Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 6
  • Cited by
    This (lowercase (translateProductType product.productType)) has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Le Bihan, Baptiste 2014. No-Futurism and Metaphysical Contingentism. Axiomathes, Vol. 24, Issue. 4, p. 483.

    VRANAS, PETER B. M. 2009. CAN I KILL MY YOUNGER SELF? TIME TRAVEL AND THE RETROSUICIDE PARADOX. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 90, Issue. 4, p. 520.

    Nuthmann, Antje and Van Der Meer, Elke 2005. Time's arrow and pupillary response. Psychophysiology, Vol. 42, Issue. 3, p. 306.

    SIDER, THEODORE 2004. Replies to Gallois, Hirsch and Markosian. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 68, Issue. 3, p. 674.

    Monton, B. 2003. Presentists can believe in closed timelike curves. Analysis, Vol. 63, Issue. 3, p. 199.

    Matsuno, Koichiro 1998. Dynamics of time and information in dynamic time. Biosystems, Vol. 46, Issue. 1-2, p. 57.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 1995
  • Online publication date: January 2010

11 - Recent work on time travel

Summary

Introduction

Over the last few years leading scientific journals have been publishing articles dealing with time travel and time machines. (An unsystematic survey produced the following count for 1990–1992. Physical Review D: 11; Physical Review Letters: 5; Classical and Quantum Gravity. 3; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: 2; Journal of Mathematical Physics: 1. A total of 22 articles involving 22 authors.) Why? Have physicists decided to set up in competition with science fiction writers and Hollywood producers? More seriously, does this research cast any light on the sorts of problems and puzzles that have featured in the philosophical literature on time travel?

The last question is not easy to answer. The philosophical literature on time travel is full of sound and fury, but the significance remains opaque. Most of the literature focuses on two matters, backward causation and the paradoxes of time travel. Properly understood, the first is irrelevant to the type of time travel most deserving of serious attention; and the latter, while always good for a chuckle, are a crude and unilluminating means of approaching some delicate and deep issues about the nature of physical possibility. The overarching goal of this chapter is to refocus attention on what I take to be the important unresolved problems about time travel and to use the recent work in physics to sharpen the formulation of these issues.

The plan of the chapter is as follows. Section 1 distinguishes two main types of time travel – Wellsian and Godelian. The Wellsian type is inextricably bound up with backward causation.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Time's Arrows Today
  • Online ISBN: 9780511622861
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511622861
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×