Buy new:
$26.95$26.95
FREE delivery:
Monday, Feb 13
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Buy Used: $18.47
Other Sellers on Amazon
& FREE Shipping
91% positive over last 12 months
Usually ships within 4 to 5 days.
& FREE Shipping
87% positive over last 12 months
Usually ships within 4 to 5 days.
+ $3.99 shipping
85% positive over last 12 months
Usually ships within 3 to 4 days.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time 1st Edition
Enhance your purchase
Time is central to our lived experience of the world. Yet, as this book reveals, it is startlingly difficult to reconcile the way we seem to experience time with many of the theories presented to us in physics and metaphysics.
This comprehensive and accessible introduction guides the unfamiliar reader through difficult questions at the intersection of the metaphysics and physics of time. It starts with the assumption that physics and metaphysics are inextricably connected, and that each can, and should, shed light on the other. The authors explore a range of views about the nature of time, showing how different these are from the way we typically think about time and our place in it. They consider such questions as: whether time travel is possible, and, if it is, whether we can change the past; whether there is a single moment that is objectively present; whether time flows or is static; and whether, ultimately, time exists at all.
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Time will appeal to students of physics and philosophy who want both a comprehensive overview of the area and enough depth to allow for rigorous discussion. The book’s detailed readings and exercises will challenge students and provide a clear roadmap for further study.
- ISBN-101509524525
- ISBN-13978-1509524525
- Edition1st
- PublisherPolity
- Publication dateDecember 17, 2018
- LanguageEnglish
- Dimensions6 x 0.7 x 9 inches
- Print length280 pages
![]() |
Frequently bought together

- +
- +
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
Review
‘The metaphysics of time can be a tough nut to crack. Using down-to-earth language and highlighting important concepts, this highly readable book does an admirable job of giving students the tools they need to understand the field.’
Craig Callender, UC San Diego
‘A simply excellent book that deserves to be read and is, I think, the best introduction to the topic of the philosophy of time on the market.’
Jonathan Tallant, University of Nottingham
About the Author
Kristie Miller is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney.
Product details
- Publisher : Polity; 1st edition (December 17, 2018)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 280 pages
- ISBN-10 : 1509524525
- ISBN-13 : 978-1509524525
- Item Weight : 13.2 ounces
- Dimensions : 6 x 0.7 x 9 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,174,848 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #2,143 in Philosophy Metaphysics
- #5,200 in History & Philosophy of Science (Books)
- #10,513 in Science & Mathematics
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Prior to reading this, I read a dozen or so academic articles and a few books on the philosophy of time. But this book helped me to understand the subject more clearly and broadly, as well as enabling me to better understand what I had previously read.
It was also well-written and enjoyable to read. It is a philosophy book, not narrative non-fiction or something else. So if you don't enjoy philosophy, you might have a different experience. But I enjoyed each chapter and was excited to begin each subsequent chapter.
I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the philosophy of time.
Already in section 4.1. "Dynamic Time and Relativity", I discovered a grave mistake in connection with understanding the physical concepts of the Theory of Special Relativity (SR). In figure 10 are plotted two lines C1 and C2, each representing a line where on each line the points represent simultanous events, and each line corresponds to a different frame of reference. And now comes the point: the lines cross each other. By this the authors want to clarify the difference between dynamic and relativistic time. In the figure the lines C1 and C2 cross at the point O2. Then they consider an observer with the same name O2 at the point O2. They consider the observer O2 belonging both to the reference systems C1 and C2. Please realize: the authors correpond one observer, i.e. O2, to two different systems of reference, in short: they do not distinguish between "observers" and "events", that is to say one can correspond one event, but not one observer, to two different reference systems, (a good philosophical representation of this difference can be found in Tim Maudlin's book "Philosophy of Physics, Space and Time", Princeton University Press, 2012, chapter 4, sec. "Constructing Lorentz Coordinates", especially on page 103). But this is against the laws of SR (they make exactly the mistake that is e.g. explained how to avoid in the book of Hermann Bondi, "Relativity and Common Sense", ch.VIII, "The Nature of Time", Dover 1964, p.86). So the whole lenghty discussions and classifications in the subsection written by the authors in order to clarify dynamical and relativistical time is based on a wrong application of the axioms of SR, and in conclusion is a useless venture.
