What Is Sydney Shoemaker's Argument Of Time Without Change
1428 Words6 Pages
Time Without Change—Sydney Shoemaker: An Expository Essay
In Time Without Change, Sydney Shoemaker presents a problem from Aristotle’s Physics: Book IV. This problem states that the progression of time (T) is inextricably intertwined with the occurrence of change (C); in other words, if T then C. Shoemaker rejects the absolute association of T and C, positing a theory in which C is not necessary for T (Shoemaker, 1969). I will begin by discussing Shoemaker’s view on time and change, explaining the construction of his argument, and his position. This includes a discussion of alternative positions, and their rebuttal. Following this, I will evaluate each element of Shoemaker’s view discussed above, and disclose my rejection of this view on time without change.
Explication
Shoemaker prefaces his discussion of time and change by stating that the problem in question does not call into question the laws of…show more content… In a verificationist argument, if there are no possible means for determining the validity of a proposition, the statement possesses no meaning. Shoemaker rebukes this argument, stating that it is a fallacious move to assume that the inability to acquire validity of a statement does not make it false in every possible world (Shoemaker, 1969).
The second argument has an alternative in which universal freezes are skipped. For Shoemaker, this scenario is unnecessarily complex; therefore, he rejects it in preference of his simpler view (Shoemaker, 1969).
The last argument states that a global freeze lacks causation. Shoemaker addresses this by introducing “action at a temporal distance”, which is explained as follows: the fact that X happened at a certain time is necessary but not sufficient for Y happening at a certain time. The interim between one time and another time is an interval in which nothing happens; this interval is sufficient for Y happening (Shoemaker,