Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:58:21.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

When Time Gets Off Track

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2010

Extract

Over the last forty years, philosophers have argued back and forth about backward causation. It requires a certain structure of time for something as backward causation to be not only possible but also to take place in the real world. In case temporal becoming is an objective feature of the world in the sense that the future is unreal, or at least ontologically indeterminate, it is impossible to see how backward causation can arise. Th e same difficulty does not hold with respect to forward causation. For even though it is assumed according to one dynamic view of time, the instant view or presentism, that merely present events exist—and past events therefore are no longer real or have become ontologically indeterminate—such a view can still maintain that past events once were there to cause present events. Future events, however, are still to come, and being indeterminate or nothing at all, they cannot cause any events in the present. In other words, causation backwards in time can occur only if we think of time as static; that is, no objective becoming exists, and the world consists of tenselessly occurring future events that exist in the same sense as past and present events. Backward causation requires the so-called full view, or possibly the half-full view, of time.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carnap, Rudolf 1966. Philosophical Foundations of Physics. New York, London: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Dorato, Mauro 1995. Time and Reality, Bologna: Clueb.Google Scholar
Dorato, Mauro 1998. ‘Becoming and the Arrow of Causation’ (unpubl.)Google Scholar
, Faye, 01 1989. The reality of the future. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
, Faye 1997a. ‘Is the Mark Method Time Dependent?’, in Jan Faye, Scheffler, Uwe & Urchs, Max (eds) Perspectives on Time. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 189, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 215–36.Google Scholar
, Faye 1997b. ‘Causation, Reversibility and the Direction of Time’, in Jan Faye, Scheffler, Uwe and Urchs, Max (eds) Perspectives on Time, 237–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegerfeldt, G. 1994a. ‘Causality Problems for Fermi's Two-atom System’, Phys. Rev. lett. 72, no. 5, 596–99.Google Scholar
Hegerfeldt, G. 1994b. ‘Remark on Causality and Particle Localization.’ Phys. Rev. D, 10, no. 10, 3320–21.Google Scholar
Price, Huw 1996. Time's Arrow and Archimedes’ Point. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar