The coincidences of time travel

Philosophy of Science 70 (3):574-589 (2003)
Abstract
In this paper I consider two objections raised by Nick Smith (1997) to an argument against the probability of time travel given by Paul Horwich (1995, 1987). Horwich argues that time travel leads to inexplicable and improbable coincidences. I argue that one of Smith's objections fails, but that another is correct. I also consider an instructive way to defend Horwich's argument against the second of Smith's objections, but show that it too fails. I conclude that unless there is something faulty in the conception of explanation implicit in Horwich's argument, time travel presents us with nothing that is inexplicable.
Keywords 440100 Philosophy  Philosophy
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,105
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA
Joseph Berkovitz (2008). On Predictions in Retro-Causal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 39 (4):709-735.
Similar books and articles
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

131 ( #6,707 of 1,101,779 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

7 ( #35,087 of 1,101,779 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.