Is the Rietdijk Proof Correct About the Future Being Predetermined?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Rietdijk proof and its implications regarding the nature of time, specifically whether the future is predetermined from the perspective of distant observers. The conversation touches on philosophical interpretations of relativity and the concept of simultaneity.

Discussion Character

  • Philosophical inquiry, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the correctness of the Rietdijk proof, suggesting it indicates a predetermined future for distant observers.
  • Another participant humorously notes the silence on the topic, implying the complexity or depth of the question may exceed typical forum discussions.
  • A different participant argues that while relativity does not favor any frame, it leaves open the possibility of a "metaphysically preferred" frame that could define a true present, suggesting that the future may not be predetermined in that context.
  • One post requests adherence to forum guidelines without contributing to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the Rietdijk proof and the nature of time, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without consensus.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes philosophical interpretations that may depend on individual definitions of simultaneity and the nature of time, which are not fully resolved within the conversation.

ppppppp
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
is this right? - Rietdijk proof future determined, already "past"for distant observer

http://www.jstor.org/pss/186637 see details. I totally agree!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


Why silent? Hahahaaa... The question is beyond this forum.
 


It's really a philosophical question. Relativity says that no frame can be physically preferred, but that doesn't totally rule out the idea that one frame's definition of simultaneity could be "true" in some metaphysical sense, though no experiment would ever tell us which frame this was. I don't believe that myself, but if someone does, they could say that the "metaphysically preferred" frame defines the true present, and that nothing in the future of this present is set yet.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K