On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:23, Jesse Mazer 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.
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.
I agree. That is what I refer to the usual occam razor. With comp,
the physical PRIMITIVE reality becomes of that kind. Totally useless,
even to explain the physical appearances.
Bruno
Jesse
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
