No Future

Thumbnail Image
Files
Horsten_2-79z6vyjo5ulg6.pdf(2.1 MB)
Date
2001
Authors
Leitgeb, Hannes
Editors
Contact
Journal ISSN
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliographical data
Publisher
Series
URI (citable link)
urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-79z6vyjo5ulg6
DOI (citable link)
10.1023/A:1017569601150
ArXiv-ID
International patent number
Link to the license
In Copyright
EU project number
Project
Open Access publication
Collections
Philosophie
Restricted until
Title in another language
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Publication type
Journal article
Publication status
Published
Published in
Journal of Philosophical Logic ; 30 (2001), 3. - pp. 259-265. - Springer. - ISSN 0022-3611. - eISSN 1573-0433
Abstract
The difficulties with formalizing the intensional notions necessity, knowability and omniscience, and rational belief are well-known. If these notions are formalized as predicates applying to (codes of) sentences, then from apparently weak and uncontroversial logical principles governing these notions, outright contradictions can be derived. Tense logic is one of the best understood and most extensively developed branches of intensional logic. In tense logic, the temporal notions future and past are formalized as sentential operators rather than as predicates. The question therefore arises whether the notions that are investigated in tense logic can be consistently formalized as predicates. In this paper it is shown that the answer to this question is negative. The logical treatment of the notions of future and past as predicates gives rise to paradoxes due the specific interplay between both notions. For this reason, the tense paradoxes that will be presented are not identical to the paradoxes referred to above.
Summary in another language
Subject (DDC)
100 Philosophy
Keywords
Conference
Review
undefined / . - undefined, undefined. - (undefined; undefined)
Cite This
ISO 690HORSTEN, Leon, Hannes LEITGEB, 2001. No Future. In: Journal of Philosophical Logic. Springer. 30(3), pp. 259-265. ISSN 0022-3611. eISSN 1573-0433. Available under: doi: 10.1023/A:1017569601150
BibTex
@article{Horsten2001Futur-56943,
  year={2001},
  doi={10.1023/A:1017569601150},
  title={No Future},
  number={3},
  volume={30},
  issn={0022-3611},
  journal={Journal of Philosophical Logic},
  pages={259--265},
  author={Horsten, Leon and Leitgeb, Hannes}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/56943">
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">The difficulties with formalizing the intensional notions necessity, knowability and omniscience, and rational belief are well-known. If these notions are formalized as predicates applying to (codes of) sentences, then from apparently weak and uncontroversial logical principles governing these notions, outright contradictions can be derived. Tense logic is one of the best understood and most extensively developed branches of intensional logic. In tense logic, the temporal notions future and past are formalized as sentential operators rather than as predicates. The question therefore arises whether the notions that are investigated in tense logic can be consistently formalized as predicates. In this paper it is shown that the answer to this question is negative. The logical treatment of the notions of future and past as predicates gives rise to paradoxes due the specific interplay between both notions. For this reason, the tense paradoxes that will be presented are not identical to the paradoxes referred to above.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:creator>Leitgeb, Hannes</dc:creator>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/56943"/>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/56943/3/Horsten_2-79z6vyjo5ulg6.pdf"/>
    <dc:creator>Horsten, Leon</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <dc:contributor>Horsten, Leon</dc:contributor>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dc:contributor>Leitgeb, Hannes</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/56943/3/Horsten_2-79z6vyjo5ulg6.pdf"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2022-03-22T10:54:58Z</dc:date>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2022-03-22T10:54:58Z</dcterms:available>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dcterms:issued>2001</dcterms:issued>
    <dcterms:title>No Future</dcterms:title>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Internal note
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Contact
URL of original publication
Test date of URL
Examination date of dissertation
Method of financing
Comment on publication
Alliance license
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
International Co-Authors
Bibliography of Konstanz
No
Refereed
Yes