We have spent a lot of time on the Board recently discussing Einstein’s views regarding the existence or non-existence of “God.” Of far more interest and relevance to religion, and religious faith, are Einstein’s views regarding special and general relativity (hereafter “relativity”); views that are wholeheartedly embraced by the scientific community and lay public alike, notwithstanding its counter-intuitive and destructive implications for both religion and humanism.

Relativity, in a nutshell, involves the merging of space and time into space-time, calling time a 4th dimension. This essentially “spacializes” time with the three normal dimensions of space. By so doing, time, as representing the temporal order of things as “moving” through a “living” past, present and future, is destroyed in favor of viewing time as a mathematical, static, component of an event’s “world-line.” Consider some quotes, selected specifically for their lucidity in the present context. These quotes are from two well-established scholars. Lee Smolin, an eminent theoretical physicist, and Michael Lockwood, an Oxford philosopher of science, who is also well-established as highly knowledgeable on these issues.

First, from Smolin, taken from his book, Time Reborn, we see that under relativity time and motion are dissolved into a space-time geometry: [Note references to “Minkowski” are to Herman Minkowski, who expanded upon Einstein’s views in a matter that Einstein acknowledged and accepted.]

“[E]very physical fact of motion implied by special relativity is represented as a theorem about the geometry of spacetime. Minkowski's invention of what we now call Minkowski spacetime was a decisive step in the elimination of time, because it persuasively established that all talk of motion in time could be translated into mathematical theorems about a timeless geometry. As Herman Weyl, one of the great mathematicians of the 20th century put it: 'The objective world simply is, it does not happen. Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling upward along the world line of my body, does a section of the world come to life as a fleeting image in space which continuously changes in time.'”

COMMENT: This implies a “block-universe” view of the universe, where all events existing in spacetime--considered by humans as events in the past, present, and future--are equally real. Back to Smolin:

“What's powerful about this block-universe argument is that to entertain it you need only believe that the present is real; the argument then forces you to believe that the future and the past are as real as the present. But if there is no distinction between present, past, and future--if the formation of the Earth or the birth of my great great great grandaughter are as real as the moment in which I write these words--then the present has no special claim to reality, and all that's real is the whole history of the universe.”

Turning to Lockwood (from his book, The Labyrinth of Time), we see that the implication of this block universe idea is the elimination of freewill:

“To take the space-time view seriously is indeed to regard everything that ever exists, or ever happens, at any time or place, as being just as real as the contents of the here and now. And this rules out any conception of free will that pictures human agents, through their choices, as selectively conferring actuality on what are initially only potentialities. Contrary to this common-sense conception, the world according to Minkowski is, at all times and places, actually through and through: a four-dimensional block universe. The stark choice that faces us, therefore, is either to accept this view, with all that it may entail for such concepts as that of moral responsibility, or else to insist that relativistic invariance is a superficial phenomenon--a misleading facade, behind which is a genuine, honest-to-goodness passage of time, in which certain preferred spacelike hypersurfaces successively bear the mantle of objective presentness.”

COMMENT: So, the block universe view implies that human freewill is an illusion. As such, embracing freewill in light of relativity suggests a kind of religious faith. Back to Lockwood:

“Nothing in the physics of special relativity actually forces us to abandon the common-sense picture, according to which there is an objective, albeit constantly shifting, boundary that separates the real, and wholly fixed, past from a currently unreal, and partly open, future. . . It has to be said, though, that, in the absence of any scientific reason for doing so, this would strike many people as comparable to embracing an article of religious faith.”

Lockwood discusses relativity in the context of death, by alluding to Einstein’s response to the death of his friend, Michele Besso:

“Upon the death, in March 1955, of one of his oldest and closest friends, Michele Besso, Einstein sent the Besso family a letter of condolence that bears eloquent and poignant testimony to his personal conviction that relativity, properly understood, requires us to relinquish the tensed view of time. In this letter, written less than a month before his own death, Einstein says of his friends: 'He is now a little ahead of me in bidding his strange world farewell. That means nothing. For us devout physicists, the distinction between past, present and future likewise has no significance beyond that of an illusion, albeit a tenacious one.'”

COMMENT: Here, Einstein, at a time close to his own death, expresses the view that relativity offers some level of comfort to the bereaved. But does it really. Lockwood continues:

“Regarded in this light, death is not the deletion of a person's existence. It is an event, merely, that marks the outer limit of that person's extension in one (timelike) spatio-temporal direction, just as the person's skin marks out the limit in other (spacelike) directions. The space-time view is, therefore, inconsistent with our regarding one of those limits, but not the others, as a cause for sadness.”

COMMENT: So, the dead continue to exist, but we still have no access to or association with them. They exist in a space-time "place" to which we [presumably] can no longer visit. This does not offer much comfort, but rather just changes the nature of our loneliness for the deceased.

