Part II - The Arrow of Time and Philosophical Issues
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 October 2025
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Arrow of TimeFrom Local Systems to the Whole Universe, pp. 71 - 158Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
References
Allori, V. (2015). “Maxwell’s Paradox: The metaphysics of classical electrodynamics and its time-reversal invariance.” Analytica, 1:1–19.Google Scholar
Arntzenius, F. (2000). “Are there really instantaneous velocities?” The Monist, 83: 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, D. (2006). “Does quantum electrodynamics have an arrow of time?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37: 528–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boltzmann, L. (1964). Lectures on Gas Theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buonomano, D. V., and Rovelli, C. (2021). “Bridging the neuroscience and physics of time.” DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.01976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callender, C. (2004). “There Is No Puzzle about the Low Entropy Past.” In Hitchcock, C. (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 240–255.Google Scholar
Callender, C. (2010). “The Past Hypothesis meets gravity.” In Ernst, G. and Hüttemann, A. (eds.), Time, Chance and Reduction: Philosophical Aspects of Statistical Mechanics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 34–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S., and Chen, J. (2004). “Spontaneous inflation and the origin of the Arrow of Time.” unpublished, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0410270.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. (2018). “The meta-problem of consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 25: 6–61.Google Scholar
Chirimuuta, M. (2014). “Psychophysical methods and the evasion of introspection.” Philosophy of Science 81 (5): 914–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. (2015). “Why and how does consciousness seem the way it seems?” In Metzinger, T. and Windt, J. (eds.), Open MIND. Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15502/9783958570245.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. (2016). “Illusionism as the obvious default theory of consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 23, 11–12: 65–72.Google Scholar
Dennett, C. D., and Kinsbourne, M. (1992). “Time and the observer: The where and when of consciousness in the brain.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15: 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieks, D. (2016) “Physical time and experienced time.” In Dolev, Yuval and Roubach, Michael (eds.), Cosmological and Psychological Time, Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, vol. 285, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (1974) “An attempt to add a little direction to ‘the problem of the direction of time’.” Philosophy of Science, 41: 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (2006). “The Past Hypothesis: Not even false.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 37: 399–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R. (1965), “The distinction of past and future,” in The Character of Physical Law, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1974) “Special sciences: Or the disunity of science as a working hypothesis,” Synthese 28: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankish, K. (ed.) (2016). Illusionism. Special issue of Journal of Consciousness Studies 23 (11–12). Reprinted as a volume by Imprint Academic in 2017.Google Scholar
Frigg, R. (2008). “A field guide to recent work on the foundations of statistical mechanics,” in Rickles, D. (ed.), The Ashgate Companion to Contemporary Philosophy of Physics. London: Ashgate, 99–196.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. (1986) “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems.” Physical Review D, 34: 470–479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstein, S. (2012). “Typicality and notions of probability in physics.” In Ben-Menahem, Y. and Hemmo, M. (eds.), Probability in Physics, Berlin: Springer, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, S., Lebowitz, L. J., Tumulka, R., and Zanghi, N. (2020). “Gibbs and Boltzmann entropy in classical and quantum mechanics,” in Allori, V. (ed.), Statistical Mechanics and Scientific Explanation: Determinism, Indeterminism and Laws of Nature, Singapore: World Scientific, 519–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graziano, S. A. M. (2019). Rethinking Consciousness: A Scientific Theory of Subjective Experience. W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Gruber, R. P., Block, R. A., and Montemayor, C. (2022). “Physical time within human time.” Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 718505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.718505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2010). “Maxwell’s Demon.” The Journal of Philosophy 107(8): 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2011). “Szilard’s Perpetuum Mobile.” Philosophy of Science 78(2): 264–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2012a) The road to Maxwell’s Demon, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2012b). “The mathematical representation of the arrow of time.” Iyyun. The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, 61: 167–192.Google Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2012c). “Measures over initial conditions.” In Ben-Menahem, Y. and Hemmo, M. (eds.) Probability in Physics, The Frontiers Collection, Berlin: Springer, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2013) “Entropy and computation: The Landauer–Bennett thesis reexamined.” Entropy 2013, 15: 3297–3311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2015). “Probability and typicality in deterministic physics.” Erkenntnis, 80: 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2016a) “Maxwell’s Demon.” Oxford Handbooks Online. www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935314-e-63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2016b). “The arrow of time.” In Dolev, Y. and Roubach, M. (eds.), Cosmological and Psychological Time, Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, vol. 285, Springer, 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2019a) “Two kinds of high-level probabilities.” The Monist 102(4): 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2019b) “The Second Law of thermodynamics and the psychological arrow of time.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, axz038, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2019c) “The physics of implementing logic: Landauer’s principle and the multiple-computations theorem.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 68: 90–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2020). “Maxwell’s Demon in quantum mechanics.” Entropy, 22: 269.Google Scholar
Hemmo, M., and Shenker, O. (2023). “Is the mind in the brain in contemporary computational neuroscience?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 100: 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoefer, C., and Marti, G. (2019). “Water has a microstructural essence after all.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 (12), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-018-0236-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ismael, J. (2011). “Temporal experience.” In Callender, C. (ed.), Oxford Handbook on the Philosophy of Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 460–482.Google Scholar
Ismael, J. (2017). “Passage, flow, and the logic of temporal perspectives.” In Bouton, C. and Huneman, P. (eds.), Time of Nature and the Nature of Time, Cham: Springer, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson-Horowitz, H. (2008). “The scientific untraceability of phenomenal consciousness.” Philosophia, 36: 509–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunze, K. E. (2015) “An introduction to cosmology.” In Mulders, M. and Zanderighi, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2015 CERN–Latin-American School of High-Energy Physics, Ibarra, Ecuador, 4–17 March 2015, CERN-2016-005 (Geneva: CERN, 2016). Available at arXiv:1604.07817.pdf (2016); see also summary of experimental results in https://cds.cern.ch/record/2148792/plots?ln=en.Google Scholar
Le Poidevin, R. (2019). “The experience and perception of time.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/time-experience/.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1994) “Reduction of mind.” In Guttenplan, S. (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, Oxford: Blackwell, 412–431.Google Scholar
Linden, N., Popescu, S., Short, A. J., and Winter, A. (2009). “Quantum mechanical evolution towards thermal equilibrium.” Physical Review E, 79: 061103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loewer, B. (2012). “Two accounts of laws and time.” Philosophical Studies, 160: 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maimon, A., and Hemmo, M. (2022). “Does neuroplasticity support the hypothesis of multiple realizability?” Philosophy of Science, 89 (1): 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, T. (2007). The Metaphysics within Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mctaggart, J. E. (1908). “The unreality of time.” Mind, New Series, Vol. 17, No. 68: 457–474. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2248314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mlodinow, L., and Brun, T. (2014). “On the relation between the psychological and the thermodynamic arrows of time.” Physical Review E, 89: 052102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myrvold, C. W. (2021) Beyond Chance and Credence: A Theory of Hybrid Probabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, L. A. (2015). “Experience and the arrow,” in Wilson, A. (ed.), Chance and Temporal Asymmetry, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, I. (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Temporal Experience. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polger, T., and Shapiro, L. (2016). The Multiple-Realization Book. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, H. (1996). Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1967a). “Time and physical geometry.” Journal of Philosophy, 64: 240–247. Reprinted in Putnam’s Collected Papers (Volume I), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1967b). “Psychological predicates.” In Capitan, W. H. and Merrill, D. D. (eds.), Art, Mind and Religion, 37–48, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Reprinted under the title: “The nature of mental states,” in Putnam, H., Mind, Language and Reality, 429–440, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1956). The Direction of Time. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietdijk, C. W. (1966). “A rigorous proof of determinism derived from the special theory of relativity.” Philosophy of Science, 33: 341–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietdijk, C. W. (1976). “Special relativity and determinism.” Philosophy of Science, 43: 598–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenker, O. (2017a). “Foundations of statistical mechanics: Mechanics by itself,” Philosophy Compass. