Eternalism & Change: Understanding How They Coexist

  • Thread starter name123
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Change
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of eternalism and how it relates to our experience of change. The concept is often viewed as a static universe that can be represented in a model with time as a parameter. However, there are many pressing issues that need to be resolved before discussing eternalism, such as defining what is meant by the past, present, and future, and how special and general relativity complicate these concepts. The conversation also delves into the role of models and their use in science and philosophy. Ultimately, while the Relativity interpretation may suggest a block universe, it is not the only possible interpretation and asking believers in this interpretation about its compatibility with our experience of change is a question of philosophy rather than science.
  • #1
name123
510
5
As I understand it, there are many that take an Eternalist view on time. There are the spacetime coordinates and what exists at those coordinates.

That to me seems like a static universe. It could conceptually be represented in a static model, if one were to remove a space dimension and replace it with time.

So what I am not clear on is how believers in it think it is compatible with our experience of change.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think you have to resolve several, more pressing issues before you can try to argue about eternalism.
What is meant by the past and/or present and/or future being real?
What is meant by “the past” “the present” and “the future” (note how special and general relativity muddy the waters on this question)
and utimately you must resolve the epistemology by which such questions would be considered meaningful and the answers decidedly right or wrong.

Finally, note that in your argument you are infering something from the nature of a model. But ask yourself if it is even possible to adopt your contrary position in such a way that the model as a model can no longer be applied.
 
  • #3
There are indeed models/descriptions which are kind of 'static' since they really contains time as merely one parameter (some other models/descriptions are prefectly well even without time).

As science... Well, it is just that models/descriptions has no believers. Scientists are using them to get results, but why would they believe in them? Do you believe in screwdrivers?

As a philosophy, it's purely a bottomless swamp of subjective ideas.
 
  • #4
jambaugh said:
I think you have to resolve several, more pressing issues before you can try to argue about eternalism.
What is meant by the past and/or present and/or future being real?
What is meant by “the past” “the present” and “the future” (note how special and general relativity muddy the waters on this question)
and utimately you must resolve the epistemology by which such questions would be considered meaningful and the answers decidedly right or wrong.

Finally, note that in your argument you are infering something from the nature of a model. But ask yourself if it is even possible to adopt your contrary position in such a way that the model as a model can no longer be applied.

Well is the universe as envisaged in the Relativity interpretation not a block universe? Could we not discuss how believers in the Relativity interpretation think it is compatible with our experience of change? They presumably know what they believe.
 
  • #5
Rive said:
There are indeed models/descriptions which are kind of 'static' since they really contains time as merely one parameter (some other models/descriptions are prefectly well even without time).

As science... Well, it is just that models/descriptions has no believers. Scientists are using them to get results, but why would they believe in them? Do you believe in screwdrivers?

As a philosophy, it's purely a bottomless swamp of subjective ideas.

I assume many scientists have beliefs about reality. I thought the universe as envisaged in the Relativity interpretation was a block universe. It seems plausible to me that some scientists could believe that the Relativity interpretation best reflects reality. So could one not ask believers in that interpretation about how they think it is compatible with our experience of change?
 
  • #6
name123 said:
I thought the universe as envisaged in the Relativity interpretation was a block universe.

This is one interpretation of SR, but not the only possible one.

name123 said:
could one not ask believers in that interpretation about how they think it is compatible with our experience of change?

As a question of philosophy or metaphysics, sure. But that is off topic for this forum. (At least, it is in the physics subforums. Here in General Discussion, it might get by, but you probably won't get any useful answers, just various people's personal opinions.)

As a question of science, no, since there is no way of testing different interpretations of SR, or any physical theory, by experiment, because all interpretations of a given physical theory make the same experimental predictions.
 

1. What is eternalism and how does it relate to change?

Eternalism is a philosophical concept that suggests that time is a static dimension, where all past, present, and future events exist simultaneously. It also argues that change is an illusion, as all events are already predetermined and unchangeable.

2. How does the theory of eternalism coexist with the concept of change?

Eternalism and change may seem contradictory, but they actually coexist in the sense that change is a subjective experience within the static dimension of time. While events may appear to change from our perspective, they are all predetermined and already exist in the eternal timeline.

3. What evidence supports the theory of eternalism?

The theory of eternalism is largely based on philosophical arguments, but it is also supported by scientific concepts such as the theory of relativity and the concept of spacetime. These ideas suggest that time is not linear and that all events exist simultaneously.

4. How does the theory of eternalism impact our understanding of free will?

Eternalism challenges the traditional concept of free will, as it suggests that all events are predetermined and unchangeable. However, some argue that our perception of free will is still valid, as our choices and actions are still subjectively experienced and have an impact on our lives.

5. Is eternalism a widely accepted theory?

Eternalism is a controversial concept and is not universally accepted in the scientific or philosophical communities. While some find it to be a compelling explanation for the nature of time and change, others argue that it goes against our common experience and understanding of the world.

Similar threads

[Philosophy of science] Bias inherent in the Scientific Method itself?
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
972
Block Universe Theory: Implications & Multiverse
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
2K
A Static Gravitational Field: Why Must ##g_{m0} = 0##?
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
1K
I Is acceleration absolute or relative - follow up
    • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
B Help with personal thoughts and observations in attempt to understand the fourth dimension better
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
3
Views
673
Asking ChatGPT hard physics questions
    • General Discussion
6
Replies
190
Views
9K
A more accessible explanation of Covid-19 R values (how transmissible)
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
663
I Einstein's View Of Cosmology
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
821
I On the physical meaning of Minkowski's spacetime model
    • Special and General Relativity
Replies
26
Views
357
I Understanding the change of variables for PDEs
    • Differential Equations
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top