3D Space, relativity and presentism

[Tim88]

I will go through that thread again, but I followed it before and contributed to it (on page 3, for example). Both ajb (in the opening 4 pages, especially on page 4) and later VandD (on page 7), among others, raised some pertinent points w.r.t. block universe model(s). In the mean time, talking about practical features of the block universe and its implied non-compliance (for lack of a better word) with quantum behaviour, see this post.

 

I did not notice that there were many points raised that really helped to make SR easier to understand by assuming that space and time form a single physical background entity; but I'll also go through it again, searching for on-topic "loose ends".

 

PS. Yes I see that in fact you gave quite some useful input there - thanks again!

Edited October 16, 2016 by Tim88

[Tim88]

In view of some confusion in the thread from which this one was a spin-off, here some more elaboration about the role "time" plays in a Lorentzian or relativistic "Absolute Space".

 

Absolute Space uses different "times", but it has a single time concept. As I see it, different clock times occur as direct physical effects of location near heavy mass and motion through Space; time as a comparison of the progress of physical processes implies that there's only one kind of "real time".

 

Any sensation of a "flow" of time (as in dx/dt) is only in our head, as physical processes occur in our heads and we are conscious of our own physiological changes as well as the changes that occur in our surroundings.

Of course, there is also a "local time" as set up by humans for measuring time, due to the impossibility to establish absolute speed and absolute simultaneity. Although "true time" is inaccessible to us, the relationship between "true" and "local" time is straightforward.

And it's even possible to add a theoretical "Newtonian absolute time" in that view for conceptual convenience, standing for an imaginary "zero speed, zero gravitational field clock"; but in that view of reality, such an "absolute time" is merely a mathematical construct of our minds, a thinking aid.

A friend who is writing a book about "time" sent me the following short video link which, I think, sketches in a funny way "time" - the first section is a bit like how "eternalism" operates, very different from "presentism", which is more like the second part:

[Tim88]

PS in particular, as I showed, the following claim is wrong (bold emphasis mine):

 

 

[..][ Let me use the analogy of said number sequence (from -infinite to +infinite) being placed on a (very long, well basically infinite) ruler (or measuring tape). For the purpose of this discussion think of this ruler/measuring tape to be the time dimension, a flat foundation on which the 3-D events are "constructed". Now consider two scenario's:

 

1. Point zero (theoretically in the middle of the ruler) corresponds to the present time, the now. All the positive numbers relate to the future, all negative numbers to the past. Consider yourself as the observer in the form of a tiny toy standing on top of the zero. So if you want to move the now, the zero (with the toy on top of it) has to move and as such the entire ruler has to move. Hence the question what is the now, the zero, the ruler moving in relation to? This refers to the moving now, the tensed or presentist theory.

 

I'll try once more.

 

In presentist models, time is not a 4th dimension like distance; the things that can be moving according to such an interpretation of reality, are physical objects. Motion v over distance d implies a conceptual missing parameter, which concept we call "time" t (more precisely, here it refers to duration). Although our internal navigation system may confound these things, time can obviously not move in any presentist view including model, incl. Absolute Space: it's the wrong parameter!

 

"Now" is just a "snapshot" that we make in our brains of a situation that progresses, and immediately after is relabeled "past". The Spaceball movie here above correctly depicts that fact (at 1:00).

 

It's different of course with block universe time, as in that 4D Spacetime view it's a 4th dimension like distance.

[studiot]

PS in particular, as I showed, the following claim is wrong (bold emphasis mine):

 

 

But you didn't show that yours is correct.

 

But with the post below you are beginning to get there.

 

Pity you all can't agree on terminology.

 

 

 

 

 

In presentist models, time is not a 4th dimension like distance; the things that can be moving according to such an interpretation of reality, are physical objects. Motion v over distance d implies a conceptual missing parameter, which concept we call "time" t (more precisely, here it refers to duration). Although our internal navigation system may confound these things, time can obviously not move in any presentist view including model, incl. Absolute Space: it's the wrong parameter!