FINAL COMMENTS:

Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity are well-established by experimental evidence. It directly implies a block universe idea of space and time, which eliminates the intuitive reality of motion, temporal order, and freewill. Since freewill is essential in both religious and anti-religious (humanistic) views of life, both emphasizing life’s meaning and freewill, relativity plays havoc with both. Thus, whether Einstein personally believed in God, or not, is irrelevant. His theory makes the traditional belief in God dead on arrival, including deism, unless there is a reality outside of the universe, which he would certainly deny. Humanism fairs no better, because, as noted, without time and freewill there can be no context or means to change either one’s personal fate, or the fate of society generally through human activism.

The above fundamental problem of reconciling human freewill with science surfaces throughout science. There is no room in any scientific theory for human freewill. Thus, if one insists on freewill—which I do—such theories must be either wrong or incomplete. And frankly, with respect to relativity it is hard to see a modification of the theory that salvages time and human freewill. But, there are scientific efforts to lighten this load. Smolin's book is one of them.

To my way of thinking, a scientific theory that utterly destroys the most fundamental requirement of a meaningful life, e.g. the existence of human beings in real time, and the capacity to make free choices, must be rejected, regardless of how much that theory is entrenched in the scientific establishment, or held in awe by those who do not understand it. Notwithstanding its great achievements, science has repeatedly shown to be susceptible of error and shortsightedness. I believe in giving freewill, and thus the meaningfulness of human life, the benefit of the doubt.

A most thoughtful and poignant undertaking. Thank you for adding so much more to the discussion on the scientific mind.

Einstein belonged to several humanist organizations. He also didn't believe in chance, ie, God does not play dice with the Universe, despite quantum physics recognizing otherwise.

I like to believe in free will. Isn't that how we were taught, including as former LDS? The problem with that reasoning is, as I've studied my own life the pattern that emerges isn't really that of free will, but subject to the circumstances of one's birth, heredity, environment, et al.

Life happens, even with the best of planning. It is just kind of messy that way.

What did you say after: We Have?

Geepers, I'm too dumb for this site.

Good post, Henry.

I'll just note that the part you think "utterly destroys the most fundamental requirement of a meaningful life" comes from the philosopher, not the scientists. And that relativity itself doesn't eliminate time or freewill -- it simply reframes time in a different context. On its own it says nothing about freewill -- that's the part the philosopher came up with, and it's different from the scientifically-accepted part, not being backed by experimental/observational evidence.

So personally I find good evidence-based reasons to accept the foundation of relativity...and no good evidence-based reasons to accept the foundation of the philosophical argument.

I'll just note that the part you think "utterly destroys the most fundamental requirement of a meaningful life" comes from the philosopher, not the scientists.

COMMENT: You cannot escape the implications of relativity by appealing to a "just philosophy" argument. The implications as noted in the OP are physical, not philosophical. Here is what physicist Smolin had to say that I did not quote because it was covered by Lockwood:

"Relativity strongly suggests that the whole history of the world is a timeless unity; present, past, and future have no meaning apart from human subjectivity. Time is just another dimension of space, and the sense we have of experiencing moments passing is an illusion behind which is a timeless reality."

_______________________________________

And that relativity itself doesn't eliminate time or freewill -- it simply reframes time in a different context.

COMMENT: No! It eliminates time, in the sense of temporal passage of past, present and future, which is the time we all rely upon in our daily lives; Freewill is also gone. It is "reframed" with the consequence that time is eliminated and merged with a "spacial" 4-dimensional space-time. A "history" and "events" in time are now called "worldlines," which are static, mathematical equations.
______________________________________

On its own it says nothing about freewill -- that's the part the philosopher came up with, and it's different from the scientifically-accepted part, not being backed by experimental/observational evidence.

COMMENT: While relativity does not say anything about freewill directly, there are logical implications to relativity; and those implications are not philosophical, they are physical!

_________________________________________

So personally I find good evidence-based reasons to accept the foundation of relativity...and no good evidence-based reasons to accept the foundation of the philosophical argument.

COMMENT: Again, a "just philosophy" response gets you nowhere. This isn't about philosophy, it is about physics! And, it is the standard view of relativity!

So you took a "suggests" from a scientist (which isn't a fact), and an "I think" argument from a philosopher (also not a fact), and turned it into "it's a fact!"

Really?

I'll stick by my critique. You raised interesting possibilities. None of which have been (and may never be) confirmed. Relativity does not eliminate time nor freewill. It's possible both things might just be subjective human ideas -- and it's possible they're not. But your claim isn't factual, nor evidence-based. It's a supposition.

Once again you are completely immovable, even when faced with scientific facts. I could give you quote after quote on this issue, but apparently nothing will convince you that you are just wrong.

