Is Einstein's Relativity Consistent with a Growing Block Universe?

Is the relativity of simultaneity of Einstein's relativity theories consistent with the absolute simultaneity of the growing block universe theory of time?

The argument here is that they are consistent, given the difference in meaning of "simultaneity" in the two cases. In Einstein's relativity theories, simultaneity is about co-presence in observation, whereas in the growing block universe theory simultaneity is concerned with co-existence on the edge of the growth of the universe. The thesis here is that absolute simultaneity by the latter definition of "simultaneity" is consistent with relative simultaneity by the former definition of "simultaneity".

However, this video is basically a rough draft, so I welcome constructive criticism and in the near future I plan to replace it with a better one. Thanks!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• special
• general
• theory
• relativity
• growing
• block
• universe
• time
• philosophy
• metaphysics
• physics
• science

[soultorment27]

In the video the girl sidesteps the one problem by saying that the same time had elapsed, but it was only the rate of change which was different (i.e. the rate of the traveler's processes slowed down relative to the one who was stationary). But if any rate of change can take place within the same interval of time, there's going to be a huge epistemological problem of how we get access to time! This also implies the possibility of time without change, which doesn't seem very plausible to me...

[PhilosophyAnimation]

@soultorment27 As for whether "any rate of change can take place within the same interval of time", GBT doesn't take a stand on whether this is possible, although, yes, it would be inconsistent with some possible physical laws: e.g., during a given segment of growth (e.g., Planck length), nothing could change more than its internal speed limit would allow. As for your epistemological problem, the video concedes at 8:55 that GBT is unverifiable. But being true doesn't require being verifiable.

[soultorment27]

@PhilosophyAnimation In order to resolve GBT with relativistic physics, a view was adopted which sidesteps the problem by way of making it possible for the rate of change to be anything given a particular interval of time. But if we don't get access to time through our access to the rates of change, how can we EVER get access to time? How could we know that time even exists?!

[PhilosophyAnimation]

@soultorment27 In the rocket ship example, 4:30 - 5:30, GBT only has to maintain that the two people change at DIFFERENT rates during the same period of growth of the history of the universe. It doesn't require that their rates can be ARBITRARILY fast. As for whether we could then know anything about time, I'm not sure what you're asking. Maybe it's that, since our clocks aren't always in sync with the rate at which the universe's history grows, we can't know that we're tracking that rate.

[soultorment27]

@PhilosophyAnimation If your account is committed to the possibility of there being events which can change at different rates during the same interval of time, then it would seem to sever change from time (making it possible for one to exist without the other). And if the rate of change doesn’t track or indicate the flow of time, what does? As the rate of change has nothing to do with the flow of time, we could never know whether we were tracking the rate of temporal flow..

[PhilosophyAnimation]

@soultorment27 Doesn't sever change from time; it defines the present in terms of the latest edge of the growth of the universe's history: that growth changes. You say, "if the rate of change doesn’t track or indicate the flow of time, what does?" Growth of the universe's history is tracked only by itself. Thus HUMANS don't track it, thus we can't know that we do! Yet physicists use their own clocks, ignore the GBT interpretation, and end up saying things like "simultaneity is relative".

[soultorment27]

@PhilosophyAnimation None of my questions were directed at GBT in general, they were directed at the specific conception of such discussed in the video (that which would have to be adopted in order to resolve the inconsistencies within relativity). And the epistemological problem that I mentioned had nothing to do with how we come to know whether GBT is true or not, the problem is how it's possible to know anything about time in general on this specific account of GBT.

[PhilosophyAnimation]

@soultorment27 Good questions. As for time without change, the Growing Block Theory (GBT) doesn't imply that this is possible, as time involves growth of the universe's history, and that is itself a change. You might not like the idea that the universe's history might grow while nothing else changes. Strictly speaking, however, GBT doesn't take a stand on whether this is possible. It merely holds that, if it did happen, there would be dynamic time. I will respond to your other comments below...