Block universe theory question

In summary, the video is trying to deceive you by playing on your adult beliefs that are not innate "common sense".
  • #1
TL;DR Summary
block universe theory question
Hello,

can somebody help me out please? just watched this video
so far understood but if motion changes the now frame its logic if the alien cylcles to the guy sitting that his time is slower and the guys time
will be in the future (time delitation). but when the alien is moving away how can the motion direction which changes away from the guy sitting can bring the now frame to past. i didnt get that? or is this the minkowksi diagramm? you can only have one time line when moving to an non moving observer or moving away. from a nonmoving observer. directions doesn't count. or is this theory totally wrong? or maybe iam on a totally wrong path..

thanks
frank
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Here's an alternative view. When a child is developing it has a clear sense of a local sequence of events. But, it struggles with the concept that there is a global "now". I.e. that there is some relationship between what is happening locally and what happens at some distant location. For example, they may be having something to eat in the UK while their grandparents are asleep in Australia. The idea that there is a concept of "now" that relates these two events takes some time for the child to grasp.

As we develop and get to understand global time zones and have telephones and the Internet to make communication across the world almost instantaneous, we lose any doubts about the absolute meaning of a global now and it becomes hard-wired into our thinking.

However, when we consider events at a far greater distances (even without considering relativity), perhaps this might shake our confidence in a global now. If we are thinking about a Mars rover, then we know it takes 20-30 minutes for communications to and from Mars. We can reason that the images from Mars are what happened 20-30 minutes ago and we can construct a more elaborate notion of a global now, based on the speed of light.

Then, we might consider a star or planet in the Andromeda galaxy. It takes 2 million years for information about what is happening "now" to reach us. And, perhaps at this point, we should rediscover some of the doubts we had as young children about what exactly "now" means for events 2 million light years away. And, to understand that what we mean by "now" over those large distances might be ambiguous and depend on the way we define "now".

If you can talk to someone in Australia on the telephone, there is little doubt about what "now" means over such short distances. But, we can't communicate effectively with a civilisation in Andromeda, so it's not immediately clear that there is only one way to define "now" there.

So, perhaps the video you have watched is "conning" you in a way. Playing on the ideas you have learned as an adult - that, ironically, were not innate "common sense" to you as a child!

Perhaps it doesn't matter whether you cycle round on a bicycle or not; or, more significantly, which way the Earth is moving on its orbit of the Sun. None of that has any physical significance to events in the Andromeda galaxy.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier, ohwilleke and frankrabbit
  • #3
Thank you for the answer. I think I explained my question not clear enough.
 
  • #4
frankrabbit said:
Thank you for the answer. I think I explained my question not clear enough.
Feel free to restate your question. To add a bit more:

Imagine a giant telescope is displaying pictures on a screen of light just arriving at Earth from Andromeda. What is on the screen is physical. Everyone agrees what is on the screen, whether they are on a bicycle or not.

But, if we take the usual convention for defining a global inertial frame in Minkowski spacetime, then two people on Earth in relative motion will define different events to be "now" on Andomeda. A quick calculation gives a difference of about 3.5 days for a relative speed of ##3m/s## (on a bicycle). This means that one will calculate that the images on the screen represent events Andromeda 2 million years ago; and the other 2 million years ago (plus or minus a few days).

But, we see that this is a non-physical convention, as the images on the local screen are the same for both. What they consider to be "now" on Andomeda doesn't change what they are seeing on the screen. There's no disagreement about the local physical observation.
 
  • Like
Likes collinsmark
  • #5
PeroK said:
Feel free to restate your question. To add a bit more:

Imagine a giant telescope is displaying pictures on a screen of light just arriving at Earth from Andromeda. What is on the screen is physical. Everyone agrees what is on the screen, whether they are on a bicycle or not.

But, if we take the usual convention for defining a global inertial frame in Minkowski spacetime, then two people on Earth in relative motion will define different events to be "now" on Andomeda. A quick calculation gives a difference of about 3.5 days for a relative speed of ##3m/s## (on a bicycle). This means that one will calculate that the images on the screen represent events Andromeda 2 million years ago; and the other 2 million years ago (plus or minus a few days).

But, we see that this is a non-physical convention, as the images on the local screen are the same for both. What they consider to be "now" on Andomeda doesn't change what they are seeing on the screen. There's no disagreement about the local physical observation.
so its like looking to the sky and seeing a star from the past. right?
 
