedifferentversionsoftheB-theorysemantics.Idiscussthesein Chapter3.

1.5.TheDirectionofTime

Thereisalargeandsometimesverytechnicalliteratureconcerningthedirectionof timeandthequestionofwhetheritcanbegivenadefinitioninphysicaltheory.Ishall notdiscussthisatlength,forthedetailsaretangentialtoourpurposes(forsome recentdiscussionscoveringthemajorissues,however,seePrice1996,2011;Albert 2000,Kutach2011;North2011).Whatwedoneed,forourpurposes,isconceptual clarityregardingtherelationbetweenthequestionofwhetherthereisadirectionof timeandthequestionofwhethertimepasses.

7 SeeSklar1981foranilluminatingdiscussionofthesenseinwhichthedirectionoftimemightbe reducibletosomesuchphenomenon,andofwhatitshouldtakeforsuchareductiontobeaccepted.

Thereis,infact,farlessconnectionbetweenthesequestionsthanmightat first appear.Toseewhy,considerthekindsofquestionsthatareatissueinthedebate overthephysicaldirectionoftime.Byfarthebiggestdiscussionhasconcernedthe questionofwhetherthedirectionoftimecanbecapturedintermsofthethermodynamicpropertiesoftheuniverse(asfarasIknow,thiswas firstsuggestedby Eddington(1928)).Theclaimisthatthesecondlawofthermodynamicsistemporallyasymmetric,andthatthisestablishesadirectionforallphysicalprocesses.Very roughly,thesecondlawofthermodynamicssaysthatthereisnothermodynamic processwhosesoleeffectistomoveheatfromwhereitiscoldtowhereitishot.So, forexample,ifanironbarishotatoneendandcoldattheotherend,itwillneverbe thecasethatheatmovesfromthecoldendtothehotend(atleastnotwithoutthe interventionofsomeotherprocess).Intuitively,thisisbecausetheheatofthebar consistsinthevibrationsofthemoleculesofwhichitiscomposed,andforpurely statisticalreasonsthesevibrationswilltendtospreadoutthroughthelengthofthe bar,movingheatfromthehotendtothecoldendratherthantheotherwayaround. Anothercommonexampleisthedistributionofairmoleculesinaroom.Suppose thatallofthemoleculeswereplacedinonecorneroftheroom.Thereisaveryhigh probabilitythattheywouldspreadoutuntiltheyweremoreorlessevenlydistributed throughtheroom.Butitisextraordinarilyunlikelythatthiswillhappeninreverse.It isnotliterallyimpossibleforallofthemoleculesintheroomtojusthappen,by chance,tosimultaneouslymovetoonecorneroftheroom;butitissoimprobable thatinpracticeitdoesnothappen.

Thesecondlawofthermodynamicsisawaytocapturethegeneralprinciple behindexamplesofthiskind.Itisheldtoexplainwhysomanyprocessesinnature arealwaysfoundtooccurinonedirectionratherthananother.Plantsgrow,rather thanshrink; flammablematerialsburninachemicalreactionthatgivesoffheatand wastematerials,ratherthanthosematerialscomingtogetherbychancewhileheat coalescesinthesameplace,alsobychance,tocausethechemicalreactiontooccurin reverse;andsoon.

Thereiscontroversy,however,becauseformanyyearsthelawsofphysicswere heldtobetimereversalinvariant,whichmeansthatanyseriesofphysicaleventscan, inprinciple,occurinreverse.Consequentlytheremightberoomtoarguethatthe supposedthermodynamicarrowoftimerepresentsnothingfundamental,butmerely afactaboutthenatureofmacroscopicphysicalprocessesthatiscontingentonthe initialconditions.However,thereisnowgoodevidenceofafailureoftimereversal invarianceatleastincertainveryweak(i.e.rare)physicalinteractionsduetoa combinationofthephenomenonofCPTinvarianceandthefailureofCPinvariance (‘C’ standsfor ‘charge’ , ‘P’ standsfor ‘parity’,and ‘T’ standsfor ‘time’.Fordetails,see Arntzenius2011.)

