Special Relativity, Time and Cause

Topic I: Einstein’s First Relativity Paper

1.  
   1. Einstein, Albert 1905. Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. Annalen der Physik 17: 891-921. Available in English in various translations.

Einstein’s first presentation of his theory; one of the most important works in the history of science. We shall read the Introduction and First Part of the paper, omitting a few more technical results, but developing the mathematics of the kinematical part of Special Relativity. In the course of reading we shall discuss various more philosophical issues involved in the development of the theory. This should lat approximately four weeks (eight meetings). Additional readings will be recommended in class.

Topic II: The Conventionality of Simultaneity?

• Reichenbach, Hans 1928. Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre. Translated as The Philosophy of Space & Time, by M. Reichenbach and J. Freund, Dover, New York, 1958.
• Malament, David 1977. Causal Theories of Time and the Conventionality of Simultaneity. Noûs 11: 293-308.

Mainly following Reichenbach’s work, the debate concerning the alleged admissibility of more than a single definition of simultaneity even relative to a given observer or reference frame has been raging for more than eighty years. It will be impossible not only to describe all the arguments that have been given on both sides, but even to go over the main ones considered in the literature. We shall therefore concentrate on two of the most important contributions, Reichenbach’s and Malament’s, which still shape the contemporary debate. This topic should take about two weeks.

Recommended optional readings:

• Sarkar, Sahotra and Stachel, John 1999. Did Malament Prove the Non-Conventionality of Simultaneity in the Special Theory of Relativity? Philosophy of Science 66: 208‑20.
• Rynasiewicz, Robert 2000. Definition, Convention, and Simultaneity: Malament’s Result and Its Alleged Refutation by Sarkar and Stachel. Talk presented at the Seventeenth Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vancouver, November 2-5, 2000; available online at URL: http://hypatia.ss.uci.edu/lps/psa2k/definition-convention.pdf.
• Ben-Yami, Hanoch 2006. Causality and Temporal Order in Special Relativity. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57: 459‑79.

We shall discuss in class mainly these responses to the debate. For further responses, see Jammer’s work.

Topic III: Relativity, Becoming and Admissible Points of View

• Putnam, Hilary 1967. Time and Physical Geometry. Journal of Philosophy 64: 240‑47.
• Godfrey-Smith, William 1979. Special Relativity and the Present. Philosophical Studies 36: 233-44.
• Monton, Bradley 2008. Time Travel without Causal Loops. The Philosophical Quarterly 59: 54-67.

Putnam tried to prove in his paper the becoming cannot be real, if Special Relativity is true. Critically discussing his proof will lead us to consider physically admissible points of view, the conception of reality and time we will have developed during the discussion in the previous unit, and to related issues discussed by Godfrey-Smith. We shall then apply our conclusions to Monton’s attempt to describe time travel, claiming that he has failed to do so. The topic should take about two weeks.

Recommended optional readings:

• Stein, H. 1991. On Relativity Theory and Openness of the Future. Philosophy of Science 58: 14‑67.
• Savitt, Steven F. 2000. There’s No Time like the Present (In Minkowski Spacetime). Philosophy of Science 67: S563‑S574.

Stein’s paper is an attempt to disprove Putnam’s claim, while Savitt’s is an attempt to reject a reply to Putnam’s argument relying on Godfrey-Smith’s approach.

Topic IV: Backwards Causation?

• Dummett, Michael 1964. Bringing About the Past. Philosophical Review 73: 338‑59.
• Ben-Yami, Hanoch 2007. The Impossibility of Backwards Causation. Philosophical Quarterly 57: 439‑55.

Dummett tried to show that under certain conditions, it should be rational to believe that some effects precede their causes, an alleged possibility usually referred to as ‘backwards causation’. We shall apply our conclusions from the discussion of temporal concepts within the framework of relativity theory to show how his argument involves unacceptable presuppositions. We shall also discuss related arguments by Tooley. This topic should also take about two weeks.

Recommended optional readings:

• Black, Max. 1956. Why Cannot an Effect Precede its Cause? Analysis 16: 49-58.
• Tooley, M. 1997. Time, Tense, and Causation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, at pages 64‑6.

Dummet’s paper is his first attempt to argue for the possibility of backwards causation. Black is a careful development of the ‘bilking’ argument, intended to show the impossibility of backwards causation, as defended in Dummett’s early paper (Dummett tried to reply to Block in his 1964 paper). Tooley elaborates in his book a train of thoughts already found in Dummett’s 1964 paper, intended to show that two causal processes in opposing temporal directions can coexist under special conditions.

In case we shall have some time left, we shall discuss the possibility of time without change, as argued for by Shoemaker.