We must conclude, from the above discussion, that Putnam has not satisfactorily explained how a person can go back in time and thus has not offered any compelling reason why we should accept his description of Oscar rather than his objector's description. However, earlier in our discussion, a possible way to show that Oscar did go back in time came to light: namely, if it could be shown that Oscar2 was at B at t 1 because Oscar1 entered the time (...) machine at t 2. Thus, if backward causation were possible, such backward causes could be used to send a person back in time. But whether backward causation is a conceptual possibility or not is the topic for another paper. (shrink)

It is argued that the main problem with "the problem of the direction of time" is to figure out what the problem is or is supposed to be. Towards this end, an attempt is made to disentangle and to classify some of the many issues which have been discussed under the label of 'the direction of time'. Secondly, some technical apparatus is introduced in the hope of producing a sharper formulation of the issues than they have received in the philosophical (...) literature. Finally, some tentative suggestions about the central issues are offered. In particular, it is suggested that entropy and irreversibility are much less crucial to the central issues than most philosophers would have us believe. This suggestion is not made because of any firm conviction of its correctness but rather because it helps to focus the discussion on some basic but long neglected assumptions which underlie traditional approaches. (shrink)

The subject of time travel has been receiving increasing attention in the recent philosophical literature. Most of the articles that deal with it have been concerned to defend the logical consistency of time travel against those who claim that it entails one or more contradictions. Two sorts of defences have been offered. The first sort of defence involves showing that time travel does not entail those consequences which other philosophers allege it does entail. The second sort of defence involves an (...) admission that time travel does indeed involve that which its opponents allege it does involve, e.g., being in more than one place at a time, but arguing that such consequences in no way vitiate the logical consistency of this notion.My first aim in this paper is to provide a defence of time travel of the second sort. More specifically, I want to cut the ground from under an argument which might run thus:Time travel entails that certain effects can precede their causes.It is logically impossible for an effect to precede its cause. (shrink)