Rules in the General Discussion Forum

[name123]

I had read the General Discussion Rules before creating a post "Eternalism and change". The post was put under review as to whether it should be displayed publicly and it eventually was. A few posts in and suddenly no further replies were allowed, and I am not sure why. I am not arguing for it to be reopened, I accept that it is for the mentors to decide what is allowed and what is not. What would be useful though is if it was explained why it was shut down, because the issue was simply to become if some interpretations of Relativity have a block universe how are those compatible with the evidence of change (our experience). That isn't a philosophical issue, it is simply questioning how an apparently scientific interpretation is compatible with the evidence. I was hoping that in response the mentors could maybe given some general indication of what was wrong with the post, which could help inform future posters, and maybe even update the General Discussion Rules to give an indication.

 

[anorlunda]

It is customary for us to make a closing post explaining why before locking a thread. I don't know what happened in this case, sorry.

Perhaps you should have been pointed to this article https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/pfs-policy-on-lorentz-ether-theory-and-block-universe/
that explains in detail why we don't discuss block universe.

 

[name123]

It is customary for us to make a closing post explaining why before locking a thread. I don't know what happened in this case, sorry.

No problem.

Perhaps you should have been pointed to this article https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/pfs-policy-on-lorentz-ether-theory-and-block-universe/
that explains in detail why we don't discuss block universe.

If it cannot be discussed in the general discussion forum, then why not include it in the rules for that forum, so those that bothered to read them would know?

Furthermore, the link you pointed me to seems to indicate why Block Universe vs Lorentz Aether Theory discussions are not allowed. But the post was not Block Universe vs Lorentz Aether Theory, it was how is Block Universe compatible with the evidence. The article states:
---
Both BU and LET use the Lorentz transform, etc., to make all of their experimental predictions, and therefore they are scientifically indistinguishable, making the same experimental predictions in all cases.
---

But while it is easy to explain with LET why an experience of change is compatible with the theory, because in the theory there is change, I do not think it is obvious how the BU theory is even compatible with the experience of change, let alone that it would predict an experience of it. So I do not see how it can be claimed that they make the same predictions. I realize the article stated "experimental predictions" but can the experiment not be whether you experience change?

 

[Nugatory]

Furthermore, the link you pointed me to seems to indicate why Block Universe vs Lorentz Aether Theory discussions are not allowed.

That's not what was intended. There's no "vs." involved, we do not host discussions on either one.

but can the experiment not be whether you experience change?

Only if we could define a procedure for determining whether someone has experienced change or not, and there's no way of doing that. We can determine that at this moment someone has memories of an earlier moment when things were different - but that's true of block universe, LET, and mainstream physics, so doesn't provide an experimental method for distinguishing them.

Be that as it may, we're not going to deviate from our policy of not hosting discussions of LET or block universe, so I am closing this thread. As with all thread closures, anyone can PM any mentor if they have something more to add to the discussion

 

[mfb]

Just an additional comment:

If it cannot be discussed in the general discussion forum, then why not include it in the rules for that forum, so those that bothered to read them would know?

The forum rules explicitly mention Lorentz ether theory as a topic we do not allow (outside of its historical context).