I once asked a similar question but didn't really get the answer or discussion that I was looking for and decided to start clean. Recall that in Galilean (classical) spacetimes its assumed that space-time itself gives rise to some way of defining or giving sense to what it means for distant objects to be present or absolutely simultaneous. In special relativity the spacetime structure lacks this feature so its not the case that there is an objective absolute present in Minkowski spacetime. This is all fairly interesting if we were assuming spacetime is even a real thing. How do relationists (anti-realists) to space and time define or even approach making sense of absolute simultaneity? If a relationist wanted a form of absolute simultaneity how would it or how has it been defined in the literature? Can a relationist be committed to neither a presentist or enternalist position on the ontology of time? Because relationist may not have spacetime structure or material properties to ascribe a complete sense of absolute simultaneity to every existent object but clearly a relationist to time also doesn't think the future or past exists in an eternalist sense. Could you be in the middle ground or a mixture of presentism/eternalism?
asked Apr 28, 2020 at 5:11
-
It makes little sense for a relationist to want absolute simultaneity. If space and time are just make believe backgrounds for presenting interrelations among events why would simultaneity be anything non-relative? If it is convenient to have it for a technical purpose one can pick whichever frame is handy to the task. Anti-realists do not take sides in the presentism/eternalism debate, they dismiss the matter as a pointless debate about words (namely, tenses), see Lombard, Time for a Change.– ConifoldCommented Apr 28, 2020 at 9:19
-
Dear @Conifold, Thank you for the response and will diligently read your paper. It's as I suspected but it's possible to retain a form of absolute simultaneity at the danger of admitting instantaneous action at a distance interactions (relations) which link together everything in reality. Perhaps from this you could construct something similar to a form of absolute simultaneity but it does assume a lot and perhaps it isn't the most parsimonious solution. Could quantum entanglement be such an action at a distance relation?– The victorious trutherCommented Apr 28, 2020 at 18:10
-
Without real space or time this sounds not so much like absolute simultaneity but more like "everything is connected" in the spirit of Brahman/Atman of Oriental philosophies. This is not the sort of thing appealing to an anti-realist. Quantum entanglement can not transmit information, see the no-signaling theorem, so it is "action at a distance" without the action, more of an illusion due to using classical concepts.– ConifoldCommented Apr 28, 2020 at 20:04
-
Dear @Conifold, interesting! The reason I did happen to bring up action at a distance was because I was reading a book on spacetime where in chapter five page 92 there is a classical relational spacetime theory constructed from purely an action at a distance relative gravity. It's not perfect but such a concept in principle is throughly intriguing.– The victorious trutherCommented Apr 28, 2020 at 20:26
-
Dear @Conifold, is quantum gravity purely a relationist enterprise?– The victorious trutherCommented Apr 28, 2020 at 20:35
|
Show 3 more comments