Paradoxes of Time Travel

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Believing Where We Cannot Prove Philip Kitcher
Advertisements

Register? If you would like to receive notes, updates, evaluation forms, etc. (no requests for money or time!) Link: tinyurl.com/gnr-sfu.
 Modal verbs are unusual verbs that express modality.
PARADOXES IN MATHEMATICS
Meaning Skepticism. Quine Willard Van Orman Quine Willard Van Orman Quine Word and Object (1960) Word and Object (1960) Two Dogmas of Empiricism (1951)
Today’s Outline Hume’s Problem of Induction Two Kinds of Skepticism
Two puzzles about omnipotence
Philosophy 103 Linguistics 103 More Introductory Logic: Critical Thinking
“… if (the best philosophy) doesn ’ t seem peculiar you haven ’ t understood it ” Edward Craig.
2 February. Discussion Questions What’s the difference between Michael and {Michael}? What would happen if we said Michael = {Michael}?
Week 7 - Wednesday.  What did we talk about last time?  Set proofs and disproofs  Russell’s paradox.
Substance dualism: do Descartes’ arguments work? Michael Lacewing
1 More Applications of the Pumping Lemma. 2 The Pumping Lemma: Given a infinite regular language there exists an integer for any string with length we.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil By David Kelsey.
Is there such a thing as conscious will?. What is “conscious will”?! Having “free will” or “conscious will” basically means being in control of one’s.
Philosophical Problems Most philosophical problems are conceptual in nature One way for this to happen is for two beliefs to conflict conceptually with.
The Cosmological Argument (Causation or ‘first cause’ theory)
Intentionalism and Representational Qualitative Character Intentionalism and Representational Qualitative Character 14 th Annual Meeting of the Association.
Cs3102: Theory of Computation Class 18: Proving Undecidability Spring 2010 University of Virginia David Evans.
Why Does Anything at all Exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? Leibniz - the principle of sufficient reason.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
Philosophy 224 Divine Persons Pt. 2. Legenhausen, “Is God a Person?” Legenhausen uses the little observed fact that Islam is a religion in which the majority.
LECTURE 19 THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED. THE QUANTUM MECHANICAL OBJECTION DEPENDS UPON A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION WE MIGHT REASONABLY SUSPEND.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
ECE 250 Algorithms and Data Structures Douglas Wilhelm Harder, M.Math. LEL Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Waterloo Waterloo,
(not about ships this time)
Bertrand Russell ( ) From The Problems of Philosophy (1912)  Truth & Falsehood  Knowledge, Error, & Probable Opinion  The Limits of Philosophical.
© 2010 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved STA220: Formulating Hypotheses and Setting Up the Rejection Region.
Time, Self and Mind (ATS1835) Introduction to Philosophy B Semester 2, 2015 Dr Ron Gallagher Office Hours: Clayton: Thu 1-2pm.
Philosophy Here and Now: chapter two
The Mickey Mouse Guide to the Ontological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence
PHIL102 SUM2014, M-F12:00-1:00, SAV 264 Instructor: Benjamin Hole
Michael Lacewing Religious belief Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Religious language: cognitive or non-cognitive?
Self-Reference And Undecidability
Kant recap Kant’s 1st point Kant’s 3rd point
Grammar A presentation: Chapter 10 – Modals, Part 2
Standard Representations of Regular Languages
Paradoxes of Knowledge
A Mickey Mouse Guide to the Ontological Argument
Philosophy and History of Mathematics
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil
Scientific Background for “Sound of Thunder”
Other versions of the ontological argument
What is Philosophy?.
Descartes’ conceivability argument for substance dualism
Philosophy Essay Writing
Philosophy of Mathematics 1: Geometry
Computable Problems.
Puzzles of Material Constitution
What is a Theory of Human Nature?
Semantic Paradoxes.
PHIL 2000 Tools for Philosophers 1st Term 2016
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 3a Evaluating an argument
The attributes and Nature of God (Lesson 4)
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 12 Moral Realism and Relativism
The Problem of Free Will
Philosophy Sept. 14th Objective Opener
Rule-Following Wittgenstein.
I may visit you tomorrow
The Private Language Argument
Final Day Wittgenstein.
Chapter 5 Parallel Lines and Related Figures
5.1 Indirect Proof Let’s take a Given: Prove: Proof: Either or
ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning
The conditional and the bi-conditional
Time Metaphysics 2019.
Time Travel Metaphysics 2019.
Presentation transcript:

Paradoxes of Time Travel

David K. Lewis American philosopher (1941- 2001). Student of Quine. Important work in the foundations of logic, modal logic, probability theory, game theory, philosophy of language and mind, and metaphysics

Basic Discrepancies I get in my time machine in 2017. I travel for one year. I arrive in 1017. 2017 + 1 = 1017?

Personal Time Wristwatch time ≠ personal time. Aggregate – and not really time.

The Grandfather Paradox

Agustin Rayo Philosopher at MIT. Works on philosophy of logic and language.

Augustin Rayo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8oITAoaCr4

Grandfather Paradox: Three Possibilities Time travel is impossible Time travel is possible, and normal rules apply  Grandfather paradox Time travel is possible, but special rules apply  banana peel paradox

Possibility #1: Time Travel is Impossible Can philosophy decide such things? (cf. Infinite chain of causes.) Physics says it is possible.

Possibility #2: Grandfather Paradox Accepted Possible solution: branching timelines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6RjjaEy59I

Possibility #3: Banana Peels https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=YZRq3XxCZXo

Argument Someone who has prepared carefully can kill their grandfather. Bruno cannot kill his grandfather, though he has prepared carefully.  Contradiction?

Lewis on Bananas What I can do depends on an assumption of background facts.

Lewis on Bananas A gibbon cannot speak Finnish. BACKGROUND FACTS: The vocal tract/ toungue/ lips/ etc. of a gibbon are incapable of making the sounds of the Finnish language.

Lewis on Bananas David Lewis can speak Finnish. BACKGROUND FACTS: The vocal tract/ toungue/ lips/ etc. of David Lewis are capable of making the sounds of the Finnish language.

Lewis on Bananas David Lewis can’t speak Finnish. BACKGROUND FACTS: Lewis knows no Finnish words or grammar.

Aside: Fatalism

Theological Fatalism Suppose God knows that you will eat a hotdog for breakfast tomorrow. Then since what is known is true, you will eat a hotdog for breakfast tomorrow. Therefore, you *must* eat a hotdog for breakfast tomorrow.

Lewis on Bananas What I can do depends on an assumption of background facts. If we assume BF: I have a range of options at the canteen; I’m capable of saying “I want a hotdog” and also “I don’t want a hotdog, I want….” – then I can fail to have a hotdog for breakfast.

Lewis on Bananas What I can do depends on an assumption of background facts. If we assume BF: I have a range of options at the canteen… but we also assume that I do in fact order a hotdog… then I can’t logically do otherwise.

Lewis on Bananas For Lewis, it is equally true that we can do what God knows we will not do, and that we can’t do it. It just depends on the background facts we are assuming.

Back to: Time Travel

Lewis on Bananas Worry: it seems Bruno both can and can’t kill his grandfather.