A COMPANION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF TIME Edited by Adrian Bardon and Heather Dyke Time Travel and Time Machines

Thinking about time travel is an entertaining way to explore how to understand time and its location in the broad conceptual landscape that includes causation, fate, action, possibility, experience, and reality. It is uncontroversial that time travel towards the future exists, and time travel to the past is generally recognized as permitted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity, though no one knows yet whether nature truly allows it. Coherent time travel stories have added flair to traditional debates over the metaphysical status of the past, the reality of temporal passage, and the existence of free will. Moreover, plausible models of time travel and time machines can be used to investigate the subtle relation between space-time structure and causality. Time travel is a relatively recent subject of philosophical inquiry, having gained little discernible intellectual traction before the twentieth century. Since then, interest in the implications of time travel has grown significantly, largely as a result of the empirical success of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which provides for the physical possibility of time travel to the past, effectively appropriating the subject of time travel from the realm of pure fiction for use in scientific inquiry. Physically plausible models of time travel are now an important topic of consideration for anyone investigating the nature of time. Much of the philosophical literature on time travel attempts to engage with traditional philosophical problems of free will, personal identity, and the passage of time. The extent to which time travel brings genuinely new resources to bear on these topics is debatable, but it is fair to say that time travel scenarios can at least help liberate one’s mind from the grip of naive intuitions and guide one towards a superior conceptualization of the connections among action, causation, time, change, and related notions. For example, many people believe in some form of fatalism about the past, holding that the past cannot be influenced. Physically plausible models of time travel can call attention to the possibility that the kind of causal interactions we are familiar with in our everyday lives is compatible with our being able to influence the past. That in turn can raise awareness of the possibility that we exert influence over the past in mundane circumstances without traveling back in time. Defining Time Travel A basic grasp of what constitutes time travel can be gleaned from stock examples in science fiction. Paradigmatically, time travel consists of a person at some initial time ti commencing a journey that lasts for a duration ∆t and completing the journey at some final time tf that is not equal to ti+∆t. Traveling to the future paradigmatically involves tf occurring substantially after ti+∆t and traveling to the past involves tf occurring substantially before ti. Using the terminology of David Lewis (1976), we can refer to the ∆t as the duration of the time traveler’s personal time and the tf-ti as the duration of external time, the time through which the time traveler travels. This preliminary characterization of time travel as a mismatch between personal time and external time can be made more precise along several dimensions. First, one can specify the concept of personal time more carefully by characterizing what it means for a person to experience a certain duration of time. Paradigmatically, a time traveler to the future rides a time machine for twenty seconds or so and exits to find that hundreds of years have passed for everything else. The personal time is recorded in the memory and other bodily changes of the time traveler as well in her pocket watch. External time is recorded on all the other clocks and calendars in the world. In clarifying what personal time measures, one might choose to disregard the pocket watch altogether and associate personal time merely with how long the journey seems to last for the traveler. One could count cryonics—the freezing and restoration of a person—as a form of time travel to the future because a recently thawed woman can rightly judge that “shortly” after being told that the freezing will begin, she wakes up thousands of years in the future. In principle, the conditions required for time travel could be so liberally interpreted that a mere nap would count as time travel, but ‘time travel’ does not ordinarily include these routine mismatches between the durations measured by a mechanical clock and by a person’s internal clock. A more restrictive construal of personal time could require that it track the rate at which fundamental processes take place. For example, if there were some region of the universe where all physical processes slow down relative to other locations, passing through that region would count as genuine time travel to the future. Interestingly, because of the effects described by relativity theory, time travel according to this stricter definition does actually take place. The theory of relativity thus helps to mitigate concern about the vagueness inherent in the concept of personal time because it grounds a sense of temporal duration in which all local physical processes can take place at a rate that differs from their surrounding environment. A person who travels on a round trip to a distant star will return having experienced less time than people who stay on Earth and thus will have traveled into the future. Because this form of time travel is based on well-confirmed physics, it is uncontroversial that time travel towards the future exists. The idea of visiting the past raises more probing questions about what it means to travel through time. If there were some magical process by which a wizard could wave a wand and thereby make a person vanish from the present and appear a century ago, that would seem to count as a form of time travel. However, it is difficult to establish clear criteria in full generality for what kind of connection is needed among the various temporal stages of a potential time traveler in order for her to count as a bona fide time traveler to the past. Presumably, the criteria used in making such judgments draw on resources familiar from debates over the nature of personal identity—for example, having a sufficient degree of mental continuity and the appropriate sort of causal linkage among the various stages of a person’s life. Judgments can be murky, though, in part because some time travel scenarios are subject to a reinterpretation that eschews time travel altogether. For example, the classic time machine described by H. G. Wells (1895), requires the spatio-temporal path of the putative time traveler to form a zigzag shape where the journey starts on a future-directed physical evolution, backtracks towards the past until the destination is reached and then backtracks again towards the future when the passenger exits the time machine. If the fundamental laws of nature are akin to those posited in paradigmatic theories of fundamental physics, such Wellsian time travel can be reinterpreted as an entirely future-directed process: the spontaneous generation of a person in a time travel machine, who immediately fissions into a rather ordinary future-directed human stepping out of the machine together with a copy of that same human who evolves in slow motion reverse towards the future inside the time machine, becoming ever so slightly younger hour by hour until the machine collides with a virtually identically structured machine with a virtually identical human, resulting in the merging of all their parts followed immediately by their complete vanishing. This possible reinterpretation should not by itself prevent such a scenario from counting as genuine time travel because it does not rule out the existence of a reliable method by which one could bring about the temporal zigzagging at will from the initial stage when the time traveler activates the time machine. That said, there are solid reasons (Kutach 2011) for thinking Wellsian time machines cannot be manufactured in our universe. Finally, one of the trickier aspects of defining time travel is to distinguish it from cases of travel to an alternate world. This issue arises especially in attempted models of time travel where some past P occurs, but then someone travels into the past and prevents P, thereby requiring that there be one sense in which P happened and another sense in which it did not happen. This possibility could be modeled in terms of multi-valued physical fields, but the mere existence of multi-valued fields does not by itself constitute the kind of alteration of the past countenanced in science fiction because the multiple values of the field might have equal status as existents. Some further structure is required to justify a sense in which P happened “first” and then was “later” prevented rather than history merely evolving such that one magnitude of the multivalued field instantiated P and the other didn’t. One can attempt to cash out the idea that history can be altered in terms of a multiverse model of the universe or with a two-dimensional model of time (Meiland 1974), but a recurring worry about such schemes is that they do not vindicate the claim that the time traveler has traveled into the actual past. Instead, such models are often better described as instantiating travel to an alternate world that is qualitatively similar to the time traveler’s actual past.