3D Space, relativity and presentism

[Mordred]

Yeah the fabric like 4th dimension lol. There is a lot of misconceptions that the rubber sheet causes.

[Memammal]

Also a lot of misconceptions about the block universe models, so it seems. At the end of the day those models describe a 4 dimensional space-time reality, hence the block. The way that space-time coordinates and/or slices are dealt with w.r.t. being equally real, especially future events, is the primary separating factor between the various block models. The premise on which block universe models are formed is GR and SR, the models were thus moulded from Einstein's relativity. They are being frowned upon by those who feel that such models are counter-intuitive w.r.t. the way we perceive time, entropy, determinism (the other thread Determinism or Indeterminism is pretty interesting to follow), eternalism (especially the future), among others. I thought there was consensus that 3 dimensional space and presentism (which is the topic under discussion) are at odds with relativity and that we have shed the idea of a 3 dimensional space and presentism. Clearly not..?

Edited November 10, 2016 by Memammal

[Tim88]

[..] I thought there was consensus that 3 dimensional space and presentism (which is the topic under discussion) are at odds with relativity and that we have shed the idea of a 3 dimensional space and presentism. Clearly not..?

 

Indeed, clearly not! - assuming that you call the way Poincare and Langevin (and even Einstein around 1920) interpreted "time" (as was elaborated here and in other threads) as "presentism". Those views were certainly not "eternalist". And I trust that by now I have given ample examples how that works in the "mother" thread.

[Memammal]

Aha, so we are still at odds about what presentism entails..? [EDIT: Sorry, let me retract the rest of my original post]

Edited November 10, 2016 by Memammal

[Tim88]

Maybe not; but as you didn't comment (post #71), I'm not sure. Do you still think that relativistic presentism is incompatible with relativity?

[Mordred]

can you show a paper that actually describes "relativistic presentism" ?

As far as I know there is no such model.

 

Here is one paper that specifically describes the conflict in terms.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjcgrL3r5_QAhVJ0mMKHex1DIIQFggjMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.114.5886%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&usg=AFQjCNGRa3J73lXMH_5_3w-ye5LNpQdrGg

 

Go ahead try and google the term "relativistic presentism pdf" You will find dozens of papers that state presentism conflicts with SR.

 

I certainly haven't found any papers that uses the term " relativistic presentism".

 

So you can take my answer as yes. lol

Edited November 11, 2016 by Mordred

[Memammal]

Go ahead try and google the term "relativistic presentism pdf" You will find dozens of papers that state presentism conflicts with SR.

Yes, that seems to be the consensus. I can only find one paper (Hinchliff, Mark: A Defense of Presentism in a Relativistic Setting) that argues according to its title.

[Mordred]

Yeah I saw that one as well

[Tim88]

can you show a paper that actually describes "relativistic presentism" ?

As far as I know there is no such model.

 

Here is one paper that specifically describes the conflict in terms.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjcgrL3r5_QAhVJ0mMKHex1DIIQFggjMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.114.5886%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&usg=AFQjCNGRa3J73lXMH_5_3w-ye5LNpQdrGg

 

Go ahead try and google the term "relativistic presentism pdf" You will find dozens of papers that state presentism conflicts with SR.

 

I certainly haven't found any papers that uses the term " relativistic presentism".

 

So you can take my answer as yes. lol

 

I already explained in great detail how the philosophy of Lorentz, Poincare, Langevin and Einstein (ca. 1905 - 1925 at least) worked. Surely you are aware of the fact that they promoted SR (and GR). Maybe you hold that they were all schizophrenic??

 

However, I suddenly realized that this whole discussion is nonsense. For the only thing that each of us knows with 100% certainty, so that it's not a theory but absolute fact, is that we (singular, for we can only know of ourself and not the others) are living. Who said "I think, thus I am"?

And that implies a form of presentism. In other words, the starting point of philosophy - before even contemplating any theories - is the fact of that form of presentism.

Note, your link tells me:

"We are sorry ! The URL does not match any resource in our repository."

Edited November 11, 2016 by Tim88

[Mordred]

thats strange I click on that link and it downloads the pdf. However my point is there is no "official" relativistic presentism under Block. It is presentism or eternalism. Not relativistic presentism.

 

That is something you made up.

 

Unless you can provide a paper showing otherwise.

 

Though there has been "attempts" to make presentism compatible with GR. They require privileged observers which in and of itself is incompatible with the principles of SR and GR.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred

[Memammal]

Who said "I think, thus I am"?

And that implies a form of presentism. In other words, the starting point of philosophy - before even contemplating any theories - is the fact of that form of presentism.

All of that ^ is wide open for interpretation, scrutiny and criticism though.

[Tim88]

In view of :

 

[..] it was next suggested that usually "presentism" implies a classical Newtonian concept of time. If that is correct, then it doesn't apply to Lorentzian 3D Space. [..]

 

[..]

 

As Celeritas put our attention to that possible misunderstanding in the other thread, I therefore labeled Lorentz's philosophy "relativistic presentism".

 

[..]

 

The following remark is just funny:

 

[..] It is presentism or eternalism. Not relativistic presentism.

That is something you made up.[..]

Apparently none of the current participants here adheres to either classical presentism or Minkowski block universe; all of us acknowledge the necessity of including the fact that we live in the present.

 

Now, I already injected some of the feedback of this thread back into the thread from which this is a spin-off; my explanations about how the Lorentzian space concept works now include some clarifications about what that concept means for "time". I hoped that it was clear as well as that the "eternal time" concept is superfluous. I'll be happy to elaborate here how "time" works for any of those 6 examples.

Just tell me what is not clear about any of those examples, and I'll try to explain it with more clarity.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Tim88

[Mordred]

As Celeritas put our attention to that possible misunderstanding in the other thread, I therefore labeled Lorentz's philosophy "relativistic presentism"

Is that not the same thing as "something you made up ?. How am I confused on that detail?

 

The point being you pick up any "block paper" you won't see that terminology used in any paper.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Mordred

[Memammal]

...all of us acknowledge the necessity of including the fact that we live in the present.

But not all of us agree that our present experience of our life and our environment is any more valid than that of our past or future experiences thereof, or for that matter that of our ancestors, or of our descendants.

[Tim88]

Is that not the same thing as "something you made up ?. How am I confused on that detail?

 

The point being you pick up any "block paper" you won't see that terminology used in any paper.

 

Why would a block paper use anti-block terminology?? Any label has been "made up" by someone; point in case, Einstein made up the label "special relativity". You can call things as you like, as long as you clearly define them in order to avoid mix-ups.

 

Once more, just tell me what you find unclear, or what you think could be self contradictory, and I'll explain it in more detail.

But not all of us agree that our present experience of our life and our environment is any more valid than that of our past or future experiences thereof, or for that matter that of our ancestors, or of our descendants.

 

None of us would make such a claim. Once more, if one of my examples needs more elaboration concerning "time", don't hesitate to bring up exactly where or how you think that it doesn't work.

By the way now the pdf on block advocacy (#81) works also for me. There some straw men are set up just for the purpose of shooting them down, but -not surprisingly- no incompatibility is demonstrated.

[Mordred]

The terminology in block is "presentism" and eternalism or on evolving block probalistic observer.

 

Ask the ppl that developed block why there is no "relativistic presentism". Perhaps there is something your missing in their arguments.

 

Maybe just maybe the purpose of block is to discuss absolute time vs relativistic time and not preferred observers. Which is what it seems you've coined under relativistic block.

 

After all block specifically discusses the philosophy of time. There is only two possibilities in regards to time.

 

Galiliean and relativity. So why introduce an ad-hoc self made up term such as relativistic presentism?

 

Point being if your going to discuss a philisophical or mathematical theory. USE THE PROPER terminology those theories use.

Not made up garbage.

 

The two terms side by side is contradictory. Presentism and relativistic. Presentism doesn't acknowledge another time other than the observers present. Eternalism does.

 

That is plain and clear in block papers,

 

Hence we come full circle back to this.

