Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 11:47 am
How can the farthest reach of scepticism not lead to idealism?
I suppose it can (lead to solipsism actually), but it seems inconsistent since it can be shown that there is information in addition to ideals. Not sure how idealism would explain that.
Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 7:59 pmYour frame is yours and my frame is mine
It's not like one can easily exit a frame. Everybody's frame is also everybody eles's frame, but I think you mean to say that we're each stationary in different frames. If you meant something else by that, kindly clarify.
Pragmatically, almost everybody uses the same frame as each other for day to day activity, and it isn't the frame in which I am stationary. When walking, I consider myself to be moving, not the world moving past me. It's not wrong to think of the latter to be 'my frame', it's just not the frame typically chosen.
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 4:24 pmAccording to some, the block of time is a consequence of relativity.
It depends on how the premises of relativity are phrased, empirically or metaphysically.
The latter:
1) Physical law is the same in any inertial frame.
2) Light moves at c in a vacuum relative to any inertial frame
Same premises worded more empirically:
1) Physical law appears the same in any inertial frame.
2) Light move at the same speed regardless of motion of source.
The primary difference being 'is' vs 'appears'.
The actual wording from the SR paper:
1) the same laws of electrodynamics and optics
will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good
2) light
is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body
That sounds like the former to me, mostly based on my bold. Given that, the block time follows, but only from the postulates, not from anything actually demonstrated with evidence. Also, this theory is in no way a model of the universe, so its applicability to the block nature of the actual universe is nonexistent. In fact, the GR paper takes a more empirical tone, suggesting even a preferred frame in some instances, and it treats spacetime as a sort of fabric without going so far as to invoke the 'E' word.
That said, the big bang and black holes are predicted only by a block view of GR theory, and these things don't exist in any competing interpretation that makes different postulates. The leading absolutest theory, generalized almost a century after Einstein's work, has only one preferred frame, light moving locally at c only in this frame, and black holes not existing at all. Falsifying this competing theory can be done in a way similar to falsifying the denial of an afterlife. You can prove it to yourself, but not to others.