Otherwaystodetermineadirectionoftimehavebeenproposed,suchasthose involvinganasymmetryofcounterfactualdependence(Lewis1979a;forarecent surveyseeKutach2011).Thequestionaboutthedirectionoftimeisoftenalso

Another random document with no related content on Scribd:

Spraying Yellow Paint through the Wing-Bone of an Eagle

RATTLER DOCTORING STUYIMI

For burial they dressed him in his best clothes—a suit of soft-tanned deerskin, with leggings and moccasins to match. They wrapped the body in a robe and placed it on the summit of a high ridge—his favorite place to sit and dream.

The Blackfoot believed that the spirit went eastward to the Sand Hills, a barren country on the plains. It was inhabited by the ghosts of people and animals, which exist together as in this life.

They placed their dead upon scaffolds in trees, on the summit of a hill, or in a death lodge hidden away among the trees. The dead were clothed according to their station in life, believing they went to the Sand Hills in their burial clothes. Often the things a person valued most were

left beside the grave. Sometimes the best horses of a chief were killed, that they might go with him to the Spirit Land. [273]

In mourning they denied and tortured themselves to excite the pity of the Great Spirit, to show their indifference to pain and to manifest their high regard for the dead. During the time of mourning, which lasted several months, they went daily at sunset and sunrise to a lonely hill, to weep and cut themselves with arrow-points and knives. As a sign of deep mourning, they cut off a finger, generally the first joint of the small finger. Sometimes they made the tepee smaller to bring discomfort to all the family. When a prominent chief died, his family would place their lodge at a distance from the others. Parents who lost a son led his saddle horse through the camp and made public lamentations. People in mourning wore old clothes; they gave up painting themselves and all ornaments. They kept away from public gatherings, dances, and religious ceremonies. Sometimes they wore neither moccasins nor leggings; they cut off the manes of their saddle horses, but they had a superstition against the cutting of their horses’ tails.

No Chief, a prominent man, mourned so deeply at the death of his brother that he journeyed several hundred miles to the place where he was killed and brought the body home. After that he carried the skeleton in a rawhide case wherever he went, and had it buried beside him when he died.

It was customary for a man and his wife to give their sacred bundles into the care of another couple who were expected to make new clothes and give ceremonies for the couple in mourning. Finally friends of the mourners came and tried to make them forget their sorrow, and to persuade them to return to their ordinary life. [274]

[Contents]

CHAPTER XXXIX

DANCE OF THE HAIR-PARTERS (GRASS DANCE)

One morning Elk Horn, the herald, galloped through the camp, holding aloft a standard with eagle feathers along its staff. He called in a loud voice that the Grass Dancers would hold their ceremony, and invited every one to come. He wore a deerskin suit, a beaded breast ornament of many strands, and a blanket draped about his waist. His horse was painted, and decorated with clusters of feathers and sleigh bells; and there were coyote tails hanging from his stirrups.

The Grass Dancers, or Hair-Parters, was an association of young men. They held their meetings through the winter months, and a public ceremony at the time of the Sun Dance. Any one who had a suitable dance outfit could take part. They had four unmarried women as members, who rode around the camp with them at night and helped them in their singing.

Their drummers opened the ceremony by seating themselves where the dance would take place. They beat the drums steadily and in perfect rhythm—the signal for the people to come together

Soon the dancers began to assemble. Some were naked, except for loin-cloths and beaded dance moccasins, and had their faces and bodies variously painted. Others wore fine costumes, with war shirts of soft-tanned buckskin, which were decorated with colored beads and trimmed over the shoulders and legs with black-tipped ermine tails. They had breast ornaments and necklaces of beads, of elk teeth and grizzly bear claws. They carried tomahawks, bows and arrows, and rattles made of bunches of deer and elk hoofs; [275]and wore war bonnets of eagle feathers and headdresses made of colored horsehair and porcupine-skins, caps of otter and mink skins, which were wound about their heads and had the tails hanging down behind. They had

skin ankle-bands with small bells attached, and strings of sleigh bells strapped about their legs and hanging from their waists.

