The Andromeda Paradox: Exploring the Rietdijk-Putnam Argument

In summary, the conversation was about the importance of effective communication in a workplace. The speakers discussed how clear and concise communication can increase efficiency and avoid misunderstandings. They also mentioned the use of different communication methods, such as email and face-to-face meetings, depending on the situation. Finally, they emphasized the need for active listening and open communication to foster a positive and productive work environment.
  • #1
Count Iblis
1,863
8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk-Putnam_Argument" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
That argument is all 'smoke and mirrors' IMO. Look at it this way. The Earth is moving in its orbit far faster than the pedestrians are walking. So when the Earth is moving in its orbit (generally) away from Andromeda the race hasn't evolved yet while when the Earth is moving toward Andromeda they should have already conquered us.

Any information about simultanaity can only travel at the speed of light. So I think you have to restrict the 'plane of simutanaity' to local events.
 
  • #3


The Rietdijk-Putnam argument, also known as the Andromeda Paradox, is a thought experiment that challenges the concept of time travel and the idea of causality. It was proposed by Dutch mathematician Hans Reitdijk and American philosopher Hilary Putnam in the 1960s.

The paradox begins with the assumption that time travel is possible and a person, let's call him John, travels back in time to a point before his own birth. While in the past, John sees a star explosion in the Andromeda galaxy that is supposed to happen in the year 2000. John then returns to the present and tells his friend, who is a scientist, about the star explosion he witnessed in the past.

The paradox arises when the scientist calculates that the light from the Andromeda galaxy would have taken 2 million years to reach Earth, meaning that the star explosion should not be visible until 2 million years from now. However, John claims to have seen it 2 million years before it was supposed to happen. This creates a contradiction in the concept of causality, as John's observation of the star explosion seems to have caused it to happen in the past.

The Rietdijk-Putnam argument challenges the idea of a fixed past and a predetermined future. It suggests that if time travel is possible, events in the past can be altered by the actions of a time traveler. This raises questions about the concept of free will and the possibility of changing the course of history.

Some philosophers have attempted to resolve this paradox by proposing alternative theories of time, such as the block universe theory, which suggests that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously and events in the past cannot be changed. Others argue that the paradox is simply a result of the limitations of human perception and that the star explosion was always meant to be seen by John in the past.

Overall, the Andromeda Paradox presents an interesting and thought-provoking argument that challenges our understanding of time and causality. It raises important questions about the nature of reality and the implications of time travel. While there may not be a definitive solution to this paradox, it certainly encourages us to think critically about the concept of time and its role in our lives.
 

1. What is the Rietdijk-Putnam argument?

The Rietdijk-Putnam argument is a thought experiment proposed by physicist Arthur Rietdijk and philosopher Hilary Putnam. It suggests that the concept of time can be viewed as an illusion and that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This argument challenges the traditional understanding of time as a linear progression.

2. How does the Andromeda Paradox relate to the Rietdijk-Putnam argument?

The Andromeda Paradox is a variation of the Rietdijk-Putnam argument that specifically focuses on the concept of time travel. It proposes that if time travel is possible, it would create a paradox in which a person could potentially meet their past or future self, leading to a contradiction.

3. What implications does the Rietdijk-Putnam argument have for our understanding of time?

If the Rietdijk-Putnam argument is accepted, it would challenge our perception of time as a linear progression and suggest that all moments in time already exist. This could have significant implications for fields such as physics and philosophy, as well as our everyday understanding of time.

4. Is there any evidence to support the Rietdijk-Putnam argument?

The Rietdijk-Putnam argument is a thought experiment and does not have any empirical evidence to support it. However, some theories in physics, such as the block universe theory, are consistent with this argument and could be seen as indirect evidence.

5. What are some potential counterarguments to the Rietdijk-Putnam argument?

One potential counterargument is that the Rietdijk-Putnam argument relies on the assumption that time travel is possible. If time travel is not possible, then the paradox would not occur. Additionally, some philosophers and physicists argue that our perception of time as linear is a fundamental aspect of human consciousness and cannot be altered by thought experiments.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
10K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
71
Views
9K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
7K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
Back
Top