Synthese

, Volume 184, Issue 3, pp 375–386 | Cite as

An unwelcome consequence of the Multiverse Thesis

Article

Abstract

The Multiverse Thesis is a proposed solution to the Grandfather Paradox. It is popular and well promulgated, found in fiction, philosophy and (most importantly) physics. I first offer a short explanation on behalf of its advocates as to why it qualifies as a theory of time travel (as opposed to mere ‘universe hopping’). Then I argue that the thesis nevertheless has an unwelcome consequence: that extended objects cannot travel in time. Whilst this does not demonstrate that the Multiverse Thesis is false, the consequence should give pause for concern. Even if it does not lead one to reject the thesis, I briefly detail some reasons to think it is interesting nonetheless.

Keywords

Time travel Deutsch Lockwood Gunky spacetime Receptacles Many worlds Multiverse 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbruzzese J. (2001) On using the multiverse to avoid the paradoxes of time travel. Analysis 61: 36–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cartwright, R. (1975). Scattered objects. In: K. Lehrer (Ed.), Analysis and metaphysics (pp. 153–171).Google Scholar
  3. Davies P. (1995) About time. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Deutsch D. (1991) Quantum mechanics near closed timelike lines. Physical Review D 44: 3197–3217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deutsch D., Lockwood M. (1994a) The quantum physics of time travel. Scientific American 270: 68–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutsch D., Lockwood M. (1994b) Deutsch and Lockwood reply. Scientific American 271: 5Google Scholar
  7. Deutsch D. (1997) The fabric of reality. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Everett A. (2004) Time travel paradoxes, path integrals, and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Physical Review D 69: 124023.1–124023.14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forrest P. (2004) Grit, Gunk and the Banach–Tarski paradox. The Monist 87: 351–370Google Scholar
  10. Gödel K. (1949) An example of a new type of cosmological solutions of Einstein’s field equations of gravitation. Reviews of Modern Physics 21: 447–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gott J. (2001) Time travel in Einstein’s universe: the physical possibilities of travel through time. Orion Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Greene B. (2004) The fabric of the cosmos. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Gribbin J. (1992) In search of the edge of time. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hewett L. (1994) Letters to the editor. Scientific American 271: 5Google Scholar
  15. Lewis D., Lewis S. (1970) Holes. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 48: 206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis D. (1976) The paradoxes of time travel. American Philosophical Quarterly 13: 145–152Google Scholar
  17. McDaniel K. (2006) Gunky objects in a simple world. Philo 9: 39–46Google Scholar
  18. Morris M., Thorne K., Yurtsever U. (1988) Wormholes, time machines and the weak energy condition. Physical Review Letters 61: 1446–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Richmond A. (2003) Recent work: time travel. Philosophical Books 44: 297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tipler F. (1974) Rotating cylinders and the possibility of global causality violation. Physical Review D 9: 2203–2206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Uzquiano G. (2006) Receptacles. Philosophical Perspectives 20: 427–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations