From: Michael Straight <straight@email.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: (urth) time's arrow
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 10:19:15 

On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Paul C Duggan wrote:

> I heard Martin Amis interviewed when his book came out. He made the
> interesting point that morality can be defined by whether or not an action
> is different when run in reverse or not. Two billiard balls hitting looks
> the same no matter which way you run time. Poisoning a man looks very
> different the other way around.

I'm not sure I understand.  Is it because backwards it would look like you
are sucking the poison out of a man and bringing the dead back to life?

But almost everything except two billiard balls hitting looks different
when run in reverse:  typing a letter, changing clothes, eating a
cheeseburger, building a fence.  How does that help us define the morality
of these actions? 

ObWolfe: Someone mentioned "In Looking Glass Castle" as a story featuring
a backwards-living character, but I don't see that at all.  That's the one
featuring the world where there are no men and the scientist with a man
hiding in her house, isn't it?  What am I missing? 

-Rostrum



*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/