I'm interested in those areas of philosophy for which modern theories of information science offer intuitive explanations and useful solutions to questions historically included under the subject of metaphysics. Reading "Metaphysics: A contemporary introduction" by Michael J. Loux (1998), I read the debates of McTaggert's A-theory, B-theory and can't help but think of Turing Equivalence to the extent some arguments suggest A-theory, B-theory can be taken as independent and sufficient theories of time, which begs the question--Is choosing one over the other a matter of preference?
On the one hand B-theory has value in science: "The B-theorist's account of time has the highest scientific credentials. It is precisely the account of time to which we are committed by Einstein's theory of special relativity." (p 215)
While on the other hand A-theory is highly intuitive and useful, "The present is right there before us in both perception and introspection. As on A-theorist has put it, the present is 'alive' for us in experience. [...] By contrast, we directly experience neither the past nor the future. Indeed, we remember the past, and we feel relief, regret, and nostalgia with regard to what is past. We anticipate the future, and we fear, dread, and hope for the future. And all these different attitudes are appropriate: they fit the ontologial distinctions involved in the past, present and future." (p 218)
What's fueling my imagination are the Gordian arguments throughout Loux debunking the other guy's theory; The classic 'I don't need to prove I'm right, I just need to prove you're wrong' approach. However, when I read the arguments presented here on time, it occurred to me other disciples also have strong theories here which are both meaningful and useful.
I started to think the situation here as similar to the different values and trade-offs between various programming languages where, in truth and fact, two programming languages are equivalent when every function in one language can be expressed (albeit maybe not as elegantly nor as efficiently) in another language. The choice of language then rests on the positive utility of what each language does best.
Are there any writers who are working along similar lines to critique long standing metaphysical arguments in light of modern theory and pragmatics of information science? (An argument appropriately apologetic, and then stunningly obvious for it's insight; In a word more positive?)