Here is one more quote from David Deutsch, another Oxford theoretical physicist, with exemplary credentials:

"Spacetime is sometimes referred to as the 'block universe', because within it the whole of physical reality--past, present and future-- is laid out once and for all, frozen in a single four dimensional block. Relative to spacetime, nothing ever moves."

"The common-sense view is that we have free will. . . But that is incompatible with spacetime. So according to spacetime physics, the openness of the future is an illusion, and therefore causation and free will can be no more than illusions as well."

(David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality (1997) pp. 268-270)

How many more quotes will it take to convince you?

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again you are completely immovable, even when
> faced with scientific facts.

You didn't give scientific facts.
You gave a "suggests" and a philosophical possibility.
The people you quoted aren't certain, as their language shows.
You should learn something from them.

> I could give you
> quote after quote on this issue, but apparently
> nothing will convince you that you are just
> wrong.

When you don't even bother to parse the quotes you give, which don't use the certainty you assign to them, you're right -- they won't convince me. For good reasons.

> How many more quotes will it take to convince you?

Since they're speculation, and not "scientific facts" as you claim, it's pointless to provide more speculation.

I've agreed they may be right. I suggest you agree they may be wrong, and the FACT is we don't know. Pretending to know when we don't -- whether from you, a scientist, or a philosopher -- isn't something I buy into. Ever.

Here's a good philosophical (I thought you'd like that) summary that covers both sides of the arguments, not just the one you're promoting, which points out the problem areas and unknowns on both sides, and which points out how areas of research in quantum physics could (but hasn't yet) resolve the as-yet-undetermined (pun intended) conclusion:

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/special_relativity.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 03:57PM by ificouldhietokolob.

You didn't give scientific facts.
You gave a "suggests" and a philosophical possibility.
The people you quoted aren't certain, as their language shows.
You should learn something from them.

COMMENT: No scientist is 100 percent certain. But they all stated the point unequivocally as the implications of relativity. How does the language, "So according to spacetime physics, the openness of the future is an illusion, and therefore causation and free will can be no more than illusions as well," suggest uncertainty or equivocation to you?
_________________________________________

When you don't even bother to parse the quotes you give, which don't use the certainty you assign to them, you're right -- they won't convince me. For good reasons.

COMMENT: What good reasons? Presumably, you like time and freewill. Is that your reason? I do too, but unfortunately relativity creates a paradox. So, you tell me, is time and freewill an illusion, or is relativity false, or incomplete. Just don't tell me the problem is just philosophy. That is nonsense.
__________________________________________

> How many more quotes will it take to convince you?

Since they're speculation, and not "scientific facts" as you claim, it's pointless to provide more speculation.

COMMENT: Relativity is based upon established scientific fact. The implications of relativity are drawn from the mathematics of the theory. There is nothing speculative about it--unless you want to speculate that relativity must be false or incomplete because you are committed to a tensed view of time and personal freewill. This later speculation is my view, but it is a tough hill to climb.
___________________________________________

I've agreed they may be right. I suggest you agree they may be wrong, and the FACT is we don't know. Pretending to know when we don't -- whether from you, a scientist, or a philosopher -- isn't something I buy into. Ever.

COMMENT: The implication *is* correct as a matter of mathematics and logic. However, as stated, relativity may be wrong or somehow incomplete. But that was not the point of the OP; and few physicists think it is either.

Just...no.
Read the link I provided.

I looked at the link, and I have read the original works of most of the authors cited, both the philosophers and the physicists. Relativity implies what I have stated in this post. This is not controversial. If you introduce quantum mechanics in the mix, you can question the conclusions of relativity, but that is only because QM and relativity are not compatible. QM is not deterministic. So, one of the theories must give to the other. But that does not in any way solve the problems of relativity which I have outlined, and which are generally accepted as following from that theory.

Now, why don't you break with tradition and offer a SUBSTANTIVE argument as to why I (and the authors I cited) are wrong about relativity, so a genuine discussion can proceed. None of the references in your linked article undermine in the least what I stated here.

Neither of you can change "what must be" and I'm okay with all the 'frozen in my flow' view of life because part of my lock-step mentality is that I believe I have a degree of free will and that's the way the Universe wants it!

Doesn't anyone else see the humor in arguing FOR the 4-dimensional long block view? You're announcing that you have no choice in the matter! Which if true, sort of begs the question, what the Peking Duck is going on?

And does the long block extend back to the Big Bang? Or was there an intervention. And will it extend to the thermal death of a lifeless universe? And what then?

Who/What is in charge?

And then we get to 'purpose', not that nature has shown any proclivity for such.

I too was confused by the 4-dimensional block.

I thought we started with a three block and the prophet just changed it to a two block.

