Is precedence a secondary quality?

a reply to Robin Le Poidevin

Quentin Smith

pp. 263-266

in: L. N. Oaklander (ed), The importance of time, Berlin, Springer, 2001

Abstract

Le Poidevin's argument is that defenders of the tenseless theory of time must explain the aspects of our experience of time that seem to suggest that the tensed theory of time is true. In particular, he mentions (1) what is experienced is always experienced at present; (2) we seem to share the same present and (3) we perceive that one thing occurs after another. Regarding the third point, we perceive something y as occurring after something x because in part our perception of y is causally influenced by our perception of x.

Cited authors

Le Poidevin Robin