[dr_lew]

Adulthood and childhood are categories of future and past. Your challenge is exactly equivalent to saying, “If the past can affect the future, why can’t the future affect the past?”

The principle, enunciated by Lucretius, that “that cannot be touched which cannot be touched itself”, is sound insofar as it refers to objects conceived as persisting in time. “Adulthood” and “childhood” are not in this category. The closest correct version of your implied principle would be, “If the parent can affect the child, the child can affect the parent.”

Cf. “Dr. Diagoras” by Stanislav Lem

[dr_lew]

“that cannot be touched which cannot be touched itself”

Yikes. s/b "that cannot touch which may not be touched itself."

[csense]

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure I agree that there is a category error. My understanding of a category error is one of assigning improper properties. I'm not quite sure what other properties a past event would have other than time and space, or why such properties would be considered in error or inapplicable.

You guys probably have much more knowledge on this subject than I, but it seems to be a valid analogy from my perspective.

Thanks for the input.