 

"Now" is just a "snapshot" that we make in our brains of a situation that progresses, and immediately after is relabeled "past". The Spaceball movie here above correctly depicts that fact (at 1:00).

 

It's different of course with block universe time, as in that 4D Spacetime view it's a 4th dimension like distance.

Edited October 28, 2016 by studiot

[Tim88]

 

But you didn't show that yours is correct.

 

But with the post below you are beginning to get there.

 

Pity you all can't agree on terminology.

 

 

 

 

Of course Studiot, you don't seriously expect that anyone can prove philosophical ideas? That's already hardly so in physics, let alone metaphysics! The only thing that can be done, is disprove inconsistent claims as inconsistencies can be demonstrated.

[studiot]

 

Of course Studiot, you don't seriously expect that anyone can prove philosophical ideas? That's already hardly so in physics, let alone metaphysics! The only thing that can be done, is disprove inconsistent claims as inconsistencies can be demonstrated.

 

Any first year philosopher should be able to discern that just because you can disprove someone else's statement, it doesn't make yours correct.

Edited October 29, 2016 by studiot

[Memammal]

Presentism according to Wikipedia:

 

 

Philosophical presentism is the view that neither the future nor the past exist. In some versions of presentism, this view is extended to timeless objects or ideas such as numbers. According to presentism, events and entities that are wholly past or wholly future do not exist at all. Presentism contrasts with eternalism and the growing block theory of time which holds the past events [sNIP] really do exist, although not in the present. Eternalism extends to future events as well.

[sNIP]

In modern theory of relativity, the conceptual observer is at a geometric point in both space and time at the apex of the 'light cone' which observes the events laid out in time as well as space. Different observers can disagree on whether two events at different locations occurred simultaneously depending if the observers are in relative motion (see relativity of simultaneity). This theory depends upon the idea of time as an extended thing* and has been confirmed by experiment, thus giving rise to a philosophical viewpoint known as four dimensionalism.

* Note: "extended thing" means stretch out through space or stretch out over time. As time cannot extend over time (which seems to be at the core of different points of view in this and other threads), it obviously refers to an extension through space, i.e. a dimension thereof.

[studiot]

Presentism according to Wikipedia:

 

* Note: "extended thing" means stretch out through space or stretch out over time. As time cannot extend over time (which seems to be at the core of different points of view in this and other threads), it obviously refers to an extension through space, i.e. a dimension thereof.

 

Careful, that implies there is an 'absolute' space and time to compare the stretch against.

 

Getting past that to me is the core of most peoples' difficulty.

[Memammal]

^ Well spotted. Truth be told - after I copied it, that phrase caught my attention. I attempted to explain it, but I might have inadvertently stumbled on- and exposed that persistent shortcoming of presentism, its incompatibility with relativity. That being said, my mind is elsewhere today (enjoying some time with the family at home), so let me rather just fill in the rest of that paragraph in case I misunderstood the context thereof:

 

...Although the contents of an observation are time-extended, the conceptual observer, being a geometric point at the origin of the light cone, is not extended in time or space. This analysis contains a paradox in which the conceptual observer contains nothing, even though any real observer would need to be the extended contents of an observation to exist. This paradox is partially resolved in Relativity theory by defining a 'frame of reference' to encompass the measuring instruments used by an observer. This reduces the time separation between instruments to a set of constant intervals.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Memammal

[Tim88]

 

Any first year philosopher should be able to discern that just because you can disprove someone else's statement, it doesn't make yours correct.

 

Yes, exactly - any first year philosopher should be able to discern that that's what I told you.

Presentism according to Wikipedia:

 

* Note: "extended thing" means stretch out through space or stretch out over time. As time cannot extend over time (which seems to be at the core of different points of view in this and other threads), it obviously refers to an extension through space, i.e. a dimension thereof.

 

Surely you know that the phrase "This theory depends upon the idea of time as an extended thing and has been confirmed by experiment" is baseless. That editor was begging the question as there is no evidence that "time" is substantial, even less an "extended thing".

