| Abstract [eng] |
The main object of the thesis is the problem of future contingents – the question, if and how we should evaluate future tense propositions which are contingent (that is, neither necessary nor impossible). Eight theories of formal semantics providing different criteria of evaluation of future contingent propositions serve as the object of analysis: the non-bivalent (multivalent or with truth value gaps) group of theories which consists of 1) Ł3 by J. Łukasiewicz, 2) K3 by S. C. Kleene, 3) ockhamism by A. N. Prior, 4) supervaluationism by R. Thomason, 5) relativism by J. MacFarlane and the bivalent group of solutions consisting of 6) Peircean semantics, 7) counterpart theory by D. Lewis and 8) the Thin Red Line semantics by P. Øhrstrøm. In the dissertation we provide a detailed analysis of those eight semantical theories and present our own original method of the evaluation of future contingent propositions that lacks the drawbacks characteristic to the eight mentioned solutions. We defend the claim that the most adequate method of evaluation of future contingent statements is the Thin Red Line theory based on the branching-time structure and evaluating all future tense propositions as true or false, since it does not require us to reject any of the intuitively acceptable logical principles related to time. |
