No Future

Cite This

Files in this item

Checksum: MD5:bb8356441aab8c75f6cd7d9b5b4c3cfb

HORSTEN, 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

@article{Horsten2001Futur-56943, title={No Future}, year={2001}, doi={10.1023/A:1017569601150}, number={3}, volume={30}, issn={0022-3611}, journal={Journal of Philosophical Logic}, pages={259--265}, author={Horsten, Leon and Leitgeb, Hannes} }

<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/rdf/resource/123456789/56943"> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/jspui"/> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2022-03-22T10:54:58Z</dcterms:available> <dc:creator>Horsten, Leon</dc:creator> <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/> <dc:contributor>Horsten, Leon</dc:contributor> <dc:contributor>Leitgeb, Hannes</dc:contributor> <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"/> <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> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/> <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/56943/3/Horsten_2-79z6vyjo5ulg6.pdf"/> <dcterms:issued>2001</dcterms:issued> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/> <dcterms:title>No Future</dcterms:title> <dc:creator>Leitgeb, Hannes</dc:creator> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2022-03-22T10:54:58Z</dc:date> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

Downloads since Mar 22, 2022 (Information about access statistics)

Horsten_2-79z6vyjo5ulg6.pdf 21

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Search KOPS


Browse

My Account