We had already discovered that Wikipedia's "presentism" is not compatible with Lorentz. If you like to cite Wikipedia, the article on what there is called "LET" may be more appropriate for understanding the compatibility of 3D Space with SR and the role of "time" in that.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Tim88

[studiot]

Here's what actually happened

 

 

Tim88, on 28 Oct 2016 - 8:01 PM, said:

PS in particular, as I showed, the following claim is wrong (bold emphasis mine):

 

 

 

To which I commented

 

 

studiot

But you didn't show that yours is correct.

 

 

 

You also followed with a bald statement of your version of fact without justification or 'proof', exactly as I noted

 

 

tim88

I'll try once more.

 

In presentist models, time is not a 4th dimension like distance; the things that can be moving according to such an interpretation of reality, are physical objects. Motion v over distance d implies a conceptual missing parameter, which concept we call "time" t (more precisely, here it refers to duration). Although our internal navigation system may confound these things, time can obviously not move in any presentist view including model, incl. Absolute Space: it's the wrong parameter!

 

"Now" is just a "snapshot" that we make in our brains of a situation that progresses, and immediately after is relabeled "past". The Spaceball movie here above correctly depicts that fact (at 1:00).

 

It's different of course with block universe time, as in that 4D Spacetime view it's a 4th dimension like distance.

 

There, see - no proof.

 

So the situation is exactly as I noted

 

You may have disproved what someone else said, but it does not make what you said automatically correct.

 

As the actress said to the Bishop

 

"Don't get smart with me, young man"

Edited October 30, 2016 by studiot

[Memammal]

We had already discovered that Wikipedia's "presentism" is not compatible with Lorentz. If you like to cite Wikipedia...

a) I cited the Wikipedia article in the hope that we could at least find common ground as to what we mean by presentism. It seems as if we have been debating in circles about what presentism is and/or what presentism is not. The manner in which these threads have become so disentangled might have resulted in parts of the same arguments being duplicated all over. The issue of the "now" (as in the present) being the only reality opposed to events in either the past and/or future, has come to the fore repeatedly. I have just started re-reading this thread and on page 1 this same issue was being dealt with. I have read numerous other references and articles about presentism and that is the one aspect thereof that they all seem to agree on.

b) Do you regard so-called Wikipedia's presentism as a unique kind of presentism, different from Tim's presentism? Please point me to the discovery that you mentioned above.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Memammal

[Tim88]

This is suddenly serious. What follows on this will determine eventual action from my side concerning further communication with Studiot.

Here's the exact sequence of events.

 

Note in Studiot's summary in post #61 here above:
- the misrepresentation of the sequence of events
- the misrepresentation by means of omitting the key post by me, in which I reminded him that nobody can prove philosophical claims.

 

PS in particular, as I showed, the following claim is wrong (bold emphasis mine):

 

[..] This refers to the moving now, the tensed or presentist theory.

 

I'll try once more.

 

In presentist models, time is not a 4th dimension like distance; the things that can be moving according to such an interpretation of reality, are physical objects. Motion v over distance d implies a conceptual missing parameter, which concept we call "time" t (more precisely, here it refers to duration). Although our internal navigation system may confound these things, time can obviously not move in any presentist view including model, incl. Absolute Space: it's the wrong parameter!

 

"Now" is just a "snapshot" that we make in our brains of a situation that progresses, and immediately after is relabeled "past". The Spaceball movie here above correctly depicts that fact (at 1:00).

 

It's different of course with block universe time, as in that 4D Spacetime view it's a 4th dimension like distance.

 

 

 

But you didn't show that yours is correct.

 

But with the post below you are beginning to get there.

 

Pity you all can't agree on terminology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course Studiot, you don't seriously expect that anyone can prove philosophical ideas? That's already hardly so in physics, let alone metaphysics! The only thing that can be done, is disprove inconsistent claims as inconsistencies can be demonstrated.

 

 

 

Any first year philosopher should be able to discern that just because you can disprove someone else's statement, it doesn't make yours correct.

 

 

 

Yes, exactly - any first year philosopher should be able to discern that that's what I told you.

