The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow
Abstract
Today I am typing words on a page. Suppose today were different. Suppose I were typing different words. Then plainly tomorrow would be different also; for instance, different words would appear on the page. Would yesterday also be different? If so, how? Invited to answer, you will perhaps come up with something. But I do not think there is anything you can say about how yesterday would be that will seem clearly and uncontroversially true. The way the future is depends counterfactually on the way the present is. If the present were different, the future would be different; and there are counterfactual conditionals, many of them as unquestionably true as counterfactuals ever get, that tell us a good deal about how the future would be different if the present were different in various ways. Likewise the present depends counterfactually on the past, and in general the way things are later depends on the way things were earlier. Not so in reverse. Seldom, if ever, can we find a clearly true counterfactual about how the past would be different if the present were somehow different. Such a counterfactual, unless clearly false, normally is not clear one way or the other. It is at best doubtful whether the past depends counterfactually on the present, whether the present depends on the future, and in general whether the way things are earlier depends on the way things will be later. Often, indeed, we seem to reason in a way that takes it for granted that the past is counterfactually independent of the present: that is, that even if the present were different, the
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Scorekeeping in a language game
Lewis, D. (1979) · Journal of Philosophical Logic · doi:10.1007/bf00258436 · Cited by 2,467
Self-citationCounterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic
Lewis, D. K., & The Journal of Philosophy, I. (1968) · Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2024555 · Cited by 1,078
Self-citationAdams, R. M. (1974) · Noûs · doi:10.2307/2214751 · Cited by 400
Lewis, D. (1970) · Noûs · doi:10.2307/2214320 · Cited by 273
Self-citationLewis, D. (2016) · doi:10.1002/9781118922590.ch26 · Cited by 272
Self-citationA causal theory of counterfactuals
Jackson, F. (1977) · Australasian Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.1080/00048407712341001 · Cited by 270
VII.—Subjunctive Conditionals, Time Order, and Causation
Downing, P. B. (1959) · Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback) · doi:10.1093/aristotelian/59.1.125 · Cited by 69
Cited by
Glennan, S. (2017) · Oxford Scholarship Online · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198779711.001.0001 · Cited by 603
Nonreductive Physicalism and the Limits of the Exclusion Principle
List, C., Menzies, P., & Journal of Philosophy, I. (2009) · Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.5840/jphil2009106936 · Cited by 340
Brogaard, B., & Salerno, J. (2013) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0196-6 · Cited by 288
The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
Floridi, L. (2019) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198833635.001.0001 · Cited by 284
Wilson, A. (2018) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.12190 · Cited by 267
Metadata
- Authors
- Lewis, D.
- Venue
- Noûs
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1979-11
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 455
- ISSN
- 0029-4624 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2148976510
- Cited by
- 1,610
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 44.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2215339
- The paper
- Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow. Noûs. https://doi.org/10.2307/2215339
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.