Izvestiya of Saratov University.

Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy

ISSN 1819-7671 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1948 (Online)

Full text:
(downloads: 36)
Article type: 

Determinism and the problem of actual future

Pimanov Artem Sergeevich, Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov

Introduction. This article raises the question of the role of determinism in the formation of the Thin Red Line hypothesis. This hypothesis is one of the few branches of logic which address the problems of determinism and actual future. The author considers how certain logical and philosophical preconditions led to the formation of the Thin Red Line hypothesis as a compatibilist view, according to which in the presence of an open branched future that provides indeterminism, one can argue that the future is in some way directed toward actual history. Theoretical analysis. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of deterministic arguments in the works by Arthur Prior and Peter Ohrstrom. The author considers the idea that the initial effort to overcome theological determinism through Thin Red Line hypothesis within a temporal logic encountered a number of other deterministic problems that undermine the foundation of Thin Red Line hypothesis. In particular, emphasis is placed on the fact that the Thin Red Line hypothesis has certain problems with expressing the relevance of the future. The arguments against Thin Red Line hypothesis by Belnap and Green are described in detail. Conclusion. An assessment of the current state of Thin Red Line hypothesis and possible directions for further research on this topic are explored.

  1. Wheatherford R. The implications of determinism. New York, Routledge library editions: Free will and determinism, 2017, vol. 8. 288 p.
  2. Karpenko A. S. Fatalizm i sluchaynost budushchego: Logicheskiy analiz [Fatalism and the Accidence of the Future: A Logical Analysis]. Moscow, LENAND Publ., 2019. 216 p. (in Russian).
  3. Ploug T., Ohrstrom P. Branching time, indeterminism and tense logic. In: Synthese. Dordrecht, Springer, 2012, pp. 367–379.
  4. Belnap N., Muller T., Placek T. New Foundations for Branching Space-Times. In: Studia Logica. Dordrecht, Springer, 2021, pp. 239–284.
  5. Muller T. Time and Determinism. Journal of Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht, Springer, 2015, vol. 44, pp. 729–740.
  6. Belnap N., Green M. Indeterminism and the Thin Red Line. Philosophical Perspectives. Logic and Language. Wiley, Ridgeview Publishing Company, 1994, vol. 8, pp. 365–388.
  7. Prior A. N. Past, Present and Future. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1967. 217 p.
  8. Ohrstrom P. Anselm, Ockham and Leibniz on Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. Erkenntnis. Dordrecht, Springer, 1984, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 209–222.
  9. Burgess J. The Unreal Future. Theoria, 1978, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 157–179.
  10. Ohrstrom P. In Defence of the Thin Red Line: A Case for Ockhamism. In: Humana. Mente. Firenze, Biblioteca fi losofi ca Publ., 2009, pp. 17–32.
  11. Borghini A., Torrengo G. The Metaphysics of the Thin Red Line. In: Around the Tree: Semantic and Metaphysical Issues Concerning Branching and the Open Future. Synthese Library. Dordrecht, Springer, 2013, vol. 361, pp. 105–125.
  12. Malpass A., Wawer J. A future for the thin red line. In: Synthese. Dordrecht, Springer, 2012, vol. 188, no. 1, pp. 117–142.