  • #6
frankrabbit said:
so its like looking to the sky and seeing a star from the past. right?
That's one point. All light is from past events. The question is more fundamentally what does "now" mean at some distant location? It's not as obvious and common sensical as you might at first think.
 
  • #7
PeroK said:
That's one point. All light is from past events. The question is more fundamentally what does "now" mean at some distant location? It's not as obvious and common sensical as you might at first think.
the more the alien moves away from the observer the more he sees from the past of the observer because he leaves more distance. but while the alien is in motion his time moves slower so he will have a brighter frame of the observers past.
 
  • #8
frankrabbit said:
the more the alien moves away from the observer the more he sees from the past of the observer because he leaves more distance. but while the alien is in motion his time moves slower so he will have a brighter frame of the observers past.
Sorry, that's not right at all. See my example with the telescope. If you are on your bicycle and your friend is not then you see the same light from the distant stars at the same time. Give or take a few nanoseconds.

You don't see anything different if you cycle around on a bicycle.

Brian Greene is (whatever his intentions) seriously misleading you here.
 
  • #9
Even if your friend came rocketing past you at half the speed of light, as he passes, you would both agree on a date-stamped image sent from a distant planet (with their date it was sent). He would see it blue-shifted if he is moving towards the source that quickly, but there would be no disagreement about the date-stamp. If that message says, when translated:

Greetings from planet X on the 100th anniversary of universal peace on our planet: 16th of Alien-July, Alien Year 2445.

Then you and your friend (if you are close to each other) receive that same message at the same time, regardless of your relative state of motion. That's an element of physical reality, as Einstein would have it.
 
  • #10
PeroK said:
Sorry, that's not right at all. See my example with the telescope. If you are on your bicycle and your friend is not then you see the same light from the distant stars at the same time. Give or take a few nanoseconds.

You don't see anything different if you cycle around on a bicycle.

Brian Greene is (whatever his intentions) seriously misleading you here.
ok now i'am close to understand it...but the other way around its logical. so when the alien is cycling to the observer he will see a frame of future. this is time dilation if we have the situation Earth - andromeda distance plus motion and nonmotion observer.
 
  • #11
frankrabbit said:
ok now i'am close to understand it...but the other way around its logical. so when the alien is cycling to the observer he will see a frame of future. this is time dilation if we have the situation Earth - andromeda distance plus motion and nonmotion observer.
No, no, no. That's all wrong. Special Relativity and frames of reference are not about what you see in terms of light signals.

The distant event you see at any instant is what you see and is independent of your state of motion. It may be blue or redshifted, but it still the same event.
 
  • #12
so block universum theory is totally wrong?
 
  • #13
frankrabbit said:
so block universum theory is totally wrong?
No, your understanding of SR is totally wrong. Sorry!
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #14
wait. when i have a atom watch here on Earth which is not moving and i put the same atom watch on a flying plan the watch on the plan is moving slower as the watch on earth. it is because motion slows time because the time is distributing through space when moving. so far right?
 
  • #15
frankrabbit said:
wait. when i have a atom watch here on Earth which is not moving and i put the same atom watch on a flying plan the watch on the plan is moving slower as the watch on earth. it is because motion slows time because the time is distributing through space when moving. so far right?
No. The first postulate of SR effectively says that there is no state of absolute motion. In other words, all motion through space is relative.

In your example, the Earth is rotating, so in some inertial frame a plane on the ground is moving at approximately ##1000km/h##. A plane flying westwards is moving slower in that frame.

Likewise, we can find another frame where the plane is at rest and the ground plane is moving.

So, I would say that "motion slows time" is wrong and fundamentally disagrees with what SR really says.
 
  • #16
frankrabbit said:
wait. when i have a atom watch here on Earth which is not moving and i put the same atom watch on a flying plan the watch on the plan is moving slower as the watch on earth.
In fact, in the Hafele Keating experiment, the clock that flew westwards ended up showing more time that the ground clock. The difference when all clocks are reunited is called differential ageing and is not directly related to time dilation.

Popular science sources often conflate the two for the sake of simplicity, but they are fundamentally different concepts.
 
  • #17
frankrabbit said:
wait. when i have a atom watch here on Earth which is not moving and i put the same atom watch on a flying plan the watch on the plan is moving slower as the watch on earth. it is because motion slows time because the time is distributing through space when moving. so far right?
You keep talking about time dilation (and differential aging in this example). This is not what the video is talking about. It is talking about the fact that "now" is not defined in relativity - it is something we humans add in, and there's actually quite a lot of flexibility in how you do it.