I seem to have missed the four block altogether.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 05:16PM by Lot's Wife.

Nelson saw the truth of Mormon dimensionality. And renamed it Home Centered/Ministering Mentality.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I looked at the link, and I have read the original
> works of most of the authors cited, both the
> philosophers and the physicists. Relativity
> implies what I have stated in this post.

I, the author of that page, and many others -- including physicists and philosophers -- disagree.

> This is not controversial.

I, the author of that page, and many others -- including physicists and philosophers -- disagree.

> If you introduce quantum
> mechanics in the mix, you can question the
> conclusions of relativity, but that is only
> because QM and relativity are not compatible.

No, it's because discoveries in QM point out that not everything in relativity is settled, or that one particular mathematical interpretation is "right."

> QM
> is not deterministic. So, one of the theories must
> give to the other.

Or they both could be incorrect or incomplete. Or one could be correct in some ways, one could be correct in other ways.

The point is: we don't know yet.
Which is exactly what I pointed out.

> But that does not in any way
> solve the problems of relativity which I have
> outlined, and which are generally accepted as
> following from that theory.

They're not "generally accepted" as facts. People are arguing over them. They're not settled. Which is exactly what I pointed out. Your false certainty is misplaced.

> Now, why don't you break with tradition and offer
> a SUBSTANTIVE argument as to why I (and the
> authors I cited) are wrong about relativity, so a
> genuine discussion can proceed.

I just did.
> None of the
> references in your linked article undermine in the
> least what I stated here.

They undermine it completely.
You can disagree -- but you should stop with the insulting notion that I haven't presented counter-arguments, or that it's "generally accepted," since neither is the case. These are things we don't know the answers to, and they're being argued about. We don't know. Please stop pretending we do.

You can disagree -- but you should stop with the insulting notion that I haven't presented counter-arguments, or that it's "generally accepted," since neither is the case. These are things we don't know the answers to, and they're being argued about. We don't know. Please stop pretending we do.

COMMENT: I will stop with the "insulting comments" (which to my mind are more incredulous that insulting) when you offer something substantive to back up your claims beyond a passive link coupled with bare statements that do not accurately represent what the link says. So, go ahead and use your link if you would like, and tell me why relativity does NOT imply a block universe and the absence of freewill. That is what this post is about. It is not about other theories (e.g. QM) that might treat the universe, time and freewill differently. If you want to go in that direction, fine--but give me an argument, hopefully with a couple of citations, and maybe even a quote or two.

I'll end the discussion, since either you didn't read the link I provided, or you are ignoring it -- not to mention ignoring all the references and arguments by the people cited in the link that disagree with your false certainty. That being the case, further discussion is pointless.

I'll just encourage you to read something other than things that agree with some notion you have, and to notice that the folks you like to quote don't share the certainty you seem to have. They're arguing for what they think might be the case -- they're not stating it's factual or even settled. That's how good scientists operate (not so sure about philosophers, false certainty seems to run rampant in that crowd, which isn't surprising given their conclusions are rarely if ever evidence-based, and much of the field is sophisticated hand-waving).

Try reading about the Cortes-Smolin model of energetic causal sets. Or Ellis' Growing Block Universe. Or any of the dozens of other ideas put forth by physicists as mathematical solutions that agree with relativity but don't buy into the block universe/deterministic math you claim is "generally accepted." Or attend a conference like one held at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, which discussed these very topics, and whose very premise was that none of this is known, settled, or "generally accepted." They'll expand your mind.

Have a nice day, Henry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 07:46PM by ificouldhietokolob.

"Try reading about the Cortes-Smolin model of energetic causal sets. Or Ellis' Growing Block Universe. Or any of the dozens of other ideas put forth by physicists as mathematical solutions that agree with relativity but don't buy into the block universe/deterministic math you claim is "generally accepted." Or attend a conference like one held at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, which discussed these very topics, and whose very premise was that none of this is known, settled, or "generally accepted." They'll expand your mind."

COMMENT: I am familiar with these and other models of general relativity that address these issues. (After all, I quoted Smolin) However, these are all models that attempt to overcome the standard block universe implication that is inherent in relativity. They are not mainstream alternatives, and all have problems of their own. Moreover, they are either deterministic or probabilistic. No such model accommodates freewill.

It's nice to see you can Google!

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/news/time-comes-first-cort-s-and-smolin-win-cosmology-prize

Have a nice day, yourself.

There's a vast difference between the first proposed math model to come from relativity, and an *inherent* math model.

The "determinist block universe" is the former. Not the latter. :)

There's a vast difference between the first proposed math model to come from relativity, and an *inherent* math model.

