捍卫开放的未来回复麦克法兰、格林、瓦瑟曼和比格与米勒

IF 0.4 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Patrick Todd
{"title":"捍卫开放的未来回复麦克法兰、格林、瓦瑟曼和比格与米勒","authors":"Patrick Todd","doi":"10.1111/phib.12327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this symposium piece, I reply to the diverse and wide-ranging set of objections to my book (<i>The Open Future: Why Future Contingents are All False</i>) set forth by MacFarlane, Green, Wasserman, and Bigg &amp; Miller.</p>","PeriodicalId":45646,"journal":{"name":"Analytic Philosophy","volume":"66 2","pages":"249-277"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/phib.12327","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defending The Open Future: Replies to MacFarlane, Green, Wasserman, and Bigg & Miller\",\"authors\":\"Patrick Todd\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/phib.12327\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In this symposium piece, I reply to the diverse and wide-ranging set of objections to my book (<i>The Open Future: Why Future Contingents are All False</i>) set forth by MacFarlane, Green, Wasserman, and Bigg &amp; Miller.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analytic Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"66 2\",\"pages\":\"249-277\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/phib.12327\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analytic Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phib.12327\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytic Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phib.12327","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇研讨会文章中,我对麦克法兰、格林、瓦瑟曼和比格&米勒对我的书(《开放的未来:为什么未来预设都是假的》)提出的各种反对意见做出了回应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Defending The Open Future: Replies to MacFarlane, Green, Wasserman, and Bigg & Miller

In this symposium piece, I reply to the diverse and wide-ranging set of objections to my book (The Open Future: Why Future Contingents are All False) set forth by MacFarlane, Green, Wasserman, and Bigg & Miller.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Analytic Philosophy
Analytic Philosophy PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信