Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Boston studies in the philosophy of science

Causation, Reversibility and the Direction of Time

Jan Faye

Published Jan 1, 1997• 11 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-94-015-8875-1_11

Related papers

Direction of Time from the Violation of Time Reversal Invariance

Joan A. Vaccaro

Springer proceedings in physics•Jan 1, 2014•0 citations

Reverse Causation and the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

J. G. Cramer

In the first part of the paper we present the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, a method of viewing the formalism of quantum mechanics that provides a way of visualizing quantum events and experiments. In the second part, we present an EPR gedankenexperiment that appears to lead to observer‐level reverse causation. A transactional analysis of the experiment is presented. It easily accounts for the reported observations but does not reveal any barriers to its modification for reverse causation.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2006•6 citations

Physics and Causation

Michaël Esfeld

Foundations of Physics•Oct 8, 2009•14 citations

Indeterminism and the direction of time

Frank Arntzenius

Topoi•Mar 1, 1995•18 citations

The Direction of Causation and Backwards-in-Time Causation

Phil Dowe

I have claimed that it is profitable to distinguish three key questions about causation. The first question, what are causal processes and interactions? , was addressed in Chapter 5. The second question, what is the connection between causes and effects? , was addressed in Chapter 7.The third question, what makes a cause different from an effect? , has not been addressed, and it is to that task that we turn in the present chapter. The question of the directionality and asymmetry of causation has long been an important ingredient in philosophical discussions of causation, although perhaps Reichenbach (1991) was the first to truly appreciate the significance of the question. It is certainly an aspect of folk intuitions. Many philosophers have held that an adequate analysis of causality should provide an explanation or account of causal asymmetry. On the other hand, it is precisely this aspect of causation that is the most common target for elimination from empirical accounts. This chapter looks at the ability of 'process' theories of causality to provide such an account, granting certain constraints. The major constraint, or premise, in the following analysis is the assumption that quantum mechanics reveals the presence of backwards-in-time causation. Thus, in the first instance, the argument presented here will not convince those who hold that there can be no backwards causation. However, I derive an empirical prediction, which, if confirmed, would give those sceptical about backwards causation reason to think again. The chapter begins with an analysis of some of the formal properties of causation. This is followed by a nontechnical presentation of the famous difficulties associated with Bell phenomena in quantum mechanics, and the backwards-in-time solution to those difficulties.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 3, 2000•0 citations

Reversibility, irreversibilty and macroscopic causality

Princeton University Press eBooks•Nov 10, 2020•0 citations
In the first part of the paper we present the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, a method of viewing the formalism of quantum mechanics that provides a way of visualizing quantum events and experiments. In the second part, we present an EPR gedankenexperiment that appears to lead to observer‐level reverse causation. A transactional analysis of the experiment is presented. It easily accounts for the reported observations but does not reveal any barriers to its modification for reverse causation.
I have claimed that it is profitable to distinguish three key questions about causation. The first question, what are causal processes and interactions? , was addressed in Chapter 5. The second question, what is the connection between causes and effects? , was addressed in Chapter 7.The third question, what makes a cause different from an effect? , has not been addressed, and it is to that task that we turn in the present chapter. The question of the directionality and asymmetry of causation has long been an important ingredient in philosophical discussions of causation, although perhaps Reichenbach (1991) was the first to truly appreciate the significance of the question. It is certainly an aspect of folk intuitions. Many philosophers have held that an adequate analysis of causality should provide an explanation or account of causal asymmetry. On the other hand, it is precisely this aspect of causation that is the most common target for elimination from empirical accounts. This chapter looks at the ability of 'process' theories of causality to provide such an account, granting certain constraints. The major constraint, or premise, in the following analysis is the assumption that quantum mechanics reveals the presence of backwards-in-time causation. Thus, in the first instance, the argument presented here will not convince those who hold that there can be no backwards causation. However, I derive an empirical prediction, which, if confirmed, would give those sceptical about backwards causation reason to think again. The chapter begins with an analysis of some of the formal properties of causation. This is followed by a nontechnical presentation of the famous difficulties associated with Bell phenomena in quantum mechanics, and the backwards-in-time solution to those difficulties.