 

[studiot]

sigh, once again this is such unnecessary hard work.

 

Your post#53 contained 3 statements and I commented on two of them in my post#54, which can easily be seen to come directly after yours.

 

There was no misrepresentation only misunderstanding on your part.

Nor were there any missing intervening posts, simply because there were no intervening posts.

 

You statements were

 

1) A claim to have disproved someone else's statement.

 

2) A quote of the allegedly fallacious statement

 

3) An alternative statement of your own.

 

I did not comment of (2) at all.

 

I did not comment on the veracity or falsity of either (1) or (3)

 

I did say that it follows from simple logical reasoning the truth of (1) does not establish the truth of (3)

 

I did, however, offer some encouraging words about (3), which were irrelevant to the logical connection (or lack of it) noted above.

[Tim88]

Sigh indeed! I did not comment on (2) either; I just left it in for completeness. Before you said that it follows from simple logical reasoning that the truth of (1) does not establish the truth of (3), I had already explained to you that nobody suggests that the truth of (1) establishes the truth of (3) as no-one can prove philosophical ideas.

 

Although I find it very difficult to believe, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a total misunderstanding from your side. Let's keep it at that.

[studiot]

Sigh indeed! I did not comment on (2) either; I just left it in for completeness. Before you said that it follows from simple logical reasoning that the truth of (1) does not establish the truth of (3), I had already explained to you that nobody suggests that the truth of (1) establishes the truth of (3) as no-one can prove philosophical ideas.

 

Although I find it very difficult to believe, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a total misunderstanding from your side. Let's keep it at that.

 

Not at all, your post #53 contained no reference to my post 54.

Indeed it could not have done since it preceded it..

 

Yet my post 54 did indeed contain the comment that "the truth of (1) does not establish the truth of (3)", though in much more gentle and friendly words.

Indeed it was the first statement made in my post##54

Edited October 31, 2016 by studiot

[Tim88]

 

Not at all, your post #53 contained no reference to my post 54.

Indeed it could not have done since it preceded it..

 

Yet my post 54 did indeed contain the comment that "the truth of (1) does not establish the truth of (3)", though in much more gentle and friendly words.

Indeed it was the first statement made in my post##54

 

Maybe you thought that - but instead you wrote: "But you didn't show that yours is correct".

 

I was the first to stress, in post #55, that establishing the truth of a philosophy is impossible. Thus your "but" didn't make any sense; nor your thereupon following statement in post #56 that "just because you can disprove someone else's statement, it doesn't make yours correct" - as that was already implied in what I told you in the very sentence you cited!

 

This is just ridiculous. I now reached the conclusion that regretfully, you and I cannot have a reasonable discussion.

[studiot]

 

tim88 p0st#67

 

Maybe you thought that - but instead you wrote: "But you didn't show that yours is correct".

 

Are you in any way claiming that the statement

 

 

studiot post#54

 

But you didn't show that yours is correct.

 

is in any way incompatible with the statement

 

 

studiot post#56

 

Any first year philosopher should be able to discern that just because you can disprove someone else's statement, it doesn't make yours correct

 

or with the statement

 

 

studiot post#64

 

Any first year philosopher should be able to discern that just because you can disprove someone else's statement, it doesn't make yours correct

 

All of which refer to the same thing?

[Tim88]

 

Are you in any way claiming that the statement

 

 

is in any way incompatible with the statement

 

 

or with the statement

 

 

All of which refer to the same thing?

 

The problem was caused by the fact that you did not -and still don't!- understand that we were saying the same thing, even after I told you. The conversation went along the lines of:

 

"an apple is not a cat because a cat miauws; an apple is a fruit"

"BUT you did not PROVE that an apple is a fruit"

"Of course I didn't - positively proving taxonomy is hardly possible. We can only disprove that an apple is a cat."

"Just because you can disprove something, it doesn't make what you say correct."

"Now you effectively repeat what I just explained to you..."

"No, you did not prove it!"

 

And so on, ad infinitum - like a bad game.