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenker, O. (2017b). “Foundations of statistical mechanics: The auxiliary hypotheses,” Philosophy Compass. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenker, O. (2021). “Denialism: What do the so-called consciousness deniers deny?” Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, 68: 307–337.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. (1973). “Statistical explanation and ergodic theory.” Philosophy of Science, 40: 194–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, L. (1981). “Up and down, right and left, past and future.” Noûs, 15: 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. (2014). “Do brains have an arrow of time?” Philosophy of Science, 81: 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoljar, D. (2024). “Physicalism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2024 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. & Nodelman, Uri (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2024/entries/physicalism/.Google Scholar
Uffink, J. (2007). “Compendium to the foundations of classical statistical physics.” In Butterfield, J. and Earman, John (eds.), Handbook for the Philosophy of Physics, Part B, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 923–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uffink, J., and Valente, G. (2015). “Lanford’s theorem and the emergence of irreversibility,” Foundations of Physics, 45: 404–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Neumann, J. (1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. (2001). “Implications of quantum theory in the foundations of statistical mechanics.” Unpublished manuscript. Preprint available at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/410/.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. (2023). “The logic of the Past Hypothesis.” In Lowever, B., Winsbert, E., and Weslake, B. (eds.), The Probability Map of the Universe: Essays on David Albert’s Time and Chance, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 76–109.Google Scholar
Weingard, R. (1977). “Space-time and the direction of time.” Nous, 11(2): 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werndl, C., and Frigg, R. (2015). “Rethinking Boltzmannian equilibrium.” Philosophy of Science, 82:1224–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Beebee, H., and Mele, A. (2002). “Human compatibilism.” Mind, vol. 111 (442): 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. (2003). A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorr, C. (2016). “Against counterfactual miracles.” Philosophical Review, 125 (2): 241–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. (2000). “Statistical mechanics and the asymmetry of counterfactual dependence.” Philosophy of Science, 68 (3): 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, J. M. (1995). The Metaphysics of Free Will. Malden: Blackwell Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Hájek, A. (2014). “Probabilities of counterfactuals and counterfactual probabilities.” Journal of Applied Logic, 12 (3): 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoefer, C. (2002). “Freedom from the inside out.” In Callender, Craig (ed.), Time, Reality and Experience. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, pp. 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ismael, J. (2016). How Physics Makes Us Free. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitgeb, H., 2012, “A probabilistic semantics for counterfactuals: Part A,” The Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(1): 26–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). “Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow.” Noûs, 13 (4): 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (2010). “A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance.” In Eagle, A. (ed.), Philosophy of Probability: Contemporary Readings, New York: Routledge, pp. 263–293.Google Scholar
Loewer, B. (1996). “Freedom from physics.” Philosophical Topics, Vol. 24 No. 2, Fall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. (2001). “Determinism and chance.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B, 32 (4): 609–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. (2007). “Counterfactuals and the second law.” In Corry, Richard and Price, Huw (eds.), Causation, Physics, and the Constitution of Reality (Russell’s Republic Revisited). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 293–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. (2012). “Two accounts of laws and time.” Philosophical Studies, 160: 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. (2020). “The Mentaculus Vision.” In Allori, Valia (ed.), Statistical Mechanics and Scientific Explanation: Determinism, Indeterminism and Laws of Nature. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, pp. 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, T. (2007). The Metaphysics within Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, K., and Matschinsky, F. (2015). “Translation of Ludwig Boltzmann’s paper ‘On the relationship between the second fundamental theorem of the mechanical theory of heat and probability calculations regarding the conditions for thermal equilibrium’.” Sitzungberichte Der Kaiserlichen Akademie Der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissen Classe. Abt. II, LXXVI 1877, pp. 373–435 (Wien. Ber. 1877, 76:373–435). Reprinted in Wiss. Abhandlungen, Vol. II, Reprint 42, p. 164–223, Barth, Leipzig, 1909.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1968). “A theory of conditionals.” In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., and Pearce, G (eds.) IFS. The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, vol. 15. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9117-0_2.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. (1975). “The incompatibility of free will and determinism.” Philosophical Studies, 27 (3): 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. (2000). “Free will remains a mystery.” Philosophical Perspectives, 14: 1–20.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. (2008). “How to think about the problem of free will.” Journal of Ethics, 12: 337–341.Google Scholar
