RUTA said:
If you look at the theoretical structure of special relativity, the kinematics follows from an empirically discovered fact (observer-independence of c) that obtains per a compelling fundamental principle (relativity principle). The (Lorentz invariant) causal mechanisms supervene on the resulting M4 spacetime.
Yes. I always felt ever since beeing exposed to this, that special relativity and statistical mechanics are the cleanest and most beutiful theories we have with a minimum of ad hoc stuff with a clear logical structure, and the derivation of SR is indeed very clear. And I also like your principle accounts research, that's not my point. But I do not see why we have to settle with it, because I am convinced that to make more progress we need to understand emergence in nature. In this pictures, "constraints" are rarely fundamental, but there is a causal mechanism for their emergence, and the validity of constraints may depend on the state of the emergence process.
RUTA said:
That means causal mechanisms and dynamics are not fundamental. If you think that "is unfortunate," then you're stuck in a 19th century mindset and will remain forever mystified by superposition and entanglement because any explanation of those in terms of causal mechanisms must violate locality and/or statistical independence.
No, on the contrary to seek a deeper explanation for WHY there seems to be certain "constraints" in nature, as seen from our observational scale, is not the same path as going back to 19th century.
No need to deny empirical observations, but there are two choices.
1) Treat empirical facts about observed symmetries as fundamental mathematical constraints with perfect confidence even when extrapolating theory into new territory. (Then by new territory here I refer to ultimate unification regmies, including QG and before matter was formed)
2) We take empirical observations for what they are, but without inductive fallacies that our limited observations are fundamental hard constraints. One asks questions like: Is there a way to understand WHY, we consistently observe a max limit on signalling between parts in 3D space that is also invariant to the observer frames? And why 3D? This is remarkable enough that it is hard not to seek to understand. So we don not seek to deny, and thus invalidate, relativity, only find a deeper explanation that may also be valuable when trying to understnand how to unify spacetime dynamics with dynamics of internal structures.
RUTA said:
"Observer independence" simply means "same in all inertial reference frames" (related by boosts, spatial rotations, spatial translations, or temporal translations).
Yes, this is what it currently means, but if we look forward. It seems a bit simplistic to think that an "observer" such as a suffiently complex subsystem in contact wit the environment, like Baranders entertains, has no other descriptors beyond it's spacetime relation. This is fine in classical picture where one consider "observations" as gedanken probes at each spacetime point, beeing inserted from an external macroworld.
In QG it seems the inter-relation between spacetime dynamics and the dynamics of internal spaces, is where the trouble lies. The solution we have today is to describe the internal dynamics in terms of the external spacetime. Then the assymmetry which supports most empirical will get shaky. To try to use constraints that have support in one limite empirical domain, into new domains is the method theoretical physicists have spent the last 100 years on.
/Fredrik