Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T21:24:06.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Does a low-entropy constraint prevent us from influencing the past?

from Part I - The arrows of time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Gerhard Ernst
Affiliation:
Universität Stuttgart
Andreas Hüttemann
Affiliation:
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany
Get access

Summary

Introduction

It is part of our common sense conception of the world that what happens now can make a difference to the future but not to the past; events in the present, we believe, can causally influence the occurrence of future events but not of past events. What is the relation between this asymmetry and other physical asymmetries? Is the causal asymmetry fundamental or can our asymmetric notion of cause be shown to be reducible to some other physical asymmetry? There is a venerable tradition in the foundations of physics and the philosophy of science according to which the causal asymmetry is intimately related to the temporal asymmetry embodied in the second law of thermodynamics. This view has recently been forcefully defended by David Albert (2000) and by Barry Loewer (2007), who argue that the causal asymmetry can ultimately be grounded in the very same facts that give rise to the second law of thermodynamics, chiefly among them a low-entropy constraint on the initial state of the universe.

In this chapter I will critically examine aspects of their accounts and will argue that neither account is successful as developed so far. In Section 2.2 I will briefly summarize the Boltzmannian account of the thermodynamic asymmetry, from which Albert and Loewer aim to derive asymmetries of causal influence and control. Both accounts centrally involve the claim that it follows from the Boltzmannian account that possible macro-evolutions are much more restricted toward the past than toward the future.

Type
Chapter
Information
Time, Chance, and Reduction
Philosophical Aspects of Statistical Mechanics
, pp. 13 - 33
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albert, D. Z. (2000). Time and Chance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baez, J. (2007). The End of the Universe 2004 (accessed 1 February 2007). Available from: Causation in Physics/Baez_universe_end.html.
Earman, J. (2006). The ‘Past Hypothesis’: not even false. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37(3), 399–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, M. (2000). (Dis-)solving the puzzle of the arrow of radiation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51, 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, M. (2005). Inconsistency, Asymmetry and Non-locality: a Philosophical Investigation of Classical Electrodynamics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Frisch, M. (2006a). Causal asymmetry, counterfactual decisions and entropy. Philosophy of Science, 72(5), 739–750.Google Scholar
Frisch, M. (2006b). A tale of two arrows. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37(3), 542–558.Google Scholar
Frisch, M. (2007). Causation, counterfactuals and the past-hypothesis. In Russell's Republic: the Place of Causation in the Constitution of Reality, ed. Price, H. and Corry, R.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holton, R. (2006). The act of choice. Philosophers' Imprint, 6(3), 1–15.Google Scholar
Loewer, B. (2007). Counterfactuals and the second law. In Causality, Physics, and the Constitution of Reality: Russell's Republic Revisited, ed. Price, H. and Corry, R.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Uffink, J. (2006). Compendium to the foundations of classical statistical physics. In Philosophy of Physics, Handbooks of the Philosophy of Science, ed. Butterfield, J. and Earman, J.. Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.
Winsberg, E. (2004). Can conditioning on the ‘past hypothesis’ militate against the reversibility objection?Philosophy of Science, 71, 489–504.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×