1. Describe retrospective prayer such that it is not obviously contradictory.

Present the Retrospective

Prayer Argument to the conclusion that a retrospective prayer is pointless. What is the Bomb
Argument? What is wrong with each of these arguments?
Retroactive Prayer:
Either your child drowned or he did not. If he did, then the prayer did not work and was pointless. If
he did not, then the prayer was uncessary and pointless. Therefore the prayer was pointless.
Bomb argument:
Either you will be killed by a bomb or you will not. If you are killed then getting to the bomb shelter
won't have saved your life and so is pointless. If you won't be killed, then getting to the bomb shelter is
pointless, therefore getting to the bomb shelter is pointless.
There is no evidence suggesting that the prayer was not the cause of your child not drowning.
Similarly, there is no evidence to support that you getting to the bomb shelter was not responsible for
you not dying. In short, there is no evidence supporting the last premise of either argument.
2. Present Deutschs bilking argument, by giving the background story and presenting his argument
in its best valid representation. Then say why the argument is not sound.
A man watches a time machine to see whether a copy of himself emerges on a tuesday. If he does not
emerge, then on wednesday he goes back in time one day to emerge on tuesday. If he does emerge on
tuesday, then he waits until wednesday and chooses to not get in the time machine. Either way, a
paradox is created in that he is both there and not there on tuesday.
If he does not emerge on tuesday, then on wednesday he journeys back in time one day and emerges on
tuesday. If he does emerge on tuesday, then he never gets in the time machine and does not emerge on
tuesday. Thus he both does and does not emerge on tuesday.
The argument is unsound because the premises cannot both be true. It is likely impossible to say which
one is false. If he emerges on tuesday then premise 2 is false, and similarly for premise 1 if he does not
emerge on tuesday.
3. Dene what a causal loop is. Present Meyers PSR-1 and PSR-2. How does each of these
principles pose a problem for the possibility of causal loops? What options does Meyers give for
addressing these problems?
A causal loop is a branch in multi-dimensional time where the cause is the effect. The end of the
branch loops back to the beginning, ending where it started with the beginning being caused by the end.
PSR Principle of sufficient reason nothing happens without a reason.
PSR1: Every event has a sufficient cause (x is a sufficient cause of y iff (i) x is a cause of
y and (ii) if x occurs, then y must occur.) Threat: PSR1, the transitivity of causation, and the existence
of a causal loop entail that that some events are self-caused. Response: Deny PSR1, the transitivity of
causation, or accept that some events are self-caused.
PSR2: There is sufficient reason for the way the world is. Threat: While there may be sufficient
reasons for each member of a causal loop, there doesn't seem to be a sufficient reason for the existence
of a loop. Why is there a loop? Response: Reject PSR2 based on the fact that there is no reason for the

world being the way that it is. No truth (which is part of the way the world is) can explain this because
it itself is a part of the of the conjunction of truths (aka the way things are). A necessary truth cannot
explain it either; because if it is sufficient for the conjunction then the conjunction would have to be
necessary also, but it is not. The conjunction of all contingent truths is itself contingent.
4. What is the Self-Visitation Paradox? Present the perdurantist and age-relativist replies to the
paradox. What is the leftovercontradiction problem (raised by Carroll) for all relativist answers to
the Self-Visitation Paradox?

5. What is the A-Theory of time? What is the BTheory of time? Describe three dierent ways of
being an A-Theorist. One of these three ways is presentism. Describe two of the three problems
raised in class for presentism.
A-theory: Being past, being present, and being future are objective properties of events. Presentism,
only what is present exists. Growing block, only what is past and present exist. Moving spotlight,
what is past, present, or future exists but some objective property other than existence marks one
simultaneous set of events as being present.
B-theory: Being earlier than and later than are objective relations between events.
Problems with presentism:
1. True, present-tense propositions about past or future things. For example: That Elvis is the greatest
there will ever be. Or, That the civil war is the war with the most American casualties.
2. Viability of a semantic theory of past-tense sentences: 'Elvis was born in Tupelo' is true iff 'Elvis'
refers to Elvis, 'Tupelo' refers to 'Tupelo', and Elvis and Tupelo satisfy the predicate 'x was born in y' in
that order.
3. Tension with Relativity Theory: What happens now and so what exists is a relative frame of
reference. Simultaneity is relative to the observer.
6. Describe what van Inwagen means by metaphysical freedom. Then present the Ability
Version of the Consequence Argument for Incompatibilism in premise and conclusion form. Then
use the example of Franny and Zoe to challenge one of the premises.
Metaphysical freedom is likened to the word 'can'. I can do X means There exists no impediment,
obstacle, or barrier to my doing X; nothing prevents my doing X. If the agent could do otherwise, then
there is metaphysical freedom.
The 'Ability' version of the consequence argument for incompatibilism:
-If determinism is true, then our actions are the consequences of the laws of the remote past.
-We can't change those laws
-We can't change the remote past
-We can never do anything than what we in fact do.
-If we can never do anything other than what we do, then we never act freely.
If determinism is true, then we never act freely.
Franny and Zoe challenge to premise #5: Zoe chose to go through with the assassination and was free
to choose to do so, even though she could not have done otherwise. This illustrates the fact that having

the freedom to 'do otherwise' in any given case is not a necessary condition for metaphysical freedom.
7. Describe Goddus model of multidimensional time. Using a table, plot his example of Sarah
who builds a time machine and takes a tragic trip to the past, but also avoids death. Once you show
the plot, as a case of discontinuous backwards time travel, as Goddu does, plot it again making it a
case of continuous backwards time travel. You will need to provide enough supplementary
discussion about your tables so that a reader can follow what is supposed to be going on.
Discontinuous backwards:
Hypertime
T1
Normal Time t1
Event
e1

T2
t2
e2

T3
t3
e3

T4
t4
e4

T5
t2
e2'

T6
t3
e3'

T7
t4
e4'

T8
t5
e5'

T9
t6
e6'

Sarah does not appear dead at T2/t2/e2, so the next morning when she reads the paper at T3/t3/e3 there
is no story about her untimely death. That same afternoon T4/t4/e4 she travels back in time to t2 and
dies in the process. At T6/t3/e3' she reads the paper and sees her death on the front page. She decides
to destroy the time machine at T7/t4/e4' and avoids killing herself in the new alternate timeline.
Continuous Backwards:
Hypertime
T1
Normal Time t1
Event
e1

T2
t2
e2

T3
t3
e3

T4
t2
e2

T5
t1
e1

T6
t2
e2

T7
t3
e3

T8
t4
e4