Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On A- and B-theoretic elements of branching spacetimes

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper assesses branching spacetime theories in light of metaphysical considerations concerning time. I present the A, B, and C series in terms of the temporal structure they impose on sets of events, and raise problems for two elements of extant branching spacetime theories—McCall’s ‘branch attrition’, and the ‘no backward branching’ feature of Belnap’s ‘branching space–time’—in terms of their respective A- and B-theoretic nature. I argue that McCall’s presentation of branch attrition can only be coherently formulated on a model with at least two temporal dimensions, and that this results in severing the link between branch attrition and the flow of time. I argue that ‘no backward branching’ prohibits Belnap’s theory from capturing the modal content of indeterministic physical theories, and results in it ascribing to the world a time-asymmetric modal structure that lacks physical justification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aharonov Y., Albert D., Vaidman L. (1988) How the result of a measurement of a component of the spin of a spin-1/2 particle can turn out to be 100. Physical Review Letters 60(14): 1351–1354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aharonov Y., Bergmann P., Lebowitz J. (1964) Time symmetry in the quantum process of measurement. Physical Review 134: 1410–1416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aharonov Y., Popescu S., Tollaksen J. (2010) A time-symmetric formulation of quantum mechanics. Physics Today 63: 27–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert D. Z. (2000) Time and chance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Arntzenius F., Greaves H. (2009) Time reversal in classical electromagnetism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60(3): 557–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belnap N. (1992) Branching space–time. Synthese 92(3): 385–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belnap N., Perloff M., Xu M. (2001) Facing the future: Agents and choices in our indeterminist world. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Black M. (1959) The “direction” of time. Analysis 19(3): 54–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies P. (1977) The physics of time asymmetry. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Earman J. (1986) A primer on determinism. D. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Earman J. (2002) What time reversal invariance is and why it matters. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16(3): 245–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earman J. (2008) Pruning some branches from “branching spacetimes”. In: Dieks D. (eds) The ontology of spacetime II. Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp 187–205

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Elga A. (2001) Statistical mechanics and the asymmetry of counterfactual dependence. Philosophy of Science 68(3): 313–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farr, M. (2011). Temporal ontology on the two-time framework. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Farr, M., & Reutlinger, A. (2011). Difference making and the direction of time. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Hawking S. (1989) A brief history of time: From the big bang to black holes. Bantam Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman J. (2000) What’s really wrong with constructive empiricism? Van Fraassen and the metaphysics of modality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51(4): 837–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman J., Ross D. (2007) Every thing must go. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1979) Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs 13(4): 455–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malament D. (2004) On the time reversal invariance of classical electromagnetic theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35(2): 295–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maudlin T. (2007) The metaphysics within physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCall S. (1976) Objective time flow. Philosophy of science 43(3): 337–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCall S. (1984) A dynamic model of temporal becoming. Analysis 44(4): 172–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCall S. (1994) A model of the universe. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall S. (1998) Time flow does not require a second time dimension. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76(2): 317–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McTaggart J. M. E. (1908) The unreality of time. Mind 17(68): 457–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McTaggart J. M. E. (1927) The nature of existence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiland J. (1974) A two-dimensional passage model of time for time travel. Philosophical Studies 26(3): 153–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague R. (1974) Deterministic theories. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, T. (2009). Eliminating modality from the determinism debate? Models vs. equations of physical theories. In A. Hieke & H. Leitgeb (Eds.), Reduction–abstraction–analysis. Proceedings of the 31th international Ludwig Wittgenstein symposium (pp.~47–62). Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.

  • Nerlich G. (1998) Falling branches and the flow of time. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76: 309–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Øhrstrøm P., Schärfe H., Ploug T. (2010) Branching time as a conceptual structure. In: Croitoru M., Ferré S., Lukose D. (eds) Conceptual structures: From information to intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–138

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Placek, T., & Belnap, N. (2010). Indeterminism is a modal notion: Branching spacetimes and Earman’s pruning. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-010-9846-8

  • Placek T., Müller T. (2007) Counterfactuals and historical possibility. Synthese 154(2): 173–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price H. (1996) Time’s arrow and Archimedes’ point: New directions for the physics of time. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior A. N. (1967) Past, present and future. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach H. (1956) The direction of time. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger G. (1980) Aspects of time. Hackett Publishing Company, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart J. J. C. (1980) Time and becoming. In: Van Inwagen P. (eds) Time and cause: Essays presented to Richard Taylor. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart J. J. C. (1995) Review of McCall (1994). Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73(1): 161–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Wronski L., Placek T. (2009) On Minkowskian branching structures. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40(3): 251–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeh D. (2007) The physical basis of the direction of time. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol, 43 Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1UU, UK

    Matt Farr

Authors
  1. Matt Farr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matt Farr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farr, M. On A- and B-theoretic elements of branching spacetimes. Synthese 188, 85–116 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0046-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0046-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation