I agree that the model which uses the concept of spacetime works for a larger set of possible observations than the Newtonian model of separate space and universal time, but I think it's the interpretation of this model that we disagree on.Scott wrote:...However, there are important reasons that the time-and-space model of classical physics must be replaced with timeless spacetime.
I think this is a slightly different issue in that it's about the concept of the curvature of spacetime, not about the replacement of space and time with spacetime. So it's about the way that gravity is represented in the GR model.A better analogy would be the difference between using a 2D map versus a 3D globe to make a map of the Earth.
Using a 2D map to map the Earth is analogous to using a non-block-model to map spacetime. It just doesn't work.
Apologies if you've explained this already, and I've forgotten or missed it, but I don't really know what you mean when you say you use the word "change" to mean "violating determinism". But I guess, as a result of viewing the entire history of the universe as a spacetime block which, in the world in which that model exists (as opposed to the world which that model models), is static, you perhaps see a relationship to the subject of determinism versus free will. I think that's a whole different issue which would probably have to be discussed separately. I don't use the word "change" like that at all. To me it simply means stuff happening over time:RJG wrote:GR isn't saying that per se.Steve3007 wrote:Essentially, yes. If we have a model, e.g. General Relativity/The Block Universe, and if we think that model is telling us something like "change doesn't happen" then since change clearly does happen either it's not an accurate model or we've misinterpreted it.
As I was using the words, "change" means violating determinism, at least in terms of the actual physics, ignoring anything going on 'consciously in consciousnesses' whatever that would mean.
If we use the terminology "event" to denote a point in spacetime and "worldline" to denote the string of events which constitute the history of an object or system of objects, then the changes in that/those objects(s) are represented by the path of that worldline.
I don't really know what it means to violate physical determinism so don't really know how to comment on the above. As I say, I think the whole notion of determinism deserves a separate discussion.Those statements I made to RJG about "happening" were based on two assumption with which I don't necessarily agree but I assumed for the sake of argument:
(1) that if there is no "change" (i.e. violations to physical determinism in terms of the physics of 4D spacetime) then there is no "happening" at all in any conceivable sense word
(2) the assumption that consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful
I don't understand them either. Generally, when discussing subjects like this, I'm quite a big fan of being able to define the terminology we use as precisely as possible by tying it to possible observations. I think failing to do that often results in people thinking they disagree with each other because they use words vaguely or differently.I don't necessarily agree with or even precisely undestanding those two statements, but I temporarily accepted them as assumptions for the sake of argument, and so my other comments and replies in this topic were made in the context of those two assumptions.
I would certainly recommend throwing out those two assumptions long before throwing out Einsteinian physics, namely SR and GR.
OK. I'll check it out.In this topic, I was making statements in the context of assumptions I don't actually agree but simply stated I would temporarily accept for the sake of argument. It's possible that caused some confusion. Regardless, I have written down my views on time in a more structured independent and complete way without the aforementioned assumptions, which hopefully make it more clear:
Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.
I would of course love your feedback on that.
One more thing to note: I understand how the model of spacetime provided by General Relativity leads to such conclusions as: For events that are separated by a spacelike interval the question of whether the event are simultaneous, or whether one of them happened before the other, is reference frame dependant. And, for such events, it is not possible for one of the events to be causally connected to the other. But, to me, conclusions like that do not imply that time doesn't pass, that time doesn't exist, that change (at least as I understand that word) doesn't happen, etc.