Temporal Parts and Time Travel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Colleges, School and Institutes


This paper argues that, in light of certain scenarios involving time travel, Sider's definition of 'instantaneous temporal part' cannot be accepted in conjunction with a semantic thesis that perdurantists often assume. I examine a rejoinder from Sider, as well as Thomson's alternative definition of 'instantaneous temporal part', and show how neither helps. Given this, we should give up on the perdurantist semantic thesis. I end by recommending that, once we no longer accept such semantics, we should accept a new set of definitions, which are superior in certain respects to Sider's original set.


Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)225-240
Number of pages16
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2011