ppppppp
- 29
- 0
Hope this is not a redundant Q.
The discussion centers on the concept of "Block Time" or Eternalism, which posits that the future is completely determined by the past within classical physics. Participants emphasize that while relativity introduces complexities, it does not negate the idea that the future can be seen as already existing in a deterministic framework. The conversation highlights the philosophical implications of simultaneity and the limitations of relativity in addressing real-world events. Ultimately, the consensus is that, excluding quantum mechanics, the future is indeed fully determined.
PREREQUISITESPhilosophers, physicists, and students of physics interested in the intersection of time, determinism, and the implications of relativity on our understanding of the universe.
But this is ultimately a philosophical matter, a physical theory like relativity can't rule out the possibility that there is some metaphysical truth about simultaneity which has no empirical consequences, although relativity will make such a notion less appealing to anyone who favors razor[/url]Dmitry67 said:Yes, it is called a "Block Time", or Eternalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
Relativity just says the laws of physics should be Lorentz-symmetric, it doesn't say they couldn't be stochastic (and I think physicists might still call a stochastic theory "classical" if it didn't have some of the other weird features of QM, like violations of Bell's theorem or the measurement problem).DaleSpam said:In all classical physics the future is completely and uniquely determined from the past. You have to be careful using phrases like "already exists" to describe the future, but in what sense would you say that the future does not "already exist" if it is completely and uniquely determined from the past? Remember, this is not about relativity, but about classical physics in general.