The "determinist block universe" is the former. Not the latter. :)

COMMENT: O.K. I will agree with this statement--to a point. But, the first [Minkowski] model was not just a "proposed" model, it was a model that Einstein himself adopted [although reluctantly at first], and which became the dominant model based upon the conceptual and mathematical relationship between space and time as established by Einstein in special relativity, taking into account other accepted and fixed scientific laws, like the conservation of energy. This is evident from my quotations. In order to "fix" the problem of time, while maintaining Einstein's equations, a radical reformulation must be made to other parameters. In Smolin's case, time becomes "fundamental" and absolute such that the laws of the universe themselves evolve in absolute time and are not fixed. That is a radical departure from both Einstein's views, and the views of physics generally, which presuppose generally stable universal laws, and treat time as relative.

Also, remember Hie, that your first response was to say that the problems of relativity were all a matter of philosophy, and as such was essentially a pseudo problem. Now, at least, you seem to be acknowledging that this is a problem in physics, not philosophy.

Finally, I will readily concede that I am not an expert on relativity, not by any stretch. Moreover, as I have always said, I believe in freewill, and reject determinism. As such, the views I have presented here do not reflect my personal views. As such, I am open to views like Smolin's that attempt to solve the problem through speculations and interpretations that are not mainstream and speculative. Note, also that Smolin's cosmological view has been evolving since at least 1992, and are well known in the scientific community. So far, they have been appreciated, but not generally accepted. Besides their speculative nature, they present their own problems. In short, they remain a fringe view.

Thanks for the discussion.

I've seen some thinking and math on time being another of our illusions of consciousness. A sort of mental map 9f the second law of thermodynamics.

And how time trnaforms to mathematically imaginary values as you traverse abck before the big bang according to the hawking hartle state theory.

I wouldn't call it proven, but it has interesting ramifications.

And I also think the contracausal form of free will is similarly illusory. But unproven.

It will be interesting to see what evidence develops and where it leads.

I'm a fan of The River of Time analogy.

You awoke to life somewhere and somewhen in the River of Time. Whether or not you or some controlling power was involved in selecting your point of entry can make for discussion, but the fact of your point of entry doesn't change.

Free Will to a Somalian baby born in a teeming refugee camp isn't the same Free Will you and I possessed at birth.

I say the focus of the River of Time analogy is that knowing a point of entry may allow for predictions regarding one's progress in the River of Time, but such knowledge offers no meaningful guarantees.

Whether or not you believe in supernatural influence, character is what counts.

I'll stop for now.

A river runs through me.

What--your bathroom is out of order?

LW: I know this isn't your area of expertise, but come on; surely this post deserves an intelligent response beyond bathroom humor!

Remember, it's all reprogrammed, she did what she was destined to do. No matter what happens,it was meant to happen.

Hamlet's soliloquy is reduced to "To be is to be."

And not to be is going to happen.

Darn linking problem! ...wrong place



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 05:50PM by elderolddog.

Henry,

It is an area I know reasonably well. I agree with Hie. No one believes that the theory of relativity is "correct." It is simply the best explanation that we presently have. That it is "incorrect," or at least "incomplete," is demonstrated by the contradiction between relativity and QM.

I apologize for the humor. Perhaps sometimes I try too hard.

LW



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2018 12:04AM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What--your bathroom is out of order?

If that was the case, it would be, "A river runs through my pants."

:)

Here is a thought experiment that might help readers, like Hie, understand this post.

If we ask, "What is the distance across the length of the Milky Way galaxy, a Google search will reveal it to be approximately 100,000-120,000 light years. Let's take 100k for the sake of simplicity.

Now, we can further ask, how long would it take for a photon of light to transverse this distance. (Think of a flashlight directed from one end of the galaxy to the other.) Also, we have to assume that there are no intervening forces affecting the photon, and that it is traveling in a vacuum.)

Well, if the Milky Way is 100,000 lightyears across, that means it must take 100,000 years for the photon to travel across that distance. So, if you have an appropriate clock on earth and started it off at time x in accordance with the photon leaving on its journey, the clock would register 100,000 years when the photon arrived at the other end of the Milky Way galaxy. So far so good. But here is the problem.

Suppose the clock was not on earth, but was a massless clock (you need a little imagination here) attached to the photon itself, but without affecting its journey in any way. What would the clock say at the end of the journey now, i.e. how much time would it register, when the journey was completed?

Answer: ZERO! The photon would transverse the entire galaxy in no recorded time! How can that be explained?

The only way to explain it is by considering the equations of space-time together, in a block fashion. The fact that a "moving" photon can traverse a finite space, traveling at a finite speed (the speed of light is fast, but still finite) and reach a "destination" in zero time, can only be explained by removing "time" as a serious temporal parameter. That is exactly what relativity does, and forces on the theory a block universe. That is why the term "lightyear" refers to a distance, rather than a time!)

