Is Future Real? Putnam’s Argument Revisited

Open Journal of Philosophy 14 (1):15-17 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Putnam’s argument aims to prove that future is as real as present. His argument is based on the equation present = real. Is real what exists now. Is real what is part of observer-independent reality. What exists now depends on an observer—it is not real. It is then shown that Special Relativity is not only a physical theory, it has also a philosophical dimension in that it questions our very understanding of reality and requires a clear distinction between reality and its representation.

Categories

Add categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.4236/ojpp.2024.141002

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,168

External links

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

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

A note on Putnam and the transitivity of the real.Charles E. Cardwell - 1972 - Philosophical Studies 23 (6):414 - 417.
Putnam on Time and Special Relativity: A Long Journey from Ontology to Ethics.Mauro Dorato - 2008 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 4 (2):51-70.
Putnam’s Argument that the Claim that We are Brains-in-a-vat is Self-Refuting.Richard McDonough - 2018 - Meta: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy 10 (1):149-159.
Putnam’s indispensability argument revisited, reassessed, revived.Otávio Bueno - 2018 - Theoria : An International Journal for Theory, History and Fundations of Science 33 (2):201-218.
Putnam's Model‐Theoretic Argument.Maximilian de Gaynesford - 2011 - In Steven D. Hales (ed.), A Companion to Relativism. Oxford, UK: Wiley‐Blackwell. pp. 569–587.
The Rietdijk–Putnam–Maxwell Argument.Pieter Thyssen - manuscript
Putnam's paradox: Metaphysical realism revamped and evaded.Bas C. Van Fraassen - 1997 - Philosophical Perspectives 11:17-42.
Putnam, languages and worlds.Panu Raatikainen - 2001 - Dialectica 55 (2):167–174.
Putnam's Argument against Cultural Imperialism.Maria Caamaño - 2011-09-16 - In Michael Bruce & Steven Barbone (eds.), Just the Arguments. Wiley‐Blackwell. pp. 159–161.
How Is Descartes' Argument against Scepticism Better than Putnam's?Michael Jacovides - 2007 - Philosophical Quarterly 57 (229):593 - 612.
Putnam's Multiple Realization Argument against Type‐Physicalism.Amir Horowitz - 2011-09-16 - In Michael Bruce & Steven Barbone (eds.), Just the Arguments. Wiley‐Blackwell. pp. 311–313.
Quine, Putnam, and the ‘Quine–Putnam’ Indispensability Argument.David Liggins - 2008 - Erkenntnis 68 (1):113 - 127.
Putnam, Gödel, and Mathematical Realism Revisited.Alan Weir - 2023 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 32 (1):146-168.
Putnam's Model‐Theoretic Argument against Metaphysical Realism.Bob Hale & Crispin Wright - 2017 - In Bob Hale, Crispin Wright & Alexander Miller (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Chichester, UK: Wiley. pp. 703–733.
Skepticism and Content Externalism.Michael McKinsey - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-12-08

Downloads
16 (#909,949)

6 months
16 (#159,435)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Time and physical geometry.Hilary Putnam - 1967 - Journal of Philosophy 64 (8):240-247.
Are probabilism and special relativity compatible?Nicholas Maxwell - 1988 - Philosophy of Science 55 (4):640-645.
Putnam on Time and Special Relativity: A Long Journey from Ontology to Ethics.Mauro Dorato - 2008 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 4 (2):51-70.

Add more references