Jerzy Gołosz

Resumo Este artigo analisa, as recentes versões, da objecção à existência de um fluxo do tempo, com base na pergunta: “Com que velocidade flui o tempo?”. O autor mostra que as soluções existentes para o problema não são plausíveis e, que em vez disso, a resolução deve ser encontrada numa nova concepção de fluxo temporal, que evite tais dificuldades. A teoria metafísica proposta desenvolve as ideias de Broad e Prior sob um novo enquadramento, que invalida a objecção resultante da questão sobre o ritmo da passagem do tempo e das respostas “segundo a segundo”. Neste texto também se procura mostrar, que esta teoria metafísica, aqui proposta, possui outras virtudes que testemunham a seu favor. Palavras-chave : existência dinâmica, fluxo do tempo, presentismo, velocidade de passagem do tempoThe paper analyzes some recent versions of the objection to the existence of the flow of time based on the question: “How fast does time flow?”. It shows that the replies given to the problem are implausible and instead proposes a solution for the issue in the form of a conception of the flow of time which can avoid such a difficulty. The proposed metaphysical theory develops the ideas of Broad and Prior in a radical way and invalidates the objection resulting from the question about the rate of passage and answers “second per second”. The paper also tries to show that this metaphysical theory has other virtues which testify in favor of it. Keywords : flow of time; rate of time’s passage; presentism; dynamic existence

Th author submits to a critical analysis the argument of the hole, which has been formulated by Einstein and later developed by Earman and Norton. The aim of the analysis is an evaluation of the assumption made in the argument and the possibility of avoiding its indeterministic consequences. It turns out that it is a particular form of substantivalism assumed by Earman and Norton which is responsible for the indeterministic consequences of the argument. It follows that those consequences can be avoided by rejecting either substantivalism as a whole or its particular form accepted by both authors. None of the non-substantivalist interpretations proposed can be accepted, including also the one that Earman himself has tried to develop. The presented forms of the structural substantivalism and the substantivalism rejecting the transworld identification of points are hardly aceptable, either. Hence, there are two alternatives left: either one of the versions of essentialism or else instrumentalism, i.e. giving up doing ontology. Since the author regards instrumentalism as cognitively fruitless, he prefers the first option