Vihvelin, K. (2013). Causes, Laws, and Free Will: Why Determinism Doesn’t Matter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, J. (2009) “Probabilistic theories of causality” in The Oxford Handbook of Causation, pp. 185–212.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2007). “Causation with a human face.” In Price, H. and Corry, R. (eds.), Causation, Physics, and the Constitution of Reality: Russell’s Republic Revisited, Oxford: Oxford University Press, chapter 4, pp. 66–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Frigg, R., and Hoefer, C. (2013). “The best Humean system for statistical mechanics.” Erkenntnis, 80: 551–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, A. (2014). “Most counterfactuals are false.” Unpublished manuscript, https://philarchive.org/rec/HJEMCA.Google Scholar
Hoefer, C. (2002). “Freedom from the Inside Out.” In Callender, C. (ed.), Time, Reality and Experience (Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, Vol. 50), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 201–222.Google Scholar
Hoefer, C. (2019). Chance in the World: A Humean Guide to Objective Chance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ismael, J. (2016). How Physics Makes Us Free. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lower, B. (2022). “A new probabilistic account of counterfactuals.” Unpublished manuscript, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22971/Google Scholar
Loewer, B. (2025), “The consequence argument meets the mentaculus.” In Lopez, C. and Lombardi, O. (eds.), The Arrow of Time: From Local Systems to the Universe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chapter 5.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. (2023). “The sky is blue, and other reasons quantum mechanics is not underdetermined by evidence.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 13 (4): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Baumann, V., and Wolf, S. (2018). “On formalisms and interpretations,” Quantum 2, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, A. (2022). “What is spacetime really made of?” Scientific American, Feb. 1, 2022.Google Scholar
Bong, K.W. et al. (2020). “A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox,” Nature Physics, Vol. 16: 1199–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, M. (1926). “I.2.” In J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek (eds.). Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge [On the quantum mechanics of collisions]. pp. 863–867.Google Scholar
Breuer, H. P., and Petruccione, F. (2000). “Radiation damping and decoherence in quantum electrodynamics.” In Breuer, and Petruccione, (eds.), Relativistic Quantum Measurement and Decoherence. Workshop, Naples, Italy. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brukner, C. (2015). “On the quantum measurement problem.” In Proceedings of the Conference “Quantum UnSpeakables II: 50 Years of Bell/s Theorem.” arXiv:1507.05255.Google Scholar
Buonamano, D., and Rovelli, C. (2023). “Bridging the Neuroscience and Physics of Time.” In Time and Science, edited by Lestienne, & Harris, . Singapore: World Scientific. 267–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, J. G. (1986). “The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.” Reviews of Modern Physics, 58, 647–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, P. C. W. (1970). “A quantum theory of Wheeler–Feynman electrodynamics,” Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 68:3: 751–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, P. C. W. (1971). “Extension of Wheeler–Feynman quantum theory to the relativistic domain I. Scattering processes.” Journal of Physics A: General Physics, 6, 836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, P. W. (1972). “Extension of Wheeler–Feynman quantum theory to the relativistic domain. II. Emission processes.” Journal of Physics A: General Physics, 5, 1025–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frauchiger, D., and Renner, R. (2018). “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself,” Nature Communications 9, Article number: 3711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. (1986). “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems.” Physical Review D 34 (2): 470–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gradowski, Laura (2022). Facing the Fringe. New York: CUNY Academic Works. https://academicworks.cuny.edGoogle Scholar
