We shall say, then, that all causal relations consist of a series of
rhythms or steady events separated by "transactions." If such a series
connects a rhythm or steady event with a rhythm or steady event
, we shall say that is a "causal ancestor" of , and
is a "causal descendant" of . We may assume that, in such
a case, the number of transactions between and is always
finite, since one supposes that the time between two transactions
cannot fall below a certain minimum, or at any rate that the number of
causally connected transactions in a finite time is never infinite.
Perhaps we may assume that a rhythm must last long enough to achieve an
amount of action ; perhaps, even, we could construct a discrete
theory of time from which[Pg 369] this result would follow. All this, however,
is very speculative.
Now let us consider the stock case of a light-signal sent from to
, and reflected back from to . Only two transactions
are involved, namely the emission and reflection of the light; perhaps
we ought to add the final transaction, namely the re-absorption of the
light by . In any case, there need be only two steady events, one
in the outward beam and one in the returning beam. But the interval
between the departure and return of the light may have any magnitude.
This is all the more curious, as the interval between the departure
of the light from and its arrival at is zero, and so is
the interval between its departure from and its return to .
This suggests that too much effort has been made to regard interval as
analogous to distance in conventional geometry and time in conventional
kinematics. Suppose we say that, if an event is a causal
ancestor of an event , we take all the possible causal routes
from to , and choose that which contains the greatest
number of events: then the "interval" from to is
defined as the number of events in this longest route. It is obvious
that, if a measurable time elapses between the departure of the light
from and its return to , there must have been a variety of
events at meanwhile. When I say "at" , I have a meaning to
be considered shortly; but for the moment it is enough to say that
this meaning includes causal inheritance. Thus we have a meaning for
the view that the interval at is quite long, and also for the
view that the interval between the departure of the light from
and its arrival at is zero. This latter statement means that it
is the very same event that starts from and arrives at ,
and moreover that there is no longer causal route connecting the two
transactions of starting from and arriving at . This event
which starts from and arrives at I call a "luminous event."
[Pg 370]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account