In pre-relativistic physics, the whole of history is divided into "past" and "future". If I have a car accident, there are events that could have caused it, and there are events that could be caused by it. The first set of events are called the past, and the second set are called the future. And there's a curious fact that we can all agree on this - wherever we are, there is one instant in your personal history when what you call the past is exactly the same as what I called the past at the time of my car accident. That instant is simultaneous with my accident - they happen at the same time.

This view of the universe is wrong. On the every day scale you need extremely precise measurements to detect the flaws, which is why we don't usually notice and most people live their whole lives without knowing.

In relativistic physics, no influence can travel faster than the speed of light. So there are events that could have contributed to my crash and events that my crash could influence, but there is also a lot of spacetime that can neither have contributed to my accident (no information from that event could have reached me) nor been affected by my crash (no information from my crash could have reached the event). This concept completely replaces "now". There is no dividing line between past and future - there is this region of events that aren't firmly in the past (they couldn't, even in principle, have influenced me) and aren't firmly in the future (they couldn't, even in principle, be influenced by my crash). People often add a notion of "now" to this by synchronising clocks and saying that "now" is the set of events with a clock that reads 12:44:30 GMT on the 26th January, but it turns out that there is more than one way to synchronise two clocks. Worse, if I have a friend who is stationary with respect to me and we synchronise our clocks by some process, and you have a friend who is stationary with respect to you and you synchronise your clocks by the same process, if you and your friend are moving with respect to me and my friend, we will not agree that you and your friend have synchronised clocks, and vice versa. We do not have the same definition of "now".

That is the point that the video is talking about. Not that the alien's clocks tick slow or fast, but that you and the alien are currently in each other's "region between the definite past and the definite future", and so you are both free to use different definitions of "now". There are no physical consequences from you doing so.

The reason that you don't notice this on the everyday scale is that the speed of light is so fast compared to us. If you and I are a meter apart, that's about the distance light travels in 3ns. So while I have some flexibility in defining now, there's only 6ns difference between the earliest event at your location and the latest event at your location that I could call now - which is way too small a gap to notice any flexibility.
 
  • #18
frankrabbit said:
so its like looking to the sky and seeing a star from the past. right?
Everything you see is also "from the past". It's just a matter of whether the delay is perceptible or not. Our brains have not had to evolve with the ability to cope with the short time delays involved with life more than a few hundred years ago.

Clocks which used to be set to local Noon were far enough 'out' as to upset the early railway timetables so that the trains setting off from Penzance (far west of England) needed to start 'earlier' so as to arrive at Paddington 'on time'.

Jules Verne's "Around the world in eighty days" gives another example of the flexibility of 'Now'.

The speed of sound is 'so' finite that we are very aware of the difference between the 'now' when we see the flash and the 'now' when we hear the gun. On a foggy day, our 'now' is dominated by what we hear.

We have observed delays in our seeing events in space and related that to the finite speed of light. Rømer managed to work out the speed of light from the apparent variations of the timings of orbits of moons of Jupiter by assuming the orbits are regular. That disturbance of 'Now' is not an SR phenomenon, only a classical one.

A bit of serendipity: the teams studying the outputs from the Mars lander missions have been working according to the Martian day so their 'now' (their alternative 24 hour clock) is marching through that of the rest of us and allows them to be working during the martian day so they don't miss anything during our night.
 
  • #19
PeroK said:
Here's an alternative view. When a child is developing it has a clear sense of a local sequence of events. But, it struggles with the concept that there is a global "now". I.e. that there is some relationship between what is happening locally and what happens at some distant location. For example, they may be having something to eat in the UK while their grandparents are asleep in Australia. The idea that there is a concept of "now" that relates these two events takes some time for the child to grasp.

As we develop and get to understand global time zones and have telephones and the Internet to make communication across the world almost instantaneous, we lose any doubts about the absolute meaning of a global now and it becomes hard-wired into our thinking.

However, when we consider events at a far greater distances (even without considering relativity), perhaps this might shake our confidence in a global now. If we are thinking about a Mars rover, then we know it takes 20-30 minutes for communications to and from Mars. We can reason that the images from Mars are what happened 20-30 minutes ago and we can construct a more elaborate notion of a global now, based on the speed of light.

Then, we might consider a star or planet in the Andromeda galaxy. It takes 2 million years for information about what is happening "now" to reach us. And, perhaps at this point, we should rediscover some of the doubts we had as young children about what exactly "now" means for events 2 million light years away. And, to understand that what we mean by "now" over those large distances might be ambiguous and depend on the way we define "now".

