Repository | Journal | Volume | Articles
![237094](https://sdvigpress.org/images/publi/_default.jpg)
(2004) Synthese 141 (1).
There have been many objections to the possibility oftime travel. But all the truly interesting ones concern the possibility of reversecausation. What is objectionable about reverse causation? I diagnose that the trulyinteresting objections are to a further possibility: that of causal loops. I raisedoubts about whether there must be causal loops if reverse causation obtains; but devote themajority of the paper to describing, and dispelling concerns about, various kinds ofcausal loop. In short, I argue that they are neither logically nor physically impossible.The only possibly objectionable feature that all causal loops share is that coincidenceis required to explain them. Just how coincidental a loop will be varies: some arereally quite ordinary, and some are incredibly unlikely. I end by speculating thatthe tendency amongst physicists to avoid discussion of causal loops involving intentionalaction may have been unfortunate, since intentional action is an excellent way tonon-mysteriously bring about what otherwise would have been an unlikely coincidence. Hencecausal loops may be more likely in a world with beings like us, than in one without.
Publication details
DOI: 10.1023/B:SYNT.0000035847.28833.4f
Full citation:
Hanley, R. (2004). No end in sight: causal loops in philosophy, physics and fiction. Synthese 141 (1), pp. 123-152.
This document is unfortunately not available for download at the moment.