Volume 13 (2021): Issue 63 (December 2021)
Special Issue on Nothing to Come by Correia & Rosenkranz

In Nothing To Come: A Defence of the Growing Block Theory of Time, Correia and Rosenkranz present in great depth their own version of the Growing Block Theory. This special issue contains several commentaries on Correia and Rosenkranz’s position made by leading figures in contemporary philosophy of time, together with extremely thorough replies by the authors themselves which clarify crucial aspects of their view.

Fabrice Correia and Sven Rosenkranz’s book Nothing to Come: a Defence of the Growing Block Theory of Time offers an incredibly rich and skillful defense of the growing block theory (GBT), a view of time that arguably has much intuitive appeal, and which has been under attack from many sides. Nonetheless, I have to report that the book’s tense-logical course of treatment has not worked for me; I still struggle with making sense of the GBT. This article begins by drawing out some implications of the book’s set up. First, the notion of existence in play here is not interpretable on the basis of ordinary usage. Second, it would be a mistake to take the tense-logical framework to have any metaphysical significance. I then articulate two main worries about their version of the GBT. The first worry takes a familiar shape: it is just hard to see how their view is dynamic in the relevant sense. The second worry is that the topic seems to have been changed. C&R’s logical system helps itself to key notions whose intended interpretation includes a solution to every metaphysical puzzle about the GBT, so that these puzzles are not so much addressed as enshrined in a formal system. That is, their view seems to answer the question of how language should behave, if the GBT were (somehow) true.

Correia and Rosenkranz (C&R) defend their Growing Block theory of time by appealing to the importance of the notion of taking tense seriously. I argue that this phrase is ambiguous, having both a linguistic and a metaphysical interpretation, but neither interpretation will give C&R what they need. On its linguistic interpretation it fails to have the metaphysical significance required to establish the truth of their theory. On its metaphysical interpretation it consists of nothing more than an assertion of their view, or at best, an acknowledgement of its merely possible truth. Finally, I consider C&R’s response to the epistemic objection to their view, according to which, if the Growing Block theory is true, we cannot know that we are located at the objective present moment. The epistemic objection thus undermines the motivation for holding the Growing Block view in the first place. C&R argue that the objection founders because it fails to take tense seriously enough. I argue that taking tense seriously cannot save their view from the epistemic objection.

Very roughly, the epistemic objection to the growing block theory (GBT) says that according to that theory there are many past times at which persons falsely believe they are present. Since there is nothing subjectively distinguishable about a situation in which one truly believes one is present, from a situation in which one falsely believes one is present, the GBT is a theory on which we cannot know that we are present. In their articulation and defence of the GBT, Correia and Rosenkranz (C&R) argue that the epistemic objection fails miserably. In what follows I try to unpack their response to the objection, and locate it amongst others. Along the way I flag some confusions I have about how we are to think about the GBT as articulated by C&R.

In this book symposium contribution, I raise a question about Correia and Rosenkranz’s version of the Growing Block Theory: Is it meant to be a Four-Dimensionalist theory (with a commitment to temporal parts), or a Three-Dimensionalist theory (according to which an object is wholly present whenever it is present)? I argue that a downside of giving the first answer to this question (that the theory is committed to temporal parts) is that in that case their theory will be vulnerable to the Epistemic Objection to the Growing Block Theory. I further argue that an important advantage of giving the second answer to my question (that the theory does not come with a commitment to temporal parts) is that the Three-Dimensionalist version of the Growing Block Theory is not susceptible to the Epistemic Objection. And I also suggest that an apparent disadvantage of saying that their theory is a Three-Dimensionalist theory, namely, that in that case they will have difficulty answering questions about the properties of non-present objects (such as parrots from the distant past), can be dealt with in a way that does not commit them to either zombie parrots or bare particulars.

It is argued that the assignment of truth values to future contingents is threatened not by a tensed metaphysics but by a temporally “local” notion of truth, i.e., by the assumption that whatever is true at a given time needs to be grounded in what exists at that time. If this assumption is accepted, tensed and tenseless metaphysics are equally vulnerable; if it is rejected, both can accommodate true future contingents. This means that semantic decisions are largely independent of metaphysical considerations. The work of Correia and Rosenkranz (2018) is a clear example of how the tensed metaphysics of the growing block can incorporate true future contingents. Two potential worries are discussed in the context of their work: (a) that their grounding strategy overgeneralizes and admits true counterfactual contingents; and (b) that the growing block theory lacks sufficient resources to distinguish the unique possible future course of events that is relevant for the grounding of future contingents.

In Nothing to Come, Fabrice Correia and Sven Rosenkranz provide a sophisticated, compelling, and thoroughly defended account of the growing block theory. This note critically evaluates two aspects of this account. First, it evaluates Correia and Rosenkranz’s attempt at providing a grounding principle for future truths and argues that this principle fails to make progress in explaining why future truths are true. Second, it evaluates Correia and Rosenkranz’s construal of the open future arguing that the asymmetry in openness with respect to the past and future is not plausibly understood in terms of determinism and indeterminism, and in the final section, it evaluates their claim that a growing block theorist is able to maintain that the future is open in a stronger sense than the block theorist.

In the first part of the paper, we show that C&R’s axioms generate the following dilemma. On the one hand, they could admit that truths about future contingents have no real ground in reality. To reject the requirement of grounding, however, goes against the intuitions of most philosophers concerning truth. On the other hand, C&R could give up bivalence for future contingents at the cost of making their temporal logic more complicated and presumably losing certain theorems. In the second part, we evaluate C&R’s relativistic generalization of the growing block by discussing the various options that can be used to make relativity cohere with the growing block, and we illustrate the reasons why Stein’s “pointy present” looks preferable to bow-tie presentism.

In what follows, we will reply to the critical comments one by one in the order that seemed most natural to us, given the topics covered. Apart from the references section towards the end, our replies are conceived as pieces each of which can be read independently from any of the others (but not, of course, independently from the comments it responds to). We hope to have done justice to the critical points made by our commentators and to have come up with viable answers to the various challenges they raise.