 

I do not vote for the presentism argument. Nor the Lorentz ether absolute frame being a privileged observer. Relativity of simultaneity has specific requirements that are not merely "convention" The presentism argument (if I understand it correctly) is a 3d ontology as opposed to a 4d ontology. Presentism follows the logic argument the view that it is only the present "here-now" (the three-dimensional world at the moment `now') that exists.

1) the universe exists only at the constantly changing present moment (past and future do not exist)

2) the universe is three-dimensional

 

It is more real to think of physical reality as a four-dimensional existence, instead of the evolution of a three-dimensional existence

 

First I better define relativity of simultaneity. ( mainly for other readers)

 

1) homogeneous and isotropic space means that no 3d location is privileged or more convenient.

2) homogeneity of time throughout a homogeneous space has no privileged origin or privileged

3) two events in the same frame of reference are simultaneous if the clocks at two locations is identical

4)Two distant events are simultaneous in a given inertial reference frame if the light signals originating from the points where the events take place arrive simultaneously at the middle point in-between these origin points

5)The two synchronized clocks have the same running time.

 

between frames

1) two light sources generated simultaneous arrive back at origin point 0 at the same time.

2) two light sources emitted at different time arrive back at the origin at the same time. if [latex]t_1=\frac{\sqrt{x_1^2+y_1^2}}{c}[/latex],[latex]t_1=\frac{\sqrt{x_2^2+y_2^2}}{c}[/latex]

 

Presentism regards the event here-now as the most real, It should be stressed that it amounts to a contradiction in terms to say that the world is four-dimensional, but for every observer only the event "here-now" is real. If the world is four-dimensional all its events are equally real otherwise it would not be four-dimensional.This shows that in space time it is impossible to have an event, representing the event "here-now", which is more "real" than the other events. Therefore, objective now of time and objective becoming are impossible in a four-dimensional world, if they imply that there are events which are "more real" than the other space time events.

 

Secondly any view of "time is an illusion" does not reflect reality, because space and time are indissolubly related to each other to form a single whole, the presence of a force field in space must necessarily result in the appearance of physical properties of time caused by the motion of a body in this field. However this does not mean time is a physical property of matter or energy but is dependent upon the state of the space-time system via the force field interactions.

 

As physical also includes the definition "that which is measurable" time is measurable by the duration and rate of change in the system. Volume being a property which is 3d, is a physical property as it can be measured without changing the composition of the system. In a 4d view time and space are inseparable. So the correct ontology is space-time is also a property as it can be made without changing the composition of the system. As time is inseparable from space. Stating that one half of a whole is illusion while the other half is real is a contradiction.

 

 

(yes I spent some time studying the logic arguments)

Presentism states only here-now is real which is contradictory to relativity as per above.

 

Placing relativity with presentism is a conflict in terminology. Hence relativistic presentism is a contradiction on the two terminologies.

 

Presentism is like saying "my present" sitting at 1530 ft above sea level is more real than your present where ever you are.

 

Under Galilean both locations are equal under time. Not so in relativity which tells us each location is equally real even if we have different coordinate times.

 

Lorentz ether tries to place the Ether as the only true here-now present. As the only true proper time. Presentism in this case, the here-now observer is the ether frame. (Priveleged observer).

 

So how can you accurately state "relativistic presentism" ?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Mordred

[Memammal]

^ Yes, that is how I understand it as well.

Although I have to insert the growing block theory in response to this:

The terminology in block is "presentism" and eternalism or on evolving block probalistic observer.

 

The introduction to this paper, Good-bye Growing Block, spells out the difference between eternalism, presentism and growing block.

More from Wiki on the Growing Block Universe.

[Tim88]

The terminology in block is "presentism" and eternalism or on evolving block probalistic observer.

 

Ask the ppl that developed block why there is no "relativistic presentism". Perhaps there is something your missing in their arguments.

 

Maybe just maybe the purpose of block is to discuss absolute time vs relativistic time and not preferred observers. Which is what it seems you've coined under relativistic block.

 

After all block specifically discusses the philosophy of time. There is only two possibilities in regards to time.

 

Galiliean and relativity. So why introduce an ad-hoc self made up term such as relativistic presentism?

