Should we represent the present in Minkowski spacetime?

Abstract

In recent times, there have been notable attempts to introduce an objective present in Minkowski spacetime, a structure that, however, should also be capable to explain some aspects of our experience of time. I claim that the “interactive present” introduced by Arthur and Savitt for such purposes is inadequate, since it turns out to be neither a physically relevant property nor a good explanans of our temporal experience. In its conclusive part, and after having proposed a more adequate model for the time of our experience, I draw some general morals about the relationship between physical time and experiential time.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 104,804

External links

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

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-01-11

Downloads
170 (#144,953)

6 months
10 (#389,450)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Mauro Dorato
Università degli Studi Roma Tre

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Causality and dispersion: A reply to John Norton.Mathias Frisch - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (3):487 - 495.
The transient nows.Steven F. Savitt - 2009 - In Wayne C. Myrvold & Joy Christian, Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle. Springer. pp. 349--362.
Is there an independent principle of causality in physics.John D. Norton - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (3):475-486.

Add more references