Alexander Pruss just posted an interesting argument against Presentism. Here is the thought experiment that gets the ball rolling.
You and I are watching an exciting game of tennis. Our particular interest is drawn by Federer’s next serve which is at a match point. With eager anticipation I speculate about how the serve will go. Federer is serving. You briefly respond to my remark during the serve itself, saying that my speculation doesn’t look right. Federer has served and wins the match. We continue disagreeing about the serve for the next fifteen minutes. Such a conversation is perfectly natural.
As Pruss notes, this conversation is perfectly natural. Furthermore, you and I seem to be talking about the same event. Presentism seems committed to saying that we’re not. That’s a problem for presentism.
Leave a Reply