Notes on the causal theory of time

Synthese 24 (1-2):74 - 86 (1972)
Abstract
I have argued that the most recent versions of the causal theory are subject to serious limitations. The causal analysis of spatiotemporal coincidence considered in Section IV does not apply to space-times in which (1) fails. And current versions of the theory collapse altogether for typical cases of relativistic space-times which are closed in their temporal aspects. Second, I have pointed out that the program of recent causal theorists is based on a false dichotomy — open vs. closed times; for only a small subclass of relativisitic space-times can be said to be either open or closed in their temporal aspects, and the causal theory seems incapable of handling the cases which fall in between. Third, I have argued that the general theory of relativity does not provide motivation for the causal theory; on the contrary, general relativity promotes the view of spacetime as a substantial entity.As a result, I do not see that the causal theorist has a convincing argument against the position which holds that in order to understand the subtle and complex temporal structures encompassed by relativity theory, one must accept space-time as an entity which cannot be analyzed away as an abstract mathematical construct used for representing the ‘physical’, i.e., causal, relations between events. And I cannot agree with van Fraassen (1970, p. 140) that Philosophers were not long in appreciating this development [i.e., relativity theory], and the consequent construction of the causal theory of time and space-time must be considered one of the major contributions of twentieth-century philosophy of science. For it seems to me that causal theorists have failed to appreciate this development and that the construction of the causal theory has served to obscure important and interesting facts about the temporal aspect of space-time
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
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: 11,802
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
John Earman (1970). Who's Afraid of Absolute Space? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 48 (3):287 – 319.

View all 7 references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Ann Whittle (2009). Causal Nominalism. In Toby Handfield (ed.), Dispositions and Causes. Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press ;.
John A. Winnie (1977). The Causal Theory of Space-Time. In John Earman, Clark Glymour & John Stachel (eds.), Foundations of Space-Time Theories. University of Minnesota Press.
Mathias Frisch (2009). Causality and Dispersion: A Reply to John Norton. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (3):487 - 495.
J. M. (2002). Supervenience and (Non-Modal) Reductionism in Leibniz's Philosophy of Time. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (4):793-810.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

51 ( #33,825 of 1,099,748 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #303,379 of 1,099,748 )

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.