If you can talk to someone in Australia on the telephone, there is little doubt about what "now" means over such short distances. But, we can't communicate effectively with a civilisation in Andromeda, so it's not immediately clear that there is only one way to define "now" there.

So, perhaps the video you have watched is "conning" you in a way. Playing on the ideas you have learned as an adult - that, ironically, were not innate "common sense" to you as a child!

Perhaps it doesn't matter whether you cycle round on a bicycle or not; or, more significantly, which way the Earth is moving on its orbit of the Sun. None of that has any physical significance to events in the Andromeda galaxy.
Hey Perok, when you say no physical significance you're saying it doesn't change anything about what may or may not be happening in Andromeda, like events don't change because someone decides to move around. Can this be applied to a more local scale, just because I move does not change anything physical about you

Thanks!
 
  • #20
EclogiteFacies said:
Can this be applied to a more local scale, just because I move does not change anything about you from mine or your perspective
Until the light from you starting to move reaches PeroK, he can't react to you moving and there's some flexibility in how you and he choose to define "now". So yes. But on a human scale the light speed delay is minuscule (only a few nanoseconds for someone in the room with you), so there's only a tiny bit of flexibility - so tiny that Newtonian physics with its absolute time is a reasonable approximation.
 
  • Like
Likes EclogiteFacies
  • #21
Ok great,thank you!
but you know how in the Andromeda Paradox I move forwards at a couple m/s time on andromeda changes loads. I'm not physically changing the state of andromeda, I'm just applying a pretty meaningless convention. Nothing physical changes because I decide to move
 
  • #22
EclogiteFacies said:
Nothing physical changes because I decide to move
Correct. The "natural" way for you to define what "at the same time" means changes because your state of motion changes, but that's very like the way that the "natural" way to define "next to you" changes when you turn around. It doesn't change anything except how you describe things.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and EclogiteFacies
  • #23
Ibix said:
Correct. The "natural" way for you to define what "at the same time" means changes because your state of motion changes, but that's very like the way that the "natural" way to define "next to you" changes when you turn around. It doesn't change anything except how you describe things.
So this changing of now doesn't mean anything for other observers, say if I run away from you at like 0.6c you don't physically go back in time or anything, like you as you are from your perspective exists regardless of my movement. Just how I from my perspective exists. Nothing changes regarding interpersonal communication etc, physical things happen irrespective of a frame of reference.
Also I gather this is getting philosophical so I'll stop asking questions after this!

Thanks so much for your time and sorry for reviving an old thread
 
  • #24
EclogiteFacies said:
So this changing of now doesn't mean anything for other observers, say if I run away from you at like 0.6c you don't physically go back in time or anything,
Correct. Relativity allows you some flexibility in defining exactly what "at the same time" means in the sentence "at the same time as I read this post, something happened over there", and you are just changing that definition. This doesn't affect the thing that's happening over there at all.
EclogiteFacies said:
Nothing changes regarding interpersonal communication
Well, if you change your state of motion then Doppler shifts will change, but not until the now-Doppler-shifted light reaches whoever you are talking to.
 
  • Informative
Likes EclogiteFacies
  • #25
Thanks for everything, I gotta say this forum is by far the friendliest I've ever used. Thanks!
 
  • #26
Perhaps a useful way to restate some of the above is to notice that we all have developed a sense of our own "past", "present", and "future", based on an ordering that relates to what can cause or influence what. What we dreamed we'd be when we grow up affected what we did become, but what we did become never affected what we dreamed about as kids! And as @PeroK was saying, these concepts all apply to the location we were "present" at, at the time-- that means the concept of "present" is not just a time-related concept, it is also a position-related concept. So our "present" is a location in both space and time, as @PeroK was also saying about the awareness of a child. Children are not so dumb after all-- it turns out that is actually the correct meaning of "present" in relativity! It was something of a mistake for us to try to extend that concept of "present" to other places around us-- not a mistake because it doesn't work well (it works very well in our lives), but a mistake because it is not exactly true, and starts to show serious flaws when you try to extend to distances too far away.

What this also means is that your current "present," the one you are experiencing as you read this, can be connected to all the "past" events that could have affected it, and all the "future" events that it could affect, at all the other places around you that you were not, nor will be, at. So we can say that your present has its own kind of past and future, which is not just about your location in your life, but drawing in all the things you care about and can affect you or you can affect. But the big surprise of relativity is, since there is a fastest possible speed of any kind of influence (the speed of light), once you've grouped all the events that could affect your present and all the events that you could now affect, it does not include all the events that are happening around you-- there is a third category that many events fall into: they cannot affect your present, and your present cannot affect them.

