Jacek Wawer

A novel fatalistic argument that combines elements of modal, temporal, and epistemic logic to prove that the fixed past is not compatible with the open future has recently been presented by Lampert (Analysis 82(3):426–434, 2022). By the construction of a countermodel, it is shown that his line of reasoning is defective. However, it is also explained how Lampert’s argument could be corrected if it were supported with an extra premise regarding the temporal status of a priori knowledge. This additional assumption—which was tacit in the original presentation—is shown to be the weakest link, and it is argued that, despite Lampert’s assurance, it can be plausibly rejected in a roughly Ockhamist framework. Thus, it is concluded that the fixed past poses no threat to the open future; however, a few different lessons about knowledge, necessity, and time are drawn from careful reflection on this novel argument.

It is argued that the assignment of truth values to future contingents is threatened not by a tensed metaphysics but by a temporally “local” notion of truth,i.e., by the assumption that whatever is true at a given time needs to be grounded in what exists at that time. If this assumption is accepted, tensed and tenseless metaphysics are equally vulnerable; if it is rejected, both can accommodate true future contingents. This means that semantic decisions are largely independent of metaphysical considerations. The work of Correia and Rosenkranz (2018) is a clear example of how the tensed metaphysics of the growing block can incorporate true future contingents. Two potential worries are discussed in the context of their work: (a) that their grounding strategy overgeneralizes and admits true counterfactual contingents; and (b) that the growing block theory lacks sufficient resources to distinguish the unique possible future course of events that is relevant for the grounding of future contingents.

In the presented article, I have analyzed the famous Saul Kripke statement that some a priori truths are contingent. I show, that despite Kripke’s thesis, in the historical understanding of contingency, the notions of contingency and apriority are in deep conflict with each other. In this understanding of contingency, the past, which can be known a priori, is not contingent, and the future, which is contingent, has difficulty acquiring a priori knowledge. Having stated Kripke’s thesis more precisely, I propose three means in order to defend it in the historical understanding of possibility: by introducing the notion of “factual” future, by replacing the notion of apriority with the notion of apriority-in-the-future; by replacing the notion of apriority with the notion of historical apriority, and the notion of contingency with the notion of once-apriority. In the annex of the article, I present the formal analysis of the problem that I have introduced and three solutions which I have proposed in the language of temporal-modal logic of predicates for models of indeterministic time.

In Kripke-semantics for modal logic, the truth value of a sentence depends on the choice of a semantic index. It means that application of such semantics to natural language analysis requires indication of an index relevant for semantic analysis. It is commonly accepted that the relevant index is initialised by the context of an utterance. The idea has been rejected by the semanticists investigating tempo-modal languages in the framework of indeterminism, which generated the problem of initialization of the semantic index. I present the main argument of those semanticists and describe several responses to the initialisation problem. I finally argue that under certain metaphysical and semantic assumptions, one can respond to the initialisation failure in the classical way, even in indeterministic contexts.

W ramach semantyk Kripkego dla języków modalnych wartość logiczna zdania może zmieniać się wraz ze zmianą parametru indeksu semantycznego. Oznacza to, że stosując tego typu semantykę do analizy zdań języka naturalnego, musimy wskazać indeks istotny dla analizy semantycznej. Zwykło się przyjmować, że odpowiedni indeks jest ustalany przez kontekst wypowiedzi. Pomysł ten został odrzucony przez semantyków analizujących języki temporalno-modalne w kontekście indeterminizmu, co wygenerowało problem ustalania indeksu. W artykule przedstawię argument owych semantyków, a następnie zarysuję kilka odpowiedzi na problem ustalania indeksu. Ostatecznie będę argumentował, że przy pewnych założeniach metafizycznych i semantycznych można udzielić klasycznej odpowiedzi na problem ustalania indeksu również w kontekstach indeterministycznych.

W artykule poddaję analizie słynne twierdzenie Saula Kripkego, że niektóre prawdy a priori są przygodne. Pokazuję, że wbrew tezie Kripkego, przy historycznym rozumieniu przygodności, pojęcia przygodności i aprioryczności stoją ze sobą w głębokim konflikcie. Przy tym rozumieniu przygodności przeszłość, którą można poznać a priori, nie jest przygodna, a o przyszłości, która jest przygodna, trudno zdobyć wiedzę a priori. Doprecyzowawszy tezę Kripkego, proponuję trzy sposoby jej obrony w kontekście historycznego rozumienia możliwości: przez wprowadzenie pojęcia “faktycznej” przyszłości, przez zastąpienie pojęcia aprioryczności pojęciem aprioryczności-wprzyszłości; przez zastąpienie pojęcia aprioryczności pojęciem historycznej aprioryczności, a pojęcia przygodności pojęciem niegdyś-przygodności. W aneksie do artykułu przedstawiam formalną analizę postawionego przeze mnie problemu oraz trzech zaproponowanych przeze mnie rozwiązań w języku temporalno-modalnej logiki predykatów dla modeli indeterministycznego czasu.

The purpose of the paper is to rethink the role of actuality in the branching model of possibilities. We investigate the idea that the model should be enriched with an additional factor—the so-called Thin Red Line—which is supposed to represent the single possible course of events that gets actualized in time. We believe that this idea was often misconceived which prompted some unfortunate reactions. On the one hand, it suggested problematic semantic models of future tense and and on the other, it provoked questionable lines of criticism. We reassess the debate and point to potential pitfalls, focusing on the semantic dimension of the Thin Red Line theory. Our agenda transcends the semantics, however. We conclude that semantic considerations do not threaten the Thin Red Line theory and that the proper debate should be carried in the domain of metaphysics.

In a recently published paper, Patrick Todd (2016, 'Future contingents are all false! On behalf of a Russellian open future') advocates a novel treatment of future contingents. On his view, all statements concerning the contingent future are false. He motivates his semantic postulates by considerations in philosophy of time and modality, in particular by the claim that there is no actual future. I present a number of highly controversial consequences of Todd’s theory. Inadequacy of his semantics might indirectly serve as an argument against the philosophical view underpinning his proposal.

The thin red line ( TRL ) is a theory about the semantics of future-contingents. The central idea is that there is such a thing as the ‘actual future’, even in the presence of indeterminism. It is inspired by a famous solution to the problem of divine foreknowledge associated with William of Ockham, in which the freedom of agents is argued to be compatible with God’s omniscience. In the modern branching time setting, the theory of the TRL is widely regarded to suffer from several fundamental problems. In this paper we propose several new TRL semantics, each with differing degrees of success. This leads up to our final semantics, which is a cross between the TRL and supervaluationism. We discuss the notions of truth, validity and semantic consequence which result from our final semantics, and demonstrate some of its pleasing results. This account, we believe, answers the main objection in the literature, and thus places the TRL on the same level as any other competing semantics for future contingents

There is a long-standing disagreement among Branching-Time theorists. Even though they all believe that the branching representation accurately grasps the idea that the future, contrary to the past, is open, they argue whether this representation is compatible with the claim that one among many possible futures is distinguished—the single future that will come to be. This disagreement is paralleled in an argument about the bivalence of future contingents. The single, privileged future is often called the Thin Red Line. I reconstruct the history of the arguments for and against this idea. Then, I propose my own version of the Thin Red Line theory which is immune to the major objections found in the literature. I argue that the semantic disagreement is grounded in distinct metaphysical presuppositions. My solution is expressed in a conceptual framework proposed by John MacFarlane, who distinguishes semantics from postsemantics. I extend his distinction and introduce a new notion of presemantics to elucidate my idea