Theo Todman's Web Page - Paper Abstracts

Author’s Abstract

1. In this paper I consider two objections raised by Nick Smith (1997) to an argument against the probability of time travel¹ given by Paul Horwich (1995, 1987). Horwich argues that time travel² leads to inexplicable and improbable coincidences.
2. I argue that one of Smith’s objections fails, but that another is correct. I also consider an instructive way to defend Horwich’s argument against the second of Smith’s objections, but show that it too fails.
3. I conclude that unless there is something faulty in the conception of explanation implicit in Horwich’s argument, time travel³ presents us with nothing that is inexplicable.