franz_liszt

It's not to find out what relativity says about reality (read the post again). Your epistemology gives the parameters for what relativity can say about reality. It's easy. If your epistemology is empiricist, then (say) miracles are a priori impossible. If you have an metaphysical epistemology then miracles are a prioir possible. If you have a verificationist epistemology you a priori reject newtonian physic, not because they are bad physic, but because they don't fit the verificationist/positivist epistemology. Yo, philosophy is what governs every area of thought and study folks. Also, relativity doesn't say very much, but our interpretations sya a lot. That is really what I am talking about. Our interpretations are governed by our epistemology. Maybe that helps. I just realized that maybe that might be a better way to say it. Does that help and accrue more agreement from the crowd?

I am not sure whether you are kidding... But, I think, for those who are not aware, that most of us know that science really doesn't get off the ground without philosophy. So, epistemology (theory of knowledge) really has a lot to say about relativity... that is, what can and cannot be said by relativity about reality.

Excuse me. Why am I highly suspect for wanting people to examine their underlying presuppositions (B-theory of time) which give rise to much of what is being said here. The verificationist/positivist epistemology exhibited has been shown to be bankrupt. Why use it? The B-theory is a metaphysical claim, not a hard-science claim. I don't have a problem with relativity necessarily. I don't think it is fair to say that I am waiting for someone to catch the bait. That just isn't fair. For one, you are reading my intentions, and for two, you are wrong in your reading. I just want someone to come to grips with the epistemological basis for what is being said here and also the seemingly unknowing allegiance to the B-theory which presupposes so much! Why the aversion to inquiry? "Spamming" is a highly inciteful word given the rules of this forum. If every thread that I respond to involves this topic, then that is the way it is. Hardly spamming. Come to grips with your epistemological starting point... that's all.

In order to have backward time travel, you have to prove that the B-theory of time is correct. Why will no one take this issue on? All of you folks surmising is based on the B-theory which is highly suspect.

Yeah, I'd expand to say that philosophy gives us the framework so we can answer the question. If our philosophical framework tell us that fundamentally we cannot trust our sense perception, the world around us is a dream and really we are brains in a vat being stimulated by a mad scientist, then all of our scientific "insights" will follow from that. So one must be aware of and be intellectually committed to a certain set of hopefully soherent philosophical assumptions before we can really make self-consciously intelligent claims about time and space and what not. The page you directed us to is blatantly B-theorist in its understanding of time. But the b-theory is very suspect and is extremely counterintuitive, which should count for something!

Again, please explain you all seem to hold to a B-theory of time.

His definiton is in complete contradiction of Einstein because einstein disdained metaphysics at least when it came to "science." Einstein held to positivist epistemology and therefore, a priori rejected Newton. You seem to approve of Einstein while at the same time applauding Newton's "stumbling" effort!?? Or was all that tounge in cheek?

Wormholeman, that doesn't answer what philosophical leanings you have as pertains to scientific and philosophical naturalism/materialism/anti-metaphysicalism or a philosophy that approves of metaphysical assertions, like "time is absolute."

Of course, all of this presupposes a B-theory of time which is quite questionable at best. The argument for a B-theory is less than appealing.

The question about what time is is a philosophical question. What your overall philosophy of ultimate reality is will govern your answer to that question. Thus, the hard-core naturalist will say there is no difference, and the one who does not scoff at metaphysics will say that there may well be a difference between time and the measurement of time, and the one who fully embraces metaphysics will have no problem whatsoever with the dichotomy and say that time itself (doesn't mean "by its self"- it means the thing which is called time) is absolute and that which we measure that absolute by is relative. So with the space question as well.

whether time is absolute and our measuement relativeis a philosophical question. the answer by swansont shows an underlying allegiance to the old positivist/verificationist epistemology that has been completely rejected by philosophers as a bankrupt epistemological starting point. It also shows an underlying negative attitude toward metaphysics that would make Einstein and Mach happy.

Newton defined absolute and relative time and space as follows: "I. Absolute ... time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative ... time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year. II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our sense determine by its position to bodies; and which is commonly taken for immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterraneous, an aerial, or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the earth." (principia) So we have absolute time and space and then our measurements which are relative to absolute time and space. Time and space are the quantities we attempt to measure with instrument and are in that sense absolute. Newton also held to the absoluteness of time and space in the sense that they are unique. There is a universal time in which all events come to pass and a universal space in which all physical objects exist. Given all this there were more developments and later the aether was posited to explain how light was a wave of something. There is a lot of metaphysical talk here, actually and Einstein's teacher Mach didn't like that. Mach was a bona fide empiricist and wanted to reduce any statement about time and space to sense perception statements and the connections between them. Since, in a positivist and verificationist epistemology, metaphysical statements are meaningless, Newton had to go. So Einstein developed his ideas with a positivist and verificationist epistemolgy in hand and a conscious rejection of metaphysics and declared the aether superfluous at best. My issue is that verificationist and positivist epistemology has been literally shot to hell in the last 50 - 60 years. Einstein got out of science at the very beginning and subjected himself to the realm of the philosophers. Well, at that time, his epistemology was OK, but now it just isn't. So why do physicists and the like continue to use a decayed epistemological basis when it comes to Einstein? Don't know. A fear of metaphysics? A nice dose of honest philosophical inquiry should help that. Maybe also a fear that science may become subject to philosophy- but it already is. Maybe fear of religious infuence. I'm a little dubious that the whole space/time issue has not gotten out of the first half of the 20th century.