If the speed of light were infinite, that would be what we mean by "now", an infinitesmally short duration containing this narrow slice of events spreading through space from your own present. But because influences cannot exceed a finite speed, the farther away you consider, the more events are in this third group, and it is not an infinitesmally short slice at all-- it's a lot of events! Any of them could be considered to be in your "now" without contradiction, so any language that regards an infinitesmally short subset of those events to be your "now" would be a valid, but not unique, way to talk about those events. So "now" just doesn't pick out a specific set of events, unless we extend the word to mean all those events that could not affect your present and your present could not affect. (We don't usually do that, instead we choose a convention for saying what "now" means, but it's just a convention because other events could be labeled as that without any contradictions in causality).

This should help with the "Andromeda paradox," because it only seems paradoxical if you think that your present can be matched up to their present in a fundamental way, such that if you experience 10 sequential presents as you ride a bicycle, you can ride the bicycle so erratically that it justifies you, in some standard coordinate system, in matching your 10 presents to only 2 distinct presents in Andromeda that get repeated 5 times each. Then you might think they actually experience those presents 5 times each. But of course they only experience them once each, like you do, and all the rest is simply how you are matching up your presents with their presents, none of which can you affect from your present, nor can they effect your present from theirs. Because there's a complete absence of causative power here, this matching-up process is purely conceptual, so that's why it doesn't actually impose any requirements on how they experience their lives.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes EclogiteFacies
  • #27
Ken G said:
Perhaps a useful way to restate some of the above is to notice that we all have developed a sense of our own "past", "present", and "future", based on an ordering that relates to what can cause or influence what. What we dreamed we'd be when we grow up affected what we did become, but what we did become never affected what we dreamed about as kids! And as @PeroK was saying, these concepts all apply to the location we were "present" at, at the time-- that means the concept of "present" is not just a time-related concept, it is also a position-related concept. So our "present" is a location in both space and time, as @PeroK was also saying about the awareness of a child. Children are not so dumb after all-- it turns out that is actually the correct meaning of "present" in relativity! It was something of a mistake for us to try to extend that concept of "present" to other places around us-- not a mistake because it doesn't work well (it works very well in our lives), but a mistake because it is not exactly true, and starts to show serious flaws when you try to extend to distances too far away.

What this also means is that your current "present," the one you are experiencing as you read this, can be connected to all the "past" events that could have affected it, and all the "future" events that it could affect, at all the other places around you that you were not, nor will be, at. So we can say that your present has its own kind of past and future, which is not just about your location in your life, but drawing in all the things you care about and can affect you or you can affect. But the big surprise of relativity is, since there is a fastest possible speed of any kind of influence (the speed of light), once you've grouped all the events that could affect your present and all the events that you could now affect, it does not include all the events that are happening around you-- there is a third category that many events fall into: they cannot affect your present, and your present cannot affect them.

If the speed of light were infinite, that would be what we mean by "now", an infinitesmally short duration containing this narrow slice of events spreading through space from your own present. But because influences cannot exceed a finite speed, the farther away you consider, the more events are in this third group, and it is not an infinitesmally short slice at all-- it's a lot of events! Any of them could be considered to be in your "now" without contradiction, so any language that regards an infinitesmally short subset of those events to be your "now" would be a valid, but not unique, way to talk about those events. So "now" just doesn't pick out a specific set of events, unless we extend the word to mean all those events that could not affect your present and your present could not affect. (We don't usually do that, instead we choose a convention for saying what "now" means, but it's just a convention because other events could be labeled as that without any contradictions in causality).

This should help with the "Andromeda paradox," because it only seems paradoxical if you think that your present can be matched up to their present in a fundamental way, such that if you experience 10 sequential presents as you ride a bicycle, you can ride the bicycle so erratically that it justifies you, in some standard coordinate system, in matching your 10 presents to only 2 distinct presents in Andromeda that get repeated 5 times each. Then you might think they actually experience those presents 5 times each. But of course they only
Wow thanks for the reply, do you think then this could possible change how we think of those around us having conscious experience, like on Earth... Our nows don't line up perfectly so what can I say about your experience when I move relative to you,

I guess it doesn't really make a difference.

