According to David Albert, there are certain situations where we can cause events that lie in our past. In response to a well-known objection that we never observe backward causation, he argues that there are good reasons why we can’t tell when it obtains. However, I identify another difficulty with Albert’s view: at face value, it has the unattractive consequence that backward causation is not just possible, but rife. In this article, I show how this implication can be blocked. I (...) then use my analysis to defend Albert’s account from a second well-known objection, namely, that it allows us to control the past. (shrink)

Why do we have records of the past and not the future? Entropic explanations for this ‘record asymmetry’ have been popular ever since Boltzmann. Foremost amongst these is Albert and Loewer’s account, which explains the record asymmetry using a low-entropy initial macrostate plus an initial probability distribution. However, the details of how this initial state underpins the record asymmetry are not fully specified. In this paper I attempt to plug this explanatory gap in two steps. First, I suggest the record (...) asymmetry is more immediately explained by the ‘fork asymmetry’, which their picture omits. Second, by relating the fork asymmetry to an initial state that’s metaphysically similar to theirs, I clarify how this ultimately underpins the record asymmetry. (shrink)

A striking feature of our world is that we only seem to have records of the past. To explain this ‘record asymmetry’, Albert and Loewer claim that the Past Hypothesis induces a narrow probability density over the world’s possible past macrohistories, but not its future macro- histories. Because we’re indirectly acquainted with this low-entropy initial macrostate, our observations of records allow us to exploit the associated narrow density to infer the past. I will argue that Albert and Loewer cannot make (...) sense of why this probabilistic structure ex- ists without falling back on the very records they wish to explain. To avoid this circularity, I offer an alternative account: the ‘fork asymmetry’ explains the record asymmetry, and this in turn explains the narrow density - not vice versa. (shrink)