 

I thus could not escape the conclusion that, regretfully, communication between us is not useful. As I dislike such games, I will stop communicating with you. Take care Studiot.

[studiot]

 

The problem was caused by the fact that you did not -and still don't!- understand that we were saying the same thing, even after I told you. The conversation went along the lines of:

 

"an apple is not a cat because a cat miauws; an apple is a fruit"

"BUT you did not PROVE that an apple is a fruit"

"Of course I didn't - positively proving taxonomy is hardly possible. We can only disprove that an apple is a cat."

"Just because you can disprove something, it doesn't make what you say correct."

"Now you effectively repeat what I just explained to you..."

"No, you did not prove it!"

 

And so on, ad infinitum - like a bad game.

 

I thus could not escape the conclusion that, regretfully, communication between us is not useful. As I dislike such games, I will stop communicating with you. Take care Studiot.

 

But your claim is false.

[Tim88]

a) I cited the Wikipedia article in the hope that we could at least find common ground as to what we mean by presentism. It seems as if we have been debating in circles about what presentism is and/or what presentism is not. The manner in which these threads have become so disentangled might have resulted in parts of the same arguments being duplicated all over. The issue of the "now" (as in the present) being the only reality opposed to events in either the past and/or future, has come to the fore repeatedly. I have just started re-reading this thread and on page 1 this same issue was being dealt with. I have read numerous other references and articles about presentism and that is the one aspect thereof that they all seem to agree on.

b) Do you regard so-called Wikipedia's presentism as a unique kind of presentism, different from Tim's presentism? Please point me to the discovery that you mentioned above.

 

a. Once more: it appears that for many the label "presentism" is an idea that is so strongly related to Newtonian classical physics that it is incompatible with modern physics. Strangely enough this is apparently not the case with "eternalism", even though that concept is probably just as old. It may well be that over the centuries more has been written about presentism by means of Newtonian ideas, so that those two concepts got intermingled and the term has become associated with additional ideas. Mixing concepts from classical physics and philosophers with relativistic physics only leads to confusions and the shooting down of straw men. I prevented that confusion upfront in my first post.

 

b. That particular Wikipedia's article is a mess, as indicated by the warning at the top of the page and the related discussion page. However, it admits that there are of course different "versions of presentism" and apart of the false claim about SR it's maybe not too bad.

Earlier we had a look at its sister article on eternalism, according to which presentism adheres to the (Newtonian) concept of time as a "flow" - a moving now. I don't adhere to such a paradoxical concept of time and there is no need for it. However, the statement there according to which presentism "argues that only the present exists", is IMHO a good description of presentism without classical baggage, and which certainly is compatible with relativity.

 

However, I too hastily grouped those overview articles with the other ones that you cited earlier. The article on eternalism claims that presentism "seems difficult to reconcile" with SR, but next it shows why it is not difficult to reconcile with SR. That part was added later to the article.

[Mordred]

Have you ever considered the detail that their is only two possible ways to look at time? absolute or variable?

 

Is that not the only two possibilities?

 

This is the main reason I feel philosophies are counter productive in many ways. They tend to blur the distinctions, with no to little math support.

 

When you get right down to it. The best method to understand how time works under SR and GR is study the math, without trying to make it fit under a philosophy.

 

How often do you see ppl trying to reinvent a model, based on their personal philosophical beliefs?

 

Block is particularly problematic, their is 6 common variations. Not a mere two

Edited November 2, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

Have you ever considered the detail that their is only two possible ways to look at time? absolute or variable?

 

Is that not the only two possibilities?

 

This is the main reason I feel philosophies are counter productive in many ways. They tend to blur the distinctions, with no to little math support.

 

When you get right down to it. The best method to understand how time works under SR and GR is study the math, without trying to make it fit under a philosophy.

 

How often do you see ppl trying to reinvent a model, based on their personal philosophical beliefs?

 

Block is particularly problematic, their is 6 common variations. Not a mere two

 

Mordred, there isn't any disagreement about the math. The math is based on 19th century experiments which showed that Newton's absolute time, on which all observers agree, could not be correct. That led to the so-called "local time" concept. Maybe that's what you mean with "variable time"?