The dancers sat in a circle, with the drummers in the center, having large cowhide drums of different colors. They used single drumsticks with which they beat with spirit; they sang rhythmically and in perfect unison. In the dance the drumming was a continued booming that did not break, growing faster and faster, until it ended suddenly with a crash and in a chorus of shrill war-whoops. Such was the music the Hair-Parters had for their ceremony.

Some of the dancers had distinguishing marks; and their movements had meanings, which an outsider would not understand. One warrior wore leggings with eight parallel black lines, to show the number of men he had killed in battle. Another had a war shirt covered with marks, representing picket stakes with short ropes attached, to show the number of horses he had captured from enemies, cutting them loose at the risk of his life. Another, who was a noted taker of horses, carried a painted horse carved from wood. Others had long whips, feathered wands and fringed bags decorated with colored beads and porcupine quills.

They had one dance figure, in which only warriors took part; those who had escaped after being surrounded in battle. Another dance was for men who had never turned away from a fight; and another in which only generous men took part—those who were known to give freely of their possessions.

When an eagle feather fell in the dance from the war bonnet of Night Gun, he did not try to recover it himself; this might bring him bad luck. He chose Bear Chief, a famous [276]warrior, to pick it up. Then, led by Bear Chief, the dancers circled three times round the feather; the fourth time, Bear Chief took the feather; and, after recounting four of his brave deeds in battle, he gave it back to the owner.

There was a special dance for those who had been wounded in battle. Wolf Eagle, a warrior with only one arm, danced with spirit and abandon, carrying in his single hand the decorated bone of his missing arm. Another dancer, “Behind-the-Ears” by name, held his rifle ready to shoot. In battle he had once made a good shot and hit an enemy behind the ear; in this dance, he went through similar motions to recall that deed.

The leader of the Hair-Parters was Black Weasel. His seat in the dance circle was marked by a wand decorated with eagle feathers and driven into the ground. He wore a war bonnet of selected eagle feathers and a soft-tanned suit of deerskin trimmed with ermine tails. Across his shoulders and along arms and legs were broad strips of quill work.

Black Weasel opened the dance by moving about the circle, striking the seated warriors with his feathered wand to make them join in and whipping any who lagged behind. It was also his duty to look out for strangers, and to see that women and children had seats.

Among the spectators was Nokoa, a small boy with his mother. He wore a fringed buckskin suit and a beaded necklace of many strands. During one of the figures his father, Wolverine, took him into the dance. At first he was abashed before so many people, but soon forgot himself and danced fearlessly, his moccasined feet keeping time with the rhythmic beating of drums, swaying his small body like the warriors and aiming a stick for a gun.

The Grass Dance lasted throughout the day and ended after sunset with a feast. During intermissions, they had speeches and stories of brave deeds in war. Mountain Chief [277]stood up and told how he used to dance in former days. He urged the Hair-Parters to be generous and to give many horses to visitors, especially those who came from a distance. In his hand he held a stick which represented a horse. He crossed the circle and handed the stick to a visiting Sioux Indian. Then

from the spectators came shouts of approval; and an aged chief sang: “Good man, to give away your horse so generously.”

During the feast, the venerable chief, Running Crane, stood up and spoke, saying:

“My children, I am glad in my heart to see you gathered here, the young men all dressed in fine clothes. Only at the Sun Dance, which comes once a year, can we have a good time together. Our Great Grandfather (President of the United States) should not put an end to our Sun Dance; it makes our people happy and we do no harm to white men. Let the old people restrain our young men, that we may return to our homes without trouble. That is all. My name is Running Crane.”

On this same day, and in a different part of the camp, were sham battles of former fights with hostile Indian tribes—dances by warriors on foot and mounted on horses. Their functions were to excite the people, both old and young, and to stir up enthusiasm for war and make young men eager to fight.

One of these sham battles on foot enacted a fight between Crows and Blackfoot. The warriors, representing the Crow Indians, were led by Flat Tail; and the Blackfoot by Little Dog, their war chief. They advanced in line with rifles, beating drums and singing war songs. When the waiting warriors fired their guns, some of the enemy fell and the rest retreated. Then the visitors scalped the dead amid cheers and war-whoops from the spectators.

