On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at >> the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an >> implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for >> developing blocktime as it arises from relativity to such point, >> predictions get made? Or any other kind of reinforcement? Or does blocktime >> go on to imply something beyond blocktime? >> > > If "block time" is taken as a definite ontological statement about all > times "existing" in exactly the same sense, rather than just referring to > the idea of treating time as a dimension conceptually or in our > mathematical models, then I think it's a metaphysical postulate that goes > beyond anything directly implied by relativity. Relativity says that all > frames, with their different definitions of simultaneity, are on equal > footing as far as the laws of physics are concerned, but it doesn't deal > with ontology. If someone proposes that one frame's definition of > simultaneity is "metaphysically preferred" in the sense it defines the > "true present", but adds the caveat that this frame is not in any way > physically preferred so that no conceivable experiment could determine > which frame it is, this wouldn't contradict the physics. It would be an > "interpretation" of SR, similar to the different "interpretations" of QM > which postulate different things about ontology (the real existence of > other worlds in the MWI, or a single world with hidden variables in Bohmian > mechanics, for example) but are indistinguishable experimentally. >
SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity. This can be tested experimentally. > > That said, if you subscribe to any form of Occam's razor or even a > criteria of "elegance" when it comes to choosing between different > metaphysical hypotheses, it seems a lot simpler to assume that there is no > metaphysically preferred definition of simultaneity, just as I think many > would agree the MWI is the simplest way of interpreting the physical theory > of QM. Adding extra "purely metaphysical" entities to a theory, which don't > correspond to anything that appears in the mathematical formalism of the > theory itself (which would apply to things like a "true present" or to > hidden variables in QM), seems a bit like postulating that there are > invisible intangible elves sitting on each person's head which have no > causal effects on anything we can measure; sure it's logically possible, > but it seems like a very inelegant and arbitrary way for reality to work. > > The MWI is deterministic, however, and hence has hidden variables. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
