In 1994, Maudlin proposed proposed an objection to the transactional interpretation, involving an absorber that changes location depending on the trajectory of the particle. Maudlin considered this objection fatal. However, the TI did not die; rather, a number of responses were developed, some attempting to accommodate Maudlin's example within the existing TI, and others modifying the TI. I argue that none of these responses is fully adequate. The reason, I submit, is that there are two aspects to Maudlin's objection; the more readily soluble aspect has received all the attention, but the more problematic aspect has gone unnoticed. I consider the prospects for developing a succesful version of the TI in light of this second aspect of the objection
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Retrocausal Quantum Mechanics: Maudlin's Challenge Revisited.Peter J. Lewis - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44 (4):442-449.
The Causal History of Computational Activity: Maudlin and Olympia.E. Barnes - 1991 - Journal of Philosophy 88 (6):304-16.
Cramer's Transactional Interpretation and Causal Loop Problems.Ruth E. Kastner - 2006 - Synthese 150 (1):1 - 14.
Is There a Syntactic Solution to the Hole Problem?Robert Rynasiewicz - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (3):62.
The Grounding Objection to Middle Knowledge Revisited.Steven B. Cowan - 2003 - Religious Studies 39 (1):93-102.
Maudlin's Truth and Paradox. [REVIEW]Hartry Field - 2006 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (3):713–720.
On the Impossibility of David Lewis' Modal Realism.Tim Maudlin - 1996 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (4):669 – 682.
Added to index2012-10-28
Total downloads11 ( #406,858 of 2,177,875 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #317,247 of 2,177,875 )
How can I increase my downloads?