 

However, there happen to be different interpretations of that variable time, and those same opposing interpretations are possible (and perhaps occurred) concerning Newton's absolute time.

 

And may I remind you of the fact that this is a spin-off of a thread that is based on interpreting the math?

You appear to object to needless reinterpretations of models. However, this is just what happened a number of times - sometimes with a cover-up of the original interpretation. What to think of that?

[Mordred]

Well I will be the first to admit that philosophy isn't my strong suit. I'm not sure what you mean by cover up. Anyways I spent some time studying numerous block style arguments. There is numerous key aspects shrouded by those articles. For example determinism and reversible processes. Yet when I mention those aspects, they were either ignored or split off...

 

Much like presentism isn't compatible with relativity. Block itself doesn't work well with "probalistic observers". This is a specific observer used in evolving block. Which isn't identical to growing block.

 

All of this put aside, as an off and on assistant instructor. I found my students "light bulb go on" when you detail the thermodynamic aspects of GR. Proper understanding of the ideal gas laws in GR removes the majority of the mystery behind spacetime curvature.

 

Its too bad many forum members ignore this truth. Not just this forum, for some mysterious reason thermodynamics is too mundane a topic. They rather have the mystery.

 

Little hint, if you truly want a comprehensive knowledge of block arguments, study the terminology including those relating to key thermodynamics. Quite literally when I read terms such as deterministic, reversible and irreversible processes etc. I literally see the related formulas.

 

Lol what I find truly amusing, is that I posted some mathematics showing how Lorentz Ether could viably work under. Yet it 100% ignored. Imagine that.....so much for properly examining the two models...

 

Lorentz ether vs SR ah well. You once mentioned that the mathematician in me interferes with understanding block. Quite the opposite, it allows me to better comrehend block and discern the quality of various papers on the subject.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Mordred

[Tim88]

Well I will be the first to admit that philosophy isn't my strong suit. I'm not sure what you mean by cover up. Anyways I spent some time studying numerous block style arguments. There is numerous key aspects shrouded by those articles. For example determinism and reversible processes. Yet when I mention those aspects, they were either ignored or split off...

 

Much like presentism isn't compatible with relativity. Block itself doesn't work well with "probalistic observers". This is a specific observer used in evolving block. Which isn't identical to growing block.

 

All of this put aside, as an off and on assistant instructor. I found my students "light bulb go on" when you detail the thermodynamic aspects of GR. Proper understanding of the ideal gas laws in GR removes the majority of the mystery behind spacetime curvature.

 

Its too bad many forum members ignore this truth. Not just this forum, for some mysterious reason thermodynamics is too mundane a topic. They rather have the mystery.

 

Little hint, if you truly want a comprehensive knowledge of block arguments, study the terminology including those relating to key thermodynamics. Quite literally when I read terms such as deterministic, reversible and irreversible processes etc. I literally see the related formulas.

 

Lol what I find truly amusing, is that I posted some mathematics showing how Lorentz Ether could viably work under. Yet it 100% ignored. Imagine that.....so much for properly examining the two models...

 

Lorentz ether vs SR ah well. You once mentioned that the mathematician in me interferes with understanding block. Quite the opposite, it allows me to better comrehend block and discern the quality of various papers on the subject.

 

It's a bit off topic, but I'll still comment.

Any remaining interest from my part in "block" philosophy is by now totally gone, thanks to the parallel discussion.

 

"Cover ups": as a student I was fooled into thinking that I was taught Newton's mechanics or Maxwell's theory at school, including their interpretations. In fact, their interpretations were skillfully brushed under the carpet.

 

Similarly, at the open day of my university a co-worker of the cosmology department tried to explain to the general public that according to Einstein, gravity is "spacetime curvature" as he showed on a big elastic cloth with heavy balls that deform the cloth. So I informed him of the fact (which by chance I had seen in a bookstore one week earlier) that Einstein disliked that phrasing because it gives the wrong idea, as if there is some kind of fourth dimension in which space can bend.