Search

The authors comment on an argument made by D. H. Mellor that a certain position in the temporal case is inconsistent where the analogous modal position is not. A list of claims based on the doctrine against which Mellor's argument is successful but the analogous modal argument is not is presented. An assumption made by the authors was that the argument of Mellor was intended to apply to an A-theorist who does not assume.

The article demonstrates that the alleged proof of G. Rodriguez-Pereyra rests on a false assumption. In this assumption, it stated that if there are no concrete objects, then there are no concrete objects. A definition of metaphysical nihilism is presented, referring to a thesis that there could have been no concrete objects. The three premises for the subtraction argument for metaphysical nihilism is listed.