Abstract
In discussions of contingent futures such as "there will be a naval battle tomorrow", the "Ockhamist" position is defined by the recognition of an objective asymmetry between the past, which is necessary, and the future, which is partly contingent, and the assertion that this asymmetry is not incompatible with the truth of assertions about contingent futures. I will consider the following metaphysical problem that arises in connection with Ockhamism: is it possible to maintain both that true assertions about the future are well-founded and that the future is open or contingent? I will examine one possible answer to this question, and then confront it with two historical forms of Ockhamism, first in Ockham himself, and then in Suárez.
