Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T23:50:40.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Difficulties for the Past Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Sean Gryb
Sean Gryb*
Affiliation:
To contact the author, please write to: Faculty of Philosophy, University of Groningen and Van Swinderen Institute for Particle Physics and Gravity, University of Groningen; e-mail: sean.gryb@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue that explanations for time asymmetry in terms of a ‘Past Hypothesis’ face serious new difficulties. First I strengthen grounds for existing criticism by outlining three categories of criticism that put into question essential requirements of the proposal. Then I provide a new argument showing that any time-independent measure on the space of models of the universe must break a gauge symmetry. The Past Hypothesis then faces a new dilemma: reject a gauge symmetry and introduce a distinction without difference or reject the time independence of the measure and lose explanatory power.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 88 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 511 - 532
Copyright
Copyright 2021 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Karim Thébault for an enormous amount of encouragement, feedback, and helpful discussions. My thinking about the arrow of time has been heavily influenced by conservations with David Sloan, Tim Koslowski, Flavio Mercati, and Julian Barbour. I am also grateful to Roman Frigg, Fred Muller, Guido Bacciagaluppi, and audiences in Utrecht and Groningen for many useful discussions and feedback. Finally, I would like to thank Erik Curiel for valuable comments on an early draft, as well as Jan-Willem Romeijn and Simon Friederich for guidance, suggestions, and mentorship. My work is supported by a Young Academy Groningen Scholarship.

References

Albert, D. 2009. Time and Chance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashtekar, A., and Sloan, D.. 2011. “Probability of Inflation in Loop Quantum Cosmology.” General Relativity and Gravitation 43:3619–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, J., Koslowski, T., and Mercati, F.. 2014. “Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time.” Physical Review Letters 113 (18): 181101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birkhoff, G. D. 1931. “Proof of the Ergodic Theorem.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 17 (12): 656–60..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boltzmann, L. 2012. Lectures on Gas Theory. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Brown, H. R., and Uffink, J.. 2001. “The Origins of Time-Asymmetry in Thermodynamics: The Minus First Law.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science B 32 (4): 525–38..Google Scholar
Callender, C. 2004a. “Measures, Explanations and the Past: Should ‘Special’ Initial Conditions Be Explained?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2): 195–217..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callender, C.. 2004b. “On the Origins of the Arrow of Time: There Is No Puzzle about the Low-Entropy Past.” In Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, ed. Hitchcock, Christopher, 240–55. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Callender, C.. 2010. “The Past Hypothesis Meets Gravity.” In Time, Chance and Reduction: Philosophical Aspects of Statistical Mechanics, ed. Ernst, Gerhard and Hüttemann, Andreas, 34–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, S. M., and Tam, H.. 2010. “Unitary Evolution and Cosmological Fine-Tuning.” Unpublished manuscript, arXiv.Google Scholar
Corichi, A., and Karami, A.. 2011. “On the Measure Problem in Slow Roll Inflation and Loop Quantum Cosmology.” Physical Review D 83: 104006.Google Scholar
Curiel, E. 2015. “Measure, Topology and Probabilistic Reasoning in Cosmology.” Unpublished manuscript, arXiv.Google Scholar
Earman, J. 2006. “The ‘Past Hypothesis’: Not Even False.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science B 37 (3): 399–430..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R., and Wilczek, F.. 2017. The Character of Physical Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigg, R. 2009. “Typicality and the Approach to Equilibrium in Boltzmannian Statistical Mechanics.” Philosophy of Science 76 (5): 997–1008..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, G., Hawking, S., and Stewart, J.. 1987. “A Natural Measure on the Set of All Universes.” Nuclear Physics B 281 (3–4): 736–51.Google Scholar
Gibbons, G. W., and Turok, N.. 2008. “The Measure Problem in Cosmology.” Physical Review D 77: 063516.Google Scholar
Goldstein, S. 2001. “Boltzmann’s Approach to Statistical Mechanics.” In Chance in Physics, 39–54. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, S., and Lebowitz, J. L.. 2004. “On the (Boltzmann) Entropy of Non-equilibrium Systems.” Physica D 193 (1–4): 53–66.Google Scholar
Hawking, S. W., and Page, D. N.. 1988. “How Probable Is Inflation?” Nuclear Physics B 298:789–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollands, S., and Wald, R. M.. 2002. “Comment on Inflation and Alternative Cosmology.” Unpublished manuscript, arXiv.Google Scholar
Jaynes, E. T. 1973. “The Well-Posed Problem.” Foundations of Physics 3 (4): 477–92..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kofman, L., Linde, A. D., and Mukhanov, V. F.. 2002. “Inflationary Theory and Alternative Cosmology.” Journal of High Energy Physics 10: 057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebowitz, J. L. 1993. “Boltzmann’s Entropy and Time’s Arrow.” Physics Today 46:32–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liouville, J. 1838. “Note on the Theory of the Variation of Arbitrary Constants.” Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées 3:342–49.Google Scholar
Loewer, B. 2012. “Two Accounts of Laws and Time.” Philosophical Studies 160 (1): 115–37..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. D. 2008. “Ignorance and Indifference.” Philosophy of Science 75 (1): 45–68..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padmanabhan, T. 1990. “Statistical Mechanics of Gravitating Systems.” Physics Reports 188 (5): 285–362..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padmanabhan, T.. 2008. “Statistical Mechanics of Gravitating Systems: An Overview.” Unpublished manuscript, arXiv.Google Scholar
Penrose, R. 1979. “Singularities and Time-Asymmetry.” In General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, ed. Hawking, S. W. and Israel, W., 581–638. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Penrose, R.. 1994. “On the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” Journal of Statistical Physics 77 (1–2): 217–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, H. 1997. Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, H.. 2002. “Boltzmann’s Time Bomb.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (1): 83–119..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, H.. 2004. “On the Origins of the Arrow of Time: Why There Is Still a Puzzle about the Low-Entropy Past.” In Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, ed. Hitchcock, Christopher, 219–39. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, J. S., and Wald, R. M.. 2012. “Measure and Probability in Cosmology.” Physical Review D 86: 023521.Google Scholar
Sloan, D. 2018. “Dynamical Similarity.” Physical Review D 97 (12): 123541.Google Scholar
Sloan, D.. 2019. “Scalar Fields and the FLRW Singularity.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 36 (23): 235004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uffink, J. 1995. “Can the Maximum Entropy Principle Be Explained as a Consistency Requirement?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science B 26 (3): 223–61..Google Scholar
Uffink, J.. 2017. “Boltzmann’s Work in Statistical Physics. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S. 2013. The Quantum Theory of Fields. Vol. 2, Modern Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar