Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAndrews, Samuel
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-10T10:47:42Z
dc.date.available2018-09-10T10:47:42Z
dc.date.issued2018-09-10
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/20534
dc.description.abstractWhat are we justified in asserting when constructing an ontology of time? I believe a version of Presentism to be the only justified theory. ‘Justified’ here refers exclusively to a basis of empirical and epistemological evidence. What can we assert about the metaphysics of time when we start from a justificationist epistemology? Putnam and Rietdijk argue that the relativity of simultaneity supports Eternalism. My investigation examines the strength of justification Eternalism attains from the special theory of relativity (STR) and will argue that Eternalism is not justified by STR. I will also suggest that an alternative metaphysical theory of time, Point Presentism, attains justification from STR.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectMetaphysicsen_US
dc.subjectPhilosophy of timeen_US
dc.subjectJustificationismen_US
dc.subjectSpecial Relativityen_US
dc.subjectPutnamen_US
dc.subjectSteinen_US
dc.subjectPresentismen_US
dc.subjectEternalismen_US
dc.subjectPoint-presentismen_US
dc.titleThe Justified Ontology of Timeen_US
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.18745/th.20534
dc.type.qualificationlevelMastersen_US
dc.type.qualificationnameMAen_US
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record