Publikation: No Future
Lade...
Dateien
Datum
2001
Autor:innen
Leitgeb, Hannes
Herausgeber:innen
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
Internationale Patentnummer
Link zur Lizenz
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Open Access Green
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
Journal of Philosophical Logic. Springer. 2001, 30(3), pp. 259-265. ISSN 0022-3611. eISSN 1573-0433. Available under: doi: 10.1023/A:1017569601150
Zusammenfassung
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.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
100 Philosophie
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Zitieren
ISO 690
HORSTEN, Leon, Hannes LEITGEB, 2001. No Future. In: Journal of Philosophical Logic. Springer. 2001, 30(3), pp. 259-265. ISSN 0022-3611. eISSN 1573-0433. Available under: doi: 10.1023/A:1017569601150BibTex
@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>Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Nein
Begutachtet
Ja