The horseback dances were spectacular sham battles by [278]mounted men. In former days, warriors took part before starting on the warpath, to stimulate their courage. The mounted men were dressed in war clothes and had their horses painted with war signs—pictures of weapons, guns, bows and arrows; a red hand stood for blood lust and red marks for men wounded or killed in battle. They wore headdresses of eagle feathers and horned bonnets, and carried war bundles—the

sacred War Bridle, the Lance, and the Shield. They used decorated saddles and bridles and tied up the tails of their horses; and had strings of bells strapped to their legs and around the necks of their horses.

[MP3 | MuseScore]

I saw a group of men and women gathered in a circle, drumming and singing, waiting for the horsemen to come. Soon the riders appeared on the summit of a hill, where they stood for a while in sight of the people; then rode down at a gallop in single file, with Little Plume their war chief in the lead. First they rode round the inner circle with shrill war-whoops, and came to the place where the people were gathered. They circled round and round, shouting and firing their rifles. Then they gave horseback dances, reënacting scenes of former battles. One band rode at full speed against another, maneuvering with war cries and shooting. Then they formed in line, and with Little Plume in the lead, marched slowly through the camp, with rifles in position, singing a song of victory and holding aloft their sacred Lance. [279]

Just outside the circle camp was the race track, a level stretch along a low range of hills. The head of the course lay towards the snow-capped

Rockies and extended eastward toward the open plains. On one side were grass-covered prairies, decked with lovely wild flowers; and on the other the outskirts of the big camp with its smoke-colored tepees.

For the most exciting race of that day, a large crowd of Indians gathered at the finish; they wagered horses, robes, and blankets. The young riders were naked, wearing only loin-cloths and moccasins. They rode wild broncos without saddles, using rawhide ropes for bridles. At the start I heard shouts, and saw a cloud of dust moving swiftly. The riders came, lying low along the backs of their broncos and beating them with rawhide whips. A famous race horse named “Bull Shoe” won, amid shouts from the throng of spectators.

Then Elk Horn, the herald, rode through the camp and announced that White Grass, the medicine man, would take out his Dancing Pipe; he invited every one to come to the ceremony.

Now the Dancing Pipe was the oldest and most powerful of the medicine pipes. Many came to follow it, both men and women, dressed in their best, each carrying some sacred object to which they prayed. A throng soon filled the lodge of White Grass and crowded about the outside. They watched him remove the wrappings from the pipe, one by one, each with a different song, until at last he held up the long stem. It was wrapped with fur and decorated with eagle feathers and bright-colored plumes.

White Grass lifted the Pipe reverently, holding it to the north, south, east, and west; and prayed to the Sun for all the people. Two chiefs arose and recounted their brave deeds in war; and, after that, four men sounded their drums. [280]

Then White Grass stood up and held the Pipe in front of him. He danced slowly from the lodge, men and women and even children following in single file, until there was a long line of dancing Indians moving in and out among the tepees. White Grass and the four

drummers led the dancers, beating their drums and singing the songs of the Dancing Pipe. They moved once around the big camp circle and then back to the lodge of White Grass.

[MP3 | MuseScore]

Another crowd gathered at the tepee of Night Gun, to see some women choose their men in the Kissing Dance. The men stood in line on one side of the lodge, the women on the other. When the lines came close together, the man who was chosen put a blanket over his head and the woman’s, and they kissed each other while dancing between the lines. For this favor, the man had to make the woman a present, generally a blanket, though sometimes other gifts were added.

But a tragedy put an end to the Kissing Dance. There was a married woman who liked the dance so much she neglected home and children. When her husband found out that she kept choosing a former lover, he came to the dance lodge and killed her.

