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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the philosophical implications of time as understood through the lens of relativity and classical physics. Participants explore whether the future can be considered to "already exist" and the implications of concepts like Block Time or Eternalism on this question.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants introduce the concept of "Block Time" or Eternalism as a framework for understanding time, suggesting that it implies the future exists in some sense.
  • Others argue that in classical physics, the future is uniquely determined by the past, raising questions about the appropriateness of the phrase "already exists" when discussing the future.
  • A participant emphasizes that while relativity presents an unchanging spacetime, it does not dictate which event should be chosen to represent the real world, complicating the notion of a determined future.
  • There is a caution against conflating philosophical interpretations with physical theories, as relativity does not rule out metaphysical perspectives on simultaneity.
  • One participant asserts that only the "present" exists in a straightforward sense, while acknowledging that the future can be seen as fully determined, excluding quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the future can be said to "already exist," with some supporting the idea through philosophical frameworks and others contesting it based on interpretations of classical physics and relativity. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives present.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of careful language when discussing time and existence, highlighting the potential for confusion between philosophical and physical interpretations. The discussion also touches on the limitations of classical physics and relativity in addressing metaphysical questions.

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

High School Special relativity thought: Traveling to the future relative to a particle
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
Graduate Is Our Future Already Determined by the Laws of Physics?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
High School Time traveling in the future and in the past
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
Undergrad Can Time Travel Into the Future Really Happen?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Undergrad Does the past of an observer still actually exist in their "now"?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
Undergrad Which theory of time is the most evidence-based?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Graduate Regarding Relativity of Simultaneity, is non-local "now" impossible?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
486
Undergrad Why doesn't relativity of simultaneity lead to a contradiction?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Undergrad Relativity and Eternalism: Proving the Possibility of 'Seeing the Future
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Robert B. Laughlin (Physics Nobel Laureate, Stanford University)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K