Once you have a block universe, with time being sacrificed, determinism follows because everything, including all movement is rendered static, along with the equations that describe such "movement." (Movement is not something moving through time, it is a "worldline" defined by an equation.) With determinism, freewill falls as well, as noted by the David Deutsch quote above. After all, if everything is determined, there can be no freewill!

But we all believe in Einstein, and relativity, RIGHT?

Henry, with all due respect, that photon with the massless clock had obviously been drinking.

Doesn't this remind you all of the timeless Jim Croce song, "If I could shot time in a barrel"?

I dunno about photons, but molecules love being drunk. You can see by their random walk. They throw up sometimes, so it’s called Brownian motion. I just want to hear their drinking songs.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a thought experiment that might help
> readers, like Hie, understand this post.
>
> If we ask, "What is the distance across the length
> of the Milky Way galaxy, a Google search will
> reveal it to be approximately 100,000-120,000
> light years. Let's take 100k for the sake of
> simplicity.
>
> Now, we can further ask, how long would it take
> for a photon of light to transverse this distance.
> (Think of a flashlight directed from one end of
> the galaxy to the other.) Also, we have to assume
> that there are no intervening forces affecting the
> photon, and that it is traveling in a vacuum.)
>
> Well, if the Milky Way is 100,000 lightyears
> across, that means it must take 100,000 years for
> the photon to travel across that distance. So, if
> you have an appropriate clock on earth and started
> it off at time x in accordance with the photon
> leaving on its journey, the clock would register
> 100,000 years when the photon arrived at the other
> end of the Milky Way galaxy. So far so good. But
> here is the problem.
>
> Suppose the clock was not on earth, but was a
> massless clock (you need a little imagination
> here) attached to the photon itself, but without
> affecting its journey in any way. What would the
> clock say at the end of the journey now, i.e. how
> much time would it register, when the journey was
> completed?
>
> Answer: ZERO! The photon would transverse the
> entire galaxy in no recorded time! How can that
> be explained?

Kolob.

> The only way to explain it is by considering the
> equations of space-time together, in a block
> fashion. The fact that a "moving" photon can
> traverse a finite space, traveling at a finite
> speed (the speed of light is fast, but still
> finite) and reach a "destination" in zero time,
> can only be explained by removing "time" as a
> serious temporal parameter. That is exactly what
> relativity does, and forces on the theory a block
> universe. That is why the term "lightyear" refers
> to a distance, rather than a time!)
>
> Once you have a block universe, with time being
> sacrificed, determinism follows because
> everything, including all movement is rendered
> static, along with the equations that describe
> such "movement." (Movement is not something moving
> through time, it is a "worldline" defined by an
> equation.) With determinism, freewill falls as
> well, as noted by the David Deutsch quote above.
> After all, if everything is determined, there can
> be no freewill!

I don't believe in freewill. It isn't free and I'm not willing.

> But we all believe in Einstein, and relativity,
> RIGHT?

Believe him, yes after observations confirmed him and he received the ghost of time. Believe in him, no.

No, we don't "all believe in Einstein and relativity." I think most of us accept Einstein as a genius and relativity as an excellent theory that even he believed was incomplete and would need to be modified.

Whether the eventual revisions will affirm or negate the notions about time and causality that you propose is not clear. So while I have a sneaking suspicion, a fear, that free agency is illusory, I don't have great confidence in that inclination.

No, we don't "all believe in Einstein and relativity." I think most of us accept Einstein as a genius and relativity as an excellent theory that even he believed was incomplete and would need to be modified.

COMMENT: Relativity is not just "an excellent theory" by the standards of modern science. It has been established by experiment to a remarkable degree. Yet, you're right. Einstein himself thought it was provisional. However, given the nature of its confirmation, it is hard to see how a revision would solve the problems noted in this post. But, there are efforts to that end, as I noted. Smolin's book is one such effort to salvage time from relativity.
_________________________________________

Whether the eventual revisions will affirm or negate the notions about time and causality that you propose is not clear. So while I have a sneaking suspicion, a fear, that free agency is illusory, I don't have great confidence in that inclination.

COMMENT: I think that both time and freewill must be taken as given, and that any scientific theory that questions these staples in human life must be mistaken to that extent. Call it faith, but I think in this regard common sense must be the default position until science "proves" otherwise. Relativity does not reach the point of proof, but it seems dangerously close!

It's important, I think, to distinguish between the practical and the theoretical. Yes, in a practical sense we all accept time and free will as true even though we would not know if we were wrong.

That acceptance does not, however, need to extend to intellectual discussion and speculation. In that realm I feel more comfortable in the gray area, recognizing that what I perceive as practically true may not be actually true.