ELK HORN, HERALD OF THE BRAVE DOG SOCIETY

He announced their orders and warnings through the camp

I saw a band of visiting Sioux warriors parade on horseback, [281]singing a Celebration Song. Lone Dog was their leader; also Red Boy, Bear Paw, and White Eagle. They wore feathered shields fastened to their backs and carried rifles and feathered wands. Their

horses were painted and had bunches of feathers attached to manes and tails. They also had head ornaments and beaded flaps of rawhide, which were fastened to their stirrups. While parading the camp circle, they sang:

“Oh, Blackfoot! In the past we heard you boast, You would never live like white men. But we see you now, With few of your fine Indian clothes left.”

[MP3 | MuseScore]

According to an old custom, these visiting Sioux warriors stopped to sing at the lodges of prominent men who gave them presents and food. After going once around the camp circle, they stopped at the lodge of Áhkiona, who gave a Pipe Ceremony for them. A few years before, while visiting the Sioux in North Dakota, they gave him a Medicine Pipe; and now they were going to take it home.

[MP3 | MuseScore]

In the evening a party of warriors came to the lodge of the head-chief to sing a Wolf Song, according to an ancient war [282]custom. They stood in a circle holding a large rawhide between them, upon which they beat with sticks. They sang no words, but gave the wolf howl at intervals. Their wives and sweethearts who stood near did not sing, but joined in the wolf howls. In former days, the Blackfoot sang the Wolf Song before starting to war or on a hunt, in the belief that the spirit of the wolf, the craftiest of all wild animals, would lead and inspire them with his cunning. To express the desire of the singer, the song always ended with the wolf call, because a wolf always howls when it hunts.

That same night, I was wakened by a dog fight close to our lodge. Quickly other dogs came and joined in a mass fight, with barking, yelps and snarls. Then hundreds of dogs in all parts of the circle camp,

roused by the noise of the fight, united in a deep-throated and mournful howl—a weird sound, like the wailing of a great wolf-pack.

[MP3 | MuseScore]

When their dismal chorus died away, I went outside the lodge. It was a glorious night; the sky was clear and a full moon rising over the prairie. All about me were white tepees with their picturesque clusters of tapering poles. In the west a brilliant planet was sinking behind the dim outlines of the Rocky Mountains. The camp was throbbing with life. On all sides I heard singing and drumming. The Sioux warriors were again making their rounds, singing a Traveling Song. Then Red Fox and his sweetheart passed, singing in unison a Riding Song. The girl sat in front of her lover, wearing his [283]war bonnet. His robe of soft-tanned elkskin flowed gracefully back as they rode. Some of the night-singers were riding, mounted two on a horse, singing and marking time with clusters of sleigh bells, in perfect time with the slow jog-trot of their horses.

It was an old custom for young people to ride all night and sing, while guarding camp and protecting the horse herds. Then it became a

social custom with special songs, sung in unison by different groups riding two on a horse. [284]

[Contents]

CHAPTER XL

SOCIETY OF BRAVE DOGS

My tepee was near the three dance lodges of the Brave Dog Society, which were somewhat apart from the others, near the center of the circle camp. There they kept their costumes and weapons and dressed for parades and dances. Day after day I watched them in their interesting customs.

As a society they had power, because of their reputation for bravery. Every one feared to oppose them. They did not maltreat people, but sometimes punished severely offenders against the public welfare. Their function in the tribal camp was primarily to preserve order.

The first evening of the camp, they rode round the circle shouting their orders to the people, saying:

“Let every one be quiet to-night. Young people must not act thoughtlessly or play pranks. The sacred woman has important ceremonies and should not be disturbed.”

For parades and dances out of doors, the Brave Dogs went forth in their best costumes. They marched by twos. Short Robe, their leader, wore a beaded suit of deerskin trimmed over shoulders and arms with black-tipped weasel-skins; also a large coyote-skin, with his head thrust through a slit in the middle of the skin and the tail hanging down his back. According to their society custom, he carried a rattle in his right hand and a blanket over his left arm. Sometimes in their parades, Short Robe’s youngest son, a boy of twelve, walked by his father’s side, wearing a miniature costume like the chief.

SOCIETY OF BRAVE DOGS MARCHING THROUGH THE CAMP

In front is Short Robe, the head man, with his small son

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.