Eternalism and change

  • Thread starter name123
  • Start date
  • #1
name123
485
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.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
jambaugh
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2,335
313
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
Rive
Science Advisor
2,313
1,704
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
name123
485
5
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
name123
485
5
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
39,058
16,806
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.

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.
 

Suggested for: Eternalism and change

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
105
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
430
Replies
1
Views
177
Replies
15
Views
981
Replies
1
Views
509
Replies
2
Views
270
Replies
6
Views
888
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
103
Top