What time travelers may be able to do.
Kadri Vihvelin, in “What time travelers cannot do” (Philos Stud 81:315–330, ), argued that “no time traveler can kill the baby who in fact is her younger self”, because (V1) “if someone would fail to do something, no matter how hard or how many times she tried, then she cannot do it”, and (V2) if a...
| Published in: | Philosophical Studies Vol. 150; no. 1; pp. 115 - 122 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
Aug2010
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=52110953&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 52110953 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00318116 4L8 jtl: Philosophical Studies issn: 00318116 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Aug2010 vid: 150 iid: 1 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 52110953 10.1007/s11098-009-9400-z ppf: 115 ppct: 7 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 157KB tig: atl: What time travelers may be able to do. aug: au: Vranas, Peter B. M. affil: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA. su: Voyages & travels Tourism Vihvelin, Kadri Spacetime Imaginary voyages sug: subj: Voyages & travels Tourism Vihvelin, Kadri Spacetime Imaginary voyages keyword: Time travel Vihvelin ab: Kadri Vihvelin, in “What time travelers cannot do” (Philos Stud 81:315–330, ), argued that “no time traveler can kill the baby who in fact is her younger self”, because (V1) “if someone would fail to do something, no matter how hard or how many times she tried, then she cannot do it”, and (V2) if a time traveler tried to kill her baby self, she would always fail. Theodore Sider (Philos Stud 110:115–138, ) criticized Vihvelin’s argument, and Ira Kiourti (Philos Stud 139:343–352, ) criticized both Vihvelin’s argument and Sider’s critique. I present a critique of Vihvelin’s argument different from both Sider’s and Kiourti’s critiques: I argue in a novel way that both V1 and V2 are false. Since Vihvelin’s argument might be understood as providing a challenge to the possibility of time travel, if my critique succeeds then time travel survives such a challenge unscathed. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Philosophical Studies is a copyright of Springer, 2010. All Rights Reserved. item: Philosophical Studies holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2010 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|