Eternalism & Change: Understanding How They Coexist

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of Eternalism in the context of time and change, exploring how a static view of the universe might coexist with human experiences of change. Participants engage with philosophical and scientific interpretations, particularly in relation to special and general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical inquiry

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that Eternalism presents a static universe represented by spacetime coordinates, raising questions about its compatibility with the experience of change.
  • Others argue that understanding what is meant by the past, present, and future is crucial, especially considering the implications of relativity on these concepts.
  • There is a suggestion that models can be static, with time as merely one parameter, and that scientists do not necessarily "believe" in models but use them for practical results.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the philosophical implications of Eternalism, describing it as a "bottomless swamp of subjective ideas."
  • A later reply questions whether the block universe interpretation of relativity can be reconciled with our experience of change, suggesting that believers in this interpretation should be consulted.
  • It is noted that while the block universe is one interpretation of special relativity, it is not the only one, and the discussion of its compatibility with change may be off-topic for a physics forum.
  • Concerns are raised about the inability to experimentally test different interpretations of relativity, as they yield the same predictions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the compatibility of Eternalism with the experience of change, and multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of time and the implications of relativity.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity in definitions of past, present, and future, as well as the unresolved nature of philosophical questions surrounding the interpretations of relativity.

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

[Philosophy of science] Bias inherent in the Scientific Method itself?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Block Universe Theory: Implications & Multiverse
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate Static Gravitational Field: Why Must ##g_{m0} = 0##?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad How can the Universe know when you change directions?
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Undergrad Understand 4-Vectors & Spacetime: Hartle Gravity Chapter 5
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad How do non-diagonal indices of a metric allow for local flatness?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Undergrad Is acceleration absolute or relative - follow up
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Graduate Discussion of "Two-Time Physics" (I. Bars) and its potential cosmological implications
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Which theory of time is the most evidence-based?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Eternalism and Presentism - theories of time
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K