It is interesting that in the same subsection on page 88, before starting the discussion with the crossed lines of simultaneity, they reproduce an old standard textbook example concerning the concept of an observer and his role in SR in form of the well known train experiment, where at both ends of the moving train two light signals are issued simultanously and Sarah standing outside in the middle of the train sees the two light signals arrive simultanously to her, but Suzy who is inside the train does not see the light signals arrive simultanously to her. There, following this standard textbook example, they correctly correpond one and only one observer to each reference system. Comparing with the example of the crossed lines C1 and C2, imagine that at the train example we only would have e.g. Sara playing the role of the observer O2. According to the argument presented in the discussion of the crossed lines of simultaneity she would both see the light signals arriving to her simultanously and not arriving to her simultanously. They introduced this example to show the relativity of simultaneity in Special Relativity and claim that this example shows the revolutionary character of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, but as is well known since a long time this discussion does not contribute anything essential to the clarification of dynamical versus relativistic time, i.e. it is not the problem of simultaneity but the existence of a finite invariant velocity that distinguishes Minkowski's from Newton's space-time, i.e. the Relativity of Simultaneity is a consequence of the latter, because simultaneity can in principle also be defined by any signal different than light (i.e. in a way that two events which are observed as simultaneous by one observer in one system are not observed as simultaneous by another observer in the other system), for a discussion see e.g. Wolfgang Rindler, "Relativity", Oxford University Press, 2006, sec.2.6, "Definition of Simultaneity", where
it is shown that synchronisation of clocks in Einstein's Special Relativity Theory can even be done by canon balls in order to discuss simultaneity, i.e. with signals slower than light, or see Hans Reichenbach, "The Philosophy of Space and Time", Dover 1957, §19, "Simultaneity", see also there §22, "The Comparison of Time", especially page 146 where it is explicitly explained why it is a serious mistake to believe that if the state of motion is taken into consideration, the relativity of simultaneity is necessary, and that indeed the relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with the relativity of motion. The whole example with the train can be constructed in a similar way by for example sound signals, see e.g. the above cited book of Reichenbach, §32, p.205 (for a general physical discussion see e.g. Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover 1962, ch. VI,1. "The Concept of Simultaneity", and for a thorough mathematical and critical discussion of this problem see Michael Friedman, "Foundations of Space-Time Theories", Princeton, 1983, sec. IV7, "Nonstandard Simultaneity Relations", or for a thorough philosophical analysis see Adolf Grünbaum, "Philosophical Problems of Space and Time", sec.ed., Reidel 1974, ch.12B, where on p.360 the Train example in connection with "Conventional Simultaneity" is discussed in length and detail). Sound waves are very much slower than light and even do not have an invariant velocity in different systems as is the case for the velocity of light, for a discussion see e.g. the above mentioned book of Wolfgang Rindler, sec. 4.2; in the example with sound waves presented above one must exchange "seeing light" with "hearing sound". In short: if one observer hears two events in her reference system simultaneously another observer may hear the same two events in her reference system not simultaneously. Baron and Miller present the train example with the conclusion that (on the top of page 88, I cite them): "The relativity of simultaneity has radical implications." (end of citation). But it is well known that the cardinal result in SR is that the speed of light is invariant in all systems, and the radical implication is that this is against common sense, or more generally formulated: contrary to Newton, in nature there exists a maximal and invariant velocity which is identified with light (see e.g. the above cited books of Wolfgang Rindler, sec. 2.11, and/or Hans Reichenbach, §32, page 205). From the latter and the principle that physical laws do not depend on inertial systems then follows the whole Theory of Relativity, especially the relativity of time (versus absolute time), and of course also "the relativity of simultaneity" but not as a fundamental new result. So I can not see any radical implications in this special example of Sara-Suzy, it is physically, and even philosophically trivial for the clarification venture of the authors.
In the book written by William Lane Craig "The Tensless Theory of Time", Kluwer 2000, on page 96, it is explained that simultaneity can even defined by an exchange of signals in which the outbound signal is a light beam and the return signal is sound waves. Not enough, this point about using arbitrary signals to define simultaneity was realised later by Einstein himself, see Albert Einstein, "The Meaning of Relativity", Chapman&Hall, reprint ed.1991, page 27.
By reading these examples of Baron-Miller I Iost my trust in this book and I have to confess that I did not bother myself to continue to read this book any further, otherwise perhaps I would have evaluated it with only one star. For a beginner on the subject of the philosophy of time the above mentioned book of Hans Reichenbach, who is one of the founders of the topic of the philosophy of space and time, which is written in the old german scientific exact way, but very clarifying, is still a much better and deeper reference (for me it is difficult to believe that people write books about topics without, as it seems to me, knowing the work of the founders of this topic). If one wants to read a newer book there is the very nice book written by James Harrington, "Time: A Philosophical Introduction", Bloomsbury Academic 2015, and the one written by the philosopher Tim Maudlin, which is cited above, is a very sophisticated and illuminating book about this topic. Philosophers who are also well educated in physics, and consequently more reliable when writing texts about topics that are tightly related to physics.
The worse of all is - and this is here only my personal opinion about this book - that these kind of books, especially when they seem to be "easy understandable" could be a cause to prevent unexperienced students from reading more sophisticated, if not to say more professional books, like some of the above mentioned ones!