 

Point being if your going to discuss a philisophical or mathematical theory. USE THE PROPER terminology those theories use.

Not made up garbage.

 

The two terms side by side is contradictory. Presentism and relativistic. Presentism doesn't acknowledge another time other than the observers present. Eternalism does.

 

That is plain and clear in block papers,

 

Hence we come full circle back to this.

 

Presentism states only here-now is real which is contradictory to relativity as per above.

 

Placing relativity with presentism is a conflict in terminology. Hence relativistic presentism is a contradiction on the two terminologies.

 

Presentism is like saying "my present" sitting at 1530 ft above sea level is more real than your present where ever you are.

 

Under Galilean both locations are equal under time. Not so in relativity which tells us each location is equally real even if we have different coordinate times.

 

Lorentz ether tries to place the Ether as the only true here-now present. As the only true proper time. Presentism in this case, the here-now observer is the ether frame. (Priveleged observer).

 

So how can you accurately state "relativistic presentism" ?

 

Mordred, I'm not open to word games. Everyone agrees that if you squeeze the meaning of the term "presentism" into the straitjacket of Newtonian mechanics, obviously presentism is not compatible with relativity. And by next forcing the possible interpretations to exclude the relativistic interpretation of some of the founders of relativity, you automatically find other options as the only possibilities. That's not serious.

 

Ask the people who developed SR in the first place why presentism (without classical baggage) has no problem with SR - or just ask me! For sure you missed something in their and my arguments; but evidently you could not come up with an incompatibility yourself, as you didn't mention one, or at least, not a correct one. Let's try this. You write:

 

Presentism doesn't acknowledge another time other than the observers present.

 

Morderd, do you mean that those who believe in presentism don't acknowledge the past and the future?

And didn't you ever hear of "local time"?

Further, do you claim that the relativity interpretations that I gave are "eternalism" or "growing block"? According to you, my interpretation can't be "presentism".

Maybe I'm without knowing it, a "growing block" defender? However, that is not possible, for I quite agree with "time" as in your definition of "presentism" (which differs from that in some sources given by Memammal):

 

"Presentism follows the logic argument the view that it is only the present "here-now" (the three-dimensional world at the moment `now') that exists.

1) the universe exists only at the constantly changing present moment (past and future do not exist)

2) the universe is three-dimensional"

 

Note that item 2) is also what Einstein explicitly believed and took as factual in 1916. What did he not understand according to you?

Edited November 17, 2016 by Tim88

[Mordred]

just following the same logic you see in every paper under block. Take it as you will.

 

Personally growing block or evolving block from my studies of block are more compatible with GR.

 

Its not really a word game to stick with what the model or theory describes even on the philisophical grounds. Choosing a personal viewpoint and describing it with non standard to the model terminology just adds confusion.

 

One of the biggest difficulties with strictly block is determinism. Mathematically this has specific connotations that cannot be ignored. Yes there is mathematical treatments of relativity to maintain determinism but these can get rather convoluted into fibre bundles which AJB mentioned before.

Maybe I'm without knowing it, a "growing block" defender? However, that is not possible, for I quite agree with "time" as in your definition of "presentism"

lol Think about that for a bit. Then like I said literally google "relativistic presentism pdf". I quarantee you'll hit papers that state presentism as being incompatible with relativity.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

[..] like I said literally google "relativistic presentism pdf". I quarantee you'll hit papers that state presentism as being incompatible with relativity.

 

The literature is full of errors, and empty claims without evidence are useless for discussions. In contrast, I demonstrated how "time" works with a 3D Space interpretation of relativity; and you failed to show any incompatibility between such a relativistic time, and presentism as defined in post #93 just above (basically your definition). For me that settled the question.

[Mordred]

If you choose to believe so. I disagree however I'm far more picky as I don't even agree with block itself. If anything I would most agree with evolving block.

 

I don't have anything to add to thread, its run its course lol

 

The literature is full of errors, and empty claims without evidence are useless for discussions.

This is precisely why I prefer the math with its predictions compared to philosophical arguments.

