1468-0114/asset/PAPQ_centre.gif?v=1&s=e84ad797c41b896ac6e6cd4fc5a4a6abb1f43e79)
AVOIDING OR CHANGING THE PAST?
Article first published online: 16 FEB 2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2010.01383.x
© 2011 The Author. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly © 2011 University of Southern California and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Additional Information
How to Cite
GODDU, G.C. (2011), AVOIDING OR CHANGING THE PAST?. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 92: 11–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2010.01383.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 16 FEB 2011
- Article first published online: 16 FEB 2011
Abstract
Some philosophers argue that any attempt to model changing the past will either be contradictory or really model avoiding the past. Using Nicholas Smith's (1997) argument as a basis, I formulate a generic version of this Avoidance Argument. I argue that the Avoidance Argument fails because (i) it involves an equivocation of what is meant by ‘bifurcation of the time of an event’ and (ii) resolving the equivocation results in the falsity of at least one of the premises. Hence, the Avoidance Argument will not support the claim that changing the past is logically impossible.