Is (our) future already exists, according to relativity?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ppppppp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Future Relativity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

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.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical physics principles
  • Familiarity with the concept of Eternalism
  • Basic knowledge of relativity and its implications
  • Awareness of philosophical discussions surrounding time and determinism
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the philosophical implications of Eternalism in modern physics
  • Explore the differences between classical physics and quantum mechanics
  • Study the concept of simultaneity in relativity theory
  • Investigate stochastic theories in the context of classical physics
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, physicists, and students of physics interested in the intersection of time, determinism, and the implications of relativity on our understanding of the universe.

ppppppp
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Hope this is not a redundant Q.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
Dmitry67 said:
Yes, it is called a "Block Time", or Eternalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
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]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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).
 
The answer to your question is no, only the "present" exists, that's just plain English. But I think what you mean is "is the future fully determined?" and the answer is, ignoring quantum mechanics, yes.

But this is unsatisfactory. Relativity deals with an unchanging spacetime and you choose an event which you call "myself, here and now" and then relativity will tell you how you will experience things in space and time from that event. But relativity cannot tell you what event you must choose in order to deal with the real (non-hypothetical) world.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
13K