 

Such as block arguments.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Mordred

[VandD]

 

1) the universe exists only at the constantly changing present moment (past and future do not exist)

2) the universe is three-dimensional"

 

Note that item 2) is also what Einstein explicitly believed and took as factual in 1916.

No. For Einstein the universe is a 4D spacetime structure, not 3D.

 

<< Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence. >> (Albert Einstein, "Relativity", 1952).

 

 

<< From a "happening" in three-dimensional space, physics becomes, as it were, an "existence" in the four-dimensional "world". >> (Albert Einstein. "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory." 1916. Appendix II Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Space ("World") (supplementary to section 17 - last section of part 1 - Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Space).

<<...for us convinced physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a persistent one." >> ( Letter to Michele Besso family, March 21, 1955. Einstein Archives 7-245).

 

Karl Popper about his encounter with Einstein:

<< The main topic of our conversation was indeterminism. I tried to persuade him to give up his determinism, which amounted to the view that the world was a four-dimensional Parmenidean block universe in which change was a human illusion, or very nearly so. He agreed that this had been his view, and while discussing it I called him "Parmenides".... >> (Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography.Routledge Classics. Routledge. pp.148–150).

[Tim88]

Not no, but yes.

Elaborating on this brings us rather off-topic and It was already discussed before, but just for completeness:

 

- Evidently you don't understand the meaning of the phrase "as it were".

As a matter of fact, I referred to that same 1916 book (emphasis mine):

 

"The non-mathematician is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he hears of "four-dimensional" things, by a feeling not unlike that awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more common-place statement than that the world in which we live is a four-dimensional space-time continuum.
Space is a three-dimensional continuum. [..] the world of physical phenomena which was briefly called "world" by Minkowski is naturally four dimensional in the space-time sense. For it is composed of individual events, each of which is described by four numbers [..].

 

This was recently discussed in Modern and Theoretical Physics, here and here.

 

- Just in case in you didn't notice, the other dates are not even near 1916.

 

At that time he and the others believed in 3D space plus time, and Mordred thought that it's inconsistent with SR which they promoted - just as I am doing today.

 

Coincidentally I stumbled on a 1907 paper by Minkowski, with one chapter "The Fundamental Equations for Æther."

Which makes me wonder, what his metaphysics really was, for I always assumed that he did not believe in such a thing.

It may be worth to start a topic on the kind of ether concepts that Minkowski and Einstein had.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Tim88

[Mordred]

 

At that time he and the others believed in 3D space plus time, and Mordred thought that it's inconsistent with SR which they promoted - just as I am doing today.

 

 

No that is not what I think. The term presentism is incompatible with relativity. The term relativistic presentism is a contradiction in terminology.

 

The main difference between Minkoswkii vs Lorentz ether is that Lorentz ether is a preferred frame. While Minkowskii is not.

 

Both use 3d+1 spacetime with variable time. The difference is having a preferred frame or not having a preferred frame.

 

Einstein showed a preferred frame is unnecessary which is part of the relativity principle today.

 

Presentism is a preferred frame (here-now) while in eternalism all frames are equal. t-assymetry vs t-symmetry with the assumption constant velocity.

 

For clarity all observers will see the Lorentz ether frame (at rest) but every other frame as inertial. presentism

 

In Minkowskii/Einstein all frames are inertial with no preference on choice of rest frame. The rest frame is an equivalent arbitrary choice.= eternalism

Edited November 23, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

No that is not what I think. The term presentism is incompatible with relativity. The term relativistic presentism is a contradiction in terminology.

 

The main difference between Minkoswkii vs Lorentz ether is that Lorentz ether is a preferred frame. While Minkowskii is not.

 

Both use 3d+1 spacetime with variable time. [..]

 

And so the discussion ended in an infinite loop: According to Lorentz no frame is preferred for the laws of physics, Einstein admitted that SR corresponds with the Lorentz ether, and neither you nor anyone else could show that presentism according to your definition (as I cited in post #93) is incompatible with SR.

Note that an important feature of SR is that it is a pure theory of physics, free from metaphysics; that's why Lorentz, Einstein and Minkowski could agree on it, and why physicist hold that it's firmly established.