Henson, J. (2017). “How causal is quantum theory?” Presentation at New Directions in Physics workshop, University of Maryland, 2015. Powerpoints available at http://carnap.umd.edu/philphysics/hensonslides.pptxGoogle Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2011). “Quantum nonlocality: Not eliminated by the Heisenberg Picture.” Foundations of Physics 41: 1137–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2012). The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2015). “Haag’s theorem as a reason to reconsider direct-action theories.” International Journal of Quantum Foundations, 1, 2: 56–64, https://ijqf.org/archives/2004.Google Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2016). “The illusory appeal of decoherence in the Everettian picture: Affirming the consequent,” excerpt from introductory chapter in Jeknic-Dugic, J., and Jaroskiewicz, G, eds., Quantum Structural Studies. Singapore: World Scientific. (2017). https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.04845Google Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2017a). “On quantum non-unitarity as a basis for the second law of thermodynamics,” Entropy 19(3), arXiv:1612.08734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2017b). “Why ‘making sense of quantum theory’ by denying that it describes the world does not really work,” blog post, https://transactionalinterpretation.org/2018/09/22/why-making-sense-of-quantum-theory-by-denying-that-theories-are-about-the-world-does-not-really-work/ (accessed May 27, 2024).Google Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2017c). “The status of the measurement problem: Recalling the relativistic transactional interpretation,” International Journal of Quantum Foundations, 4: 128–141.Google Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2020a). “Unitary-only quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself: On the Frauchiger–Renner paradox,” Foundations of Physics 50: 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2020b). “Decoherence and the transactional interpretation.” International Journal of Quantum Foundations, 6: 24–39.Google Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2021). “Unitary interactions do not yield outcomes: Attempting to model ‘Wigner’s Friend’,” Foundations of Physics 51, 89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007.s10701-021-00492-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2022). The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: A Relativistic Treatment. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2023a). “Quantum theory needs (and probably has) real reduction,” https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.10649.Google Scholar
Kastner, R. E. (2023b) “Physical time as human time,” Timing and Time Perception, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/22134468-bja10081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, R. E., Kauffman, S., and Epperson, M. (2018). “Taking Heisenberg’s potentia seriously,” International Journal of Quantum Foundations, 4 (2): 158–172.Google Scholar
Kastner, R., and Cramer, J. G. (2018). “Quantifying absorption in the transactional interpretation,” International Journal of Quantum Foundations, 4 (3): 210–222.Google Scholar
Kastner, R., and Schlatter, A. (2023). “Entropy cost of ‘erasure’ in physically irreversible processes.” http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22511/, https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02643Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1984). “A case for scientific realism.” In Leplin, J. (ed.), Scientific Realism, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 8–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinard, Kuhlmann (2023). “Quantum field theory.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. & Nodelman, Uri (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/quantum-field-theory/.Google Scholar
Norton, J. (2021). The Material Theory of Induction. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Nurgalieva, N., and del Rio, L. “Inadequacy of modal logic in quantum settings.” Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, 287 (2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.287.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proietti, M. et al. (2019). “Experimental test of local observer independence,” Science Advances, Vol. 5, no. 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichenbach, H. (1953). “La Signification philosophique du dualism ondes-corpuscles,” in George, Andre (ed.), Louis de Broglie, Physicien et Penseur, Paris: Michel Albin, p. 133.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1956). The Direction of Time. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savitt, S. (2021). “Being and becoming in modern physics,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/spacetime-bebecome/.Google Scholar
Schlatter, A. (2021). “On the foundation of space and time by quantum-events.” Foundations of Physics 52 (1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Schlatter, A. and Kastner, R. E. (2023). “Gravity from transactions: Fulfilling the entropic gravity program,” Journal of Physics Communications 7: 065009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorkin, R. D. (2003) “Causal sets: Discrete gravity (Notes for the Valdivia summer school).” In A. Gomberoff and D. Marolf (eds.), Proceedings of the Valdivia Summer School. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.gr-qc/0309009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, J. A., and Feynman, R. P. (1945). “Interaction with the absorber as the mechanism of radiation,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 17, 157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, J. A., and Feynman, R. P. (1949). “Classical electrodynamics in terms of direct interparticle action,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 21, 425–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this book
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.