And I do not think that relativity gets us close to proof, for the gap between that theory and quantum theory is vast. It seems likely that whatever theory ends up bridging that gap will transform our understanding of the universe as fundamentally as the revolution from Newtonian physics to Einstein's physics.

The photon ties into panpsychism, in my mind. Its wave function traverses vast distances, in zero time in its experience, in all directions. Conscious observation collapses the wave function so that nothing else sees the photon that I see. A photon could just as easily be absorbed by a moon rock, with the rock having a conscious timeless interaction with the photon across interstellar space.

I agree with the Block Universe in principle but draw slightly different conclusions. If the BU is the static part, I must be the dynamic part. There’s any number of things I could have done last night. Only one of those things “happened” in my experience because I am an infinite multiverse. We are all infinite multiverses.

“unless there is a reality outside of the universe, which he would certainly deny.”

Well yes, Einstein did deny the possibility of quantum entanglement. He got that one wrong, but if he hadn’t then how much would his thinking have changed? Page and Wootters allow for an observer outside of time. It could be that I am the timeless observer while at the same time being in time. God is an epiphenomenon of me and every living creature.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 06:27PM by babyloncansuckit.

The photon ties into panpsychism, in my mind. Its wave function traverses vast distances, in zero time in its experience, in all directions. Conscious observation collapses the wave function so that nothing else sees the photon that I see. A photon could just as easily be absorbed by a moon rock, with the rock having a conscious timeless interaction with the photon across interstellar space.

COMMENT: Well, O.K. But it was only intended as a thought experiment about relativity. If you want to add quantum effects you solve some problems, but create others. But I do not want to get bogged down here with all of that.
__________________________________________

I agree with the Block Universe in principle but draw slightly different conclusions. If the BU is the static part, I must be the dynamic part. There’s any number of things I could have done last night. Only one of those things “happened” in my experience because I am an infinite multiverse. We are all infinite multiverses.

COMMENT: Well, since you are part of the universe, you are part of the static part under relativity. However, it is interesting to consider whether a dynamic consciousness (without the body) could be transported into some random space-time location (time travel) and somehow have a normal meaningful experience. Of course, relativity does not deal with such "transmigration of souls," leaving such to science fiction.
______________________________________

“unless there is a reality outside of the universe, which he would certainly deny.”

Well yes, Einstein did deny the possibility of quantum entanglement. He got that one wrong, but if he hadn’t then how much would his thinking have changed? Page and Wootters allow for an observer outside of time. It could be that I am the timeless observer while at the same time being in time. God is an epiphenomenon of me and every living creature.

COMMENT: QM, even with a multiverse, does not lie outside of time. The wave function evolves in time (presumably), and collapses in time (required), which is one reason relativity and QM are incompatible.

“QM, even with a multiverse, does not lie outside of time.”

Therein lies the rub. What is time and is it real? Is it an emergent property of some subspace? I mean, if space is expanding then something might be spewing out time. Where is that time coming from? I think an eternal realm where time does not exist. It’s like raindrops of time falling into an ocean. The ocean is big and the rain isn’t detected in a scientific sense. The sky in the metaphor is the eternal realm. The droplets are moments of consciousness.

I think conscious being creates time. This could explain the strange red shifts (I mean the stars whose spectra fly in the face of Hubble) observed in the universe. Time is not homogeneous. Lumpy time, not dark matter.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 08:29PM by babyloncansuckit.

Someone asked Einstein once what did his mother do to help stimulate his mind as a youngster. His answer was that she read to him fairy tales. Lots of them. That did more to stimulate his imagination and wonder than anything else he could think of as a child.

Add that she believed in him and his potential. When one of his early teachers told her that Einstein was of low IQ with possible learning disability, it was his mother who became his strongest advocate. She knew her child better than that teacher did. Einstein proved him wrong many times over.

It was Einstein who believed in the space/time continuum. The past/present and future are always with us. If he's right about that, then he's dancing among the stars while we play in the sandbox.

I wonder if it was the order in which she read the fairy tales to him that was key?

Or might he have been modestly giving praise where none was due?

"Photographs of (Einstein's) brain show an enlarged Sylvian fissure. In 1999, further analysis by a team at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario revealed that his parietal operculum region in the inferior frontal gyrus in the frontal lobe of the brain was vacant. Also absent was part of a bordering region called the lateral sulcus (Sylvian fissure).
"Researchers at McMaster University speculated that the vacancy may have enabled neurons in this part of his brain to communicate better. 'This unusual brain anatomy...[missing part of the Sylvian fissure]... may explain why Einstein thought the way he did,' said Professor Sandra Witelson who led the research published in The Lancet.

