Cosmic inflation and the past hypothesis
Synthese 162 (2):157 - 165 (2008)
| Abstract | The past hypothesis is that the entropy of the universe was very low in the distant past. It is put forward to explain the entropic arrow of time but it has been suggested (e.g. [Penrose, R. (1989a). The emperor’s new mind. London:Vintage Books; Penrose, R. (1989b). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 571, 249–264; Price, H. (1995). In S. F. Savitt (Ed.), Times’s arrows today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Price, H. (1996). Time’s arrow and Archimedes’ point. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Price, H. (2004). In C. Hitchcock (Ed.), Contemporary debates in philosophy of science. Oxford: Blackwell]) that it is itself in need of explanation. It has also been suggested that cosmic inflation could provide the explanation, but Price (2004) raises a serious objection to this suggestion, which has otherwise received very little attention in the philosophical literature. Price points out that the standard inflationary explanation involves a double standard: although the evolution of the universe described by the inflationary model seems natural from the standard temporal perspective it looks highly unnatural from the reversed temporal perspective. The main purpose of this paper is to propose a novel form of the inflationary explanation that avoids this objection. It is argued that the inflationary model would not involve a double standard (but would still explain the past hypothesis) if we construct the model with a global “boundary” condition instead of a conventional boundary condition: if we assume that the universe is as generic as possible overall, rather than as generic as possible at some given point (e.g. the Big Bang) as is assumed in the standard inflationary model. This novel form of the inflationary explanation is then compared with Price’s 1996 preferred explanation, a version of the so-called “Weyl hypothesis”. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDavid Wallace (forthcoming). The Logic of the Past Hypothesis. In Barry Loewer, Eric Winsberg & Brad Weslake (eds.), Currently-unnamed volume discussing David Albert's "Time and Chance".
Craig Callender (2004). Measures, Explanations and the Past: Should ‘Special’ Initial Conditions Be Explained? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):195-217.
Neil Manson (2003). Fine-Tuning, Multiple Universes, and the 'This Universe' Objection. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 84 (1):67 - 83.
Daniel Parker (2005). Thermodynamic Irreversibility: Does the Big Bang Explain What It Purports to Explain? Philosophy of Science 72 (5):751-763.
Nicolás F. Lori & Alex H. Blin (forthcoming). Application of Quantum Darwinism to Cosmic Inflation: An Example of the Limits Imposed in Aristotelian Logic by Information-Based Approach to Gödel's Incompleteness. Foundations of Science.
Huw Price (1997). Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. OUP USA.
Graeme Rhook & Mark Zangari (1994). Should We Believe in the Big Bang?: A Critique of the Integrity of Modern Cosmology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:228 - 237.
Huw Price (1996). Time's Arrow & Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. Oxford University Press.
John Earman & Jesus Mosterin (1999). A Critical Look at Inflationary Cosmology. Philosophy of Science 66 (1):1-49.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads16 ( #74,564 of 548,979 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,979 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
