Is Backwards Causation Possible?

후향적인 인과성은 가능한가?

The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibility of backwards causation. For study, this paper was divided into four views as follows: The first view was sometimes suggested by the people such as M. Dummett who distinguished observers from behaviors. According to observers' view, backwards causation is impossible, whereas behaviors' view possible. However, in a real or genuine sense, it is incorrect for us to argue for impossibility of backwards causation from the observer aspect. The second view was supported by J. H. Schmidt. He analyzed the possibility of backwards causation in terms of macro and micro level analysis about the causal events. According to micro level analysis, backwards causation is possible, but macro level analysis impossible. Usually the latter makes the former something miraculous. Under the macro level analysis, backwards causation, at first, seems to be miraculous phenomena which belongs to the micro level analysis. The third view had to do with physical equation, and the fourth view physical phenomena, respectively. John Earman argued for the backwards causation by the transformation from Lorentz­-Dirac equation to a second-order integro-differential one in the field of electrodynamic acceleration. His argument was criticized because of his misunderstanding about the relationship between two equations. On the other hand, Phil Dowe defended a version of Reichenbach's own theory about the direction of causation founded on the fork asymmetrical causal relation. However his view was different from Reichenbach's because the former defended the backwards causation model of Bell phenomena in quantum mechanics. On the contrary, Reichenbach put stressed on the priority of cause in the causal process. Subjectivism has recently been defended by H. Price, under the label of perspectivism. According to him, in a certain sense causal asymmetry is not in the world, but is rather a product of our own asymmetric perspective on the world. He also suggested causal net, the symmetry of microphysics, and so on. As mentioned above, there are many kind of suggestions of backwards causation. However none of them replaced objectively the main streams of the direction of causal process. The main stream has been usually defended by pragmatical ground. That is, effects do not precede their causes although causes cannot be without their effects.

이 논문에서는 '후향적인 인과관계'를 주장하는 견해들을 크게, 자의적인 행위에 근거한 접근방법, 분석수준별 차이에 근거한 접근방법, 물리방정식에 의한 접근방법, 물리현상에 근거한 접근방법으로 나누어 고찰하고, 그 각각의 특징과 문제점들을 지적했다. 이어서 후향적인 인과성을 펼치는 어떠한 견해도 아직은 설득력 있게 받아들여지지 않고 있음을 밝혔다. 후향적인 인과관계를 펼치는 견해들이 인과성분석에서 주류는 아닐지라도, 상호조건적 동시발생적인 측면에 근거해 대칭적인 관계 속에서 인과관계를 파악하거나, 전체상적인 접근에 의거해 서로가 직접 간접으로 인과관계를 유지하는 것으로 파악할 경우는 어느 정도 논거가 선다. 특히 인과그물이나 전체상적인 측면에서 접근할 경우는 더욱 그렇다. 그러나 유용성이라는 측면에서 본다면, 후향적인 인과성고찰은 원인선행설에 비해 그 설득력이 약하다. 이런 점에서 현재로서는 결과가 원인에 앞서지 못한다는 견해가 주류를 이룰 수밖에 없다.