Cited by 42Philosophy and Theoretical ScienceRelativity and Gravitational TheoryPhilosophical and Theoretical Analysis

Skeptical notes on a physics of passage

Open access
Huggett, Nick·2014·Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract

This paper investigates the mathematical representation of time in physics. In existing theories, time is represented by the real numbers, hence their formal properties represent properties of time: these are surveyed. The central question of the paper is whether the existing representation of time is adequate, or whether it can or should be supplemented: especially, do we need a physics incorporating some kind of “dynamical passage” of time? The paper argues that the existing mathematical framework is resistant to such changes, and might have to be rejected by anyone seeking a physics of passage. Then it rebuts two common arguments for incorporating passage into physics, especially the claim that it is an element of experience. Finally, the paper investigates whether, as has been claimed, causal set theory provides a physics of passage.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/nyas.12514

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If spacetime events that are spacelike related do not exist for each other, then that is a radical fragmentation of reality.

    “If spacetime events that are spacelike related do not exist for each other, for instance, then that is a radical fragmentation of reality.13”

    From What Becomes of a Causal Set? (2017) · cites this paper as [13]

    Section 3 (p. 10) says that spacelike-related events have no physical order of creation, not that they do not exist for each other. Searches for existence between spacelike events and a ‘fragmentation of reality’ found no passage making that claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huggett, N.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Huggett, Nick
Venue
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-09-02
Volume
1326
Issue
1
Pages
9-17
ISSN
  • 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-6632
OpenAlex
W1901515473
Cited by
41
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 18 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Relativity and Gravitational Theory
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical and Theoretical Analysis
Keywords
passage of time, real numbers, causal sets, philosophy of time, temporal experience, time in physics
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Theoretical, Physics, Time

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review