Again thank you so so much and sorry for getting philosophical but the community on here is incredibly with it
 
  • #28
EclogiteFacies said:
the Andromeda Paradox
As you will remember, you started a thread in the relativity forum fairly recently about this. Here is my post in that thread referring you to a relevant Insights article on the topic:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/andromeda-paradox-confused.1049304/post-6846001

@Ken G in post #26 is saying basically the same things I said in that Insights article (and in some of the further posts in the thread linked to above).
 
  • Like
Likes Ken G and EclogiteFacies
  • #29
EclogiteFacies said:
do you think then this could possible change how we think of those around us having conscious experience, like on Earth
We also addressed this in the previous thread I linked to. The short answer is that nothing we're discussing here should change how you view other people's consciousness.
 
  • Like
Likes EclogiteFacies
  • #30
PeterDonis said:
We also addressed this in the previous thread I linked to. The short answer is that nothing we're discussing here should change how you view other people's consciousness.
I know that but I still think if our nows are off by a bit it must? Like I can't get my head round it. Again, I know this is probs throwing the vibe off a physics Forum so I don't want to take the micky, but I really am concerned by this... I
 
  • #31
EclogiteFacies said:
I know that but I still think if our nows are off by a bit it must? Like I can't get my head round it. Again, I know this is probs throwing the vibe off a physics Forum so I don't want to take the micky, but I really am concerned by this... I
I would say that instead of thinking differently about consciousness itself, think differently about the connection between consciousness and time. We tend to imagine that consciousness exists in a "now", so the only consciousness that matters is yours and mine "right now", but of course the human brain is not capable of generating conscious experience (whatever that is) in an instant-- it requires an interval of some kind, involving many processes, and our own consciousness is probably more of a concept of ourselves than a "real thing" like an event in space and time. How much time does it take to have a conscious thought? Probably depends on the thought! But if it's not an instant, then there has to be overlaps between these conscious experiences we are having. It's probably not a series of pictures like a movie, but more like the movie itself. If that helps avoid getting bothered by relativity issues.
 
  • Like
Likes EclogiteFacies
  • #32
Another concept from relativity that might help you here is called "proper time." This does not mean correct time, it comes from the French propre, meaning owned time. So in a sense, you own your own time, and I own my own time. You might think of it like two people having a glass of wine-- the wine comes from the same bottle, like time, but each person has their own glass of it.
 
  • Like
Likes EclogiteFacies
  • #33
PeterDonis said:
As you will remember, you started a thread in the relativity forum fairly recently about this. Here is my post in that thread referring you to a relevant Insights article on the topic:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/andromeda-paradox-confused.1049304/post-6846001
That's another nice "Insights." Personally I just don't understand the argument for the "block universe" at all, it just sounds to me like "if I choose to think of the universe in way A, then I am led to also think of it in way B." Fine, a logical syllogism, but it only has value if way A is somehow more reasonable to expect than way B. In this case, I don't see that it is-- in particular, you cite the required assumption "events to the past of an observer’s 3D world at a given event are fixed and certain," so in this case that is "way A." At that point I'm already in disagreement with the block universe argument (not your critique of it) because I really see no reason whatsoever to adopt that as a true statement about the world. So I'm not surprised, nor bothered, that it has strange consequences like a "block universe!"
 
  • Like
Likes EclogiteFacies
  • #34
So do you really think like, we can think of people around us exactly the same way as before like I guess the discrepancies are tiny. So, our reference frames differ, honestly I think I really am over interpreting things like hypersurfaces of simultaneously. But I still can't help but be shook!
 
  • #35
Ken G said:
That's another nice "Insights." Personally I just don't understand the argument for the "block universe" at all, it just sounds to me like "if I choose to think of the universe in way A, then I am led to also think of it in way B." Fine, a logical syllogism, but it only has value if way A is somehow more reasonable to expect than way B. In this case, I don't see that it is-- in particular, you cite the required assumption "events to the past of an observer’s 3D world at a given event are fixed and certain," so in this case that is "way A." I really see no reason whatsoever to adopt that as a true statement about the world, so I'm not surprised it has strange consequences like a "block universe!"
Thing is I see the block universe as the like worst case scenario, most Conservative and if I can make peace with this I can make peace with anything. I just wanna know what it all means for all my mates relative to me
 

Suggested for: Block universe theory question

Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
162
Views
4K
Replies
57
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
755
Replies
90
Views
5K
Replies
56
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
912
Replies
1
Views
915
Replies
6
Views
664
Replies
7
Views
686
Back
Top