Eternalism & Change: Understanding How They Coexist

  • Thread starter Thread starter name123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Change
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the compatibility of Eternalism with the experience of change, particularly in the context of the Relativity interpretation of time. Participants argue that while Eternalism presents a static view of the universe, it raises critical questions about the nature of past, present, and future, especially as influenced by special and general relativity. The conversation emphasizes the need to resolve epistemological issues to understand the meaning of these temporal concepts. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the distinction between scientific models and philosophical beliefs, asserting that models are tools for results rather than beliefs.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Eternalism in philosophy
  • Familiarity with special and general relativity concepts
  • Knowledge of epistemology and its relevance to philosophical questions
  • Awareness of the distinction between scientific models and beliefs
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the block universe theory in relativity
  • Explore the epistemological frameworks relevant to time and change
  • Investigate different interpretations of special relativity and their philosophical implications
  • Examine the role of scientific models in understanding reality versus belief systems
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, physicists, and anyone interested in the intersection of time, change, and the implications of relativity theory on our understanding of reality.

name123
Messages
510
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K