Re: [討論] 如果昨天到了明天會變成兩天前
okok...我去看了一下, 覺得滿有趣的, 和哲學中在討論的時間哲學有些相關。
原文似乎是:
"If yesterday was two days ago tomorrow,
will the day after tomorrow be today or yesterday?"
其實關鍵在於時態。
首先有個小問題, 為何第一句用 'was'?
按照正常的文法, 第一句的時間是由副詞tomorrow給出,
而不是由主詞yesterday給出, 所以按文法規定而言可以有:
1. if yesterday will be two days ago tomorrow...
這是最直接的講法。
意思是, 在明天時, 昨天「是」兩天前。
2. if yesterday is two days ago tomorrow...
這樣也可以通, 因為未來時態的condition有時可用現在式,
表達對fulfillment的不確定性 (e.g. if it rains, I will stay home).
另一種會用 'is' 的原因是表達tenseless的條件,
也就是單純呈述昨天(indexical)是兩天前(non-indexical)。
3. if yesterday were two days ago tomorrow...
這種講法也有可能, 這裡的were是subjunctive,
基本上是表達與現在事實相反的counterfactual 假設,
不過也不一定要預設與現在事實相反, 單純只是表達counterfactual,
不過如此的語態後面那句也要改, 就變成:
if yesterday were two days ago tomorrow,
would the day after tomorrow be (or have been) today or yesterday?
好, 現在, 時間哲學當中有兩個理論,
tensed theory 和 tenseless theory.
根據tensed theory, if yesterday will be two days ago tomorrow,
(of course it will, but the tensed phrase clearly indicate such a context),
then the day after tomorrow surely will be today, it also will be yesterday,
but on a different day.
根據tenseless theory, if yesterday is two days ago tomorrow,
(the conditional indicates the context where we may translate the indexicals),
then the day after tomorrow is tomorrow (index = tomorrow),
it cannot be today, nor yesterday, and of course it cannot be both.
大概是這樣, 我在學時間哲學時, 感受到英語母語人士對時態語感的強列依賴,
如果持定tense theory, 很難理解tenseless theory 的觀點,
反過來, 如果持定tenseless theory, 也難理解tense theory 的觀點。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 131.111.224.87
推
02/25 15:28, , 1F
02/25 15:28, 1F
推
02/25 15:28, , 2F
02/25 15:28, 2F
→
02/25 16:25, , 3F
02/25 16:25, 3F
推
02/26 07:06, , 4F
02/26 07:06, 4F
推
02/26 10:11, , 5F
02/26 10:11, 5F
→
02/26 10:12, , 6F
02/26 10:12, 6F
→
02/26 10:12, , 7F
02/26 10:12, 7F
推
03/01 07:10, , 8F
03/01 07:10, 8F
→
03/01 07:10, , 9F
03/01 07:10, 9F
推
03/01 17:07, , 10F
03/01 17:07, 10F
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文 (最舊先)：
完整討論串 (本文為第 4 之 7 篇)：