A Valid Position on Time Theory?

[Cerenkov]

Hello.

I'm a bit out of my depth on this one, so please bear with a beginner (me) trying to figure this out. Here's a quote that's thrown me and I'd like some help in understanding and interpreting it. Thank you.

"I am persuaded that a tensed theory (or so-called A-theory) of time is true (according to which temporal becoming is real and there is an objective difference between past, present, and future), I hold to a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity (according to which absolute simultaneity and length exist, even if we are unable to measure them due to the effects of uniform motion upon our measuring instruments). For the same reason, I reject four-dimensionalism or spacetime realism (a so-called B-theory of time, according to which all events in time are on an ontological par). But that leads me to reject, not general relativity, but a four-dimensionalist interpretation of general relativity. I see gravitation, not as spacetime curvature but as a force, just like the other forces of nature such as electromagnetism."

First, is this (holding to the A-theory) position a valid one?

Second, is inflationary cosmology based upon the A or B theory?

Third, if I hold to the A theory, does that allow me to sidestep the strictures of GR, when it comes to the Horizon Problem? That is, if I reject the four-dimensional interpretation of GR, will that allow me to avoid dealing with the problem of how the CMB on opposite sides of the universe are so closely in thermal equilibrium - to 1 part in 100,000, I believe?

Any help given (at a basic level, please) would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Cerenkov.

 

[PeroK]

Hello.

I'm a bit out of my depth on this one, so please bear with a beginner (me) trying to figure this out. Here's a quote that's thrown me and I'd like some help in understanding and interpreting it. Thank you.

"I am persuaded that a tensed theory (or so-called A-theory) of time is true (according to which temporal becoming is real and there is an objective difference between past, present, and future), I hold to a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity (according to which absolute simultaneity and length exist, even if we are unable to measure them due to the effects of uniform motion upon our measuring instruments). For the same reason, I reject four-dimensionalism or spacetime realism (a so-called B-theory of time, according to which all events in time are on an ontological par). But that leads me to reject, not general relativity, but a four-dimensionalist interpretation of general relativity. I see gravitation, not as spacetime curvature but as a force, just like the other forces of nature such as electromagnetism."

First, is this (holding to the A-theory) position a valid one?

Second, is inflationary cosmology based upon the A or B theory?

Third, if I hold to the A theory, does that allow me to sidestep the strictures of GR, when it comes to the Horizon Problem? That is, if I reject the four-dimensional interpretation of GR, will that allow me to avoid dealing with the problem of how the CMB on opposite sides of the universe are so closely in thermal equilibrium - to 1 part in 100,000, I believe?

Any help given (at a basic level, please) would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Cerenkov.

Roughly translated, I think it says: For philosphical reasons I reject the concept of four-dimensional spacetime and would rather believe an alternative theory that meets my a priori requirements for how nature must be.

If you are asking whether you can avoid learning GR and understand cosmology, then the answer is no.

 

[Nugatory]

We do not discuss unsourced non-mainstream conjectures, even to debunk them.

This thread is closed.