"This study was based on photographs of the whole brain made at autopsy in 1955 by Harvey and not a direct examination of the brain. Einstein himself claimed that he thought visually rather than verbally." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_brain


I'd say it makes a lot more sense that Einstein's brain was 'special'. Oh, sure, hearing fairy tales could be the explanation, but how many of us as kids either had them read to us or read them ourselves, and here we are on RfM, happily doodle-flapping against mormonism instead of solving the world's math problems...

He is also widely believed to have been dyslexic, which matters because the "wiring" in dyslexic brains is almost a precondition for expertise in certain kinds of theoretical physics. Newton, Einstein, Niels Bohr, Steven Hawking: all dyslexics.

In other words, you are probably right that the peculiar structure and "wiring" of his brain were critical to Einstein's genius.

But, but, but...What about mom and the Fairy Tales!!??!!

Einstein was not kidding about his mother's contributions to the way he was raised. He is also attributed with saying that he sees the world as though everything is a miracle, where some can't see anything miraculous. Einstein is credited as having said:

If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be very intelligent, read them more fairy tales.

He also didn't attribute his genius to his brain size.. His brain was stolen when he died, against his wishes to be studied. His son told the pathologist at the time that no matter how much he studied his father's brain he would never understand the genius that was Einstein. That there was much more to his father than the sum of his parts. His genius wasn't going to be found in dissecting his brain. It was in how he lived. His inspiration, his raw intellect, his curiousity, would never be deduced by studying his brain.

"Einstein didn’t want his brain or body to be studied; he didn’t want to be worshipped. “He had left behind specific instructions regarding his remains: cremate them, and scatter the ashes secretly in order to discourage idolaters,” writes Brian Burrell in his 2005 book, Postcards from the Brain Museum.

But Harvey took the brain anyway, without permission from Einstein or his family. “When the fact came to light a few days later, Harvey managed to solicit a reluctant and retroactive blessing from Einstein’s son, Hans Albert, with the now-familiar stipulation that any investigation would be conducted solely in the interest of science,” Burrell writes.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2014/04/21/the-tragic-story-of-how-einsteins-brain-was-stolen-and-wasnt-even-special/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2018 08:02PM by Amyjo.

Einstein couldn't have attributed his genius to his brain's size or structure for the simple reason that he never saw it. Nor could his son, looking at that brain, understand how it functioned.

Science understands a lot more now; enough to explain a great deal without reference to fairy tales.

And I say that as someone who read a huge volume of Fairy Tales to my own kids. I do believe it made a difference, particularly in understanding meter and rhymes, getting a head start on Shakespeare and the development of writing skills. But despite Einstein's opinions, I have never read any studies suggesting that reading stories to kids per se enhances mathematical ability.

It's curiosity that develops scientists And creativity. Lots of creativity; inventiveness, and a high IQ which Einstein certainly possessed. Without the curiosity instilled in him at an early age, the sense of wonder and awe in the world around him, it is doubtful he would have developed as well as he did.

It was what he attributed to his mother in that she instilled that sense of wonder and awe in him, and it began from reading to him in his formative years.

For him it was the right amount of stimuli needed for his developing brain, and his mother was a strong advocate for him when he needed one growing up.

There is no objective evidence of any of that.

Einstein himself credited his sense of wonder, awe, and curiosity to his success in science. To be a scientist requires a natural curiosity, creativity and inventiveness. His mother's influence in her young son's education and development has been documented by both Einstein and biographers.

"[A]ll scientists are united by their relentless curiosity and systematic approach to assuaging it."

It's a given in the field of science which Einstein is still a shining star.

https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Einstein himself credited his sense of wonder,
> awe, and curiosity to his success in science. To
> be a scientist requires a natural curiosity,
> creativity and inventiveness. His mother's
> influence in her young son's education and
> development has been documented by both Einstein
> and biographers.

All reasonable. But I am still waiting for evidence that familiarity with fairy tales enhances one's mathematical and physical abilities.




> "ll scientists are united by their relentless
> curiosity and systematic approach to assuaging
> it."

As a general principle, that is certainly the common belief. However, it has nothing to do with fairy tales.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Einstein believed it did.

He was gifted no doubt. Without nurture and stimulation who knows how different he'd have turned out?

He was imbued with intuition, to go with his mathematical abilities. He was constantly daydreaming, which interfered with the practicalities of everyday life.

That was the scientist in him as much as the man.

So you are sticking with the notion that fairy tales produced the physicist?

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to return to solid ground, stating that he had a great mother whom he credited for much of his intellectual curiosity but not going further and acting as if his brain were not special?

It’s more likely his mother instilled in him a sense of mystery and adventure. Those little mysteries may be the key to the next big thing. Let others sweep them under the rug, but it’s more fun to investigate.

I think you're spot on there, babylon.

> Einstein was not kidding about his mother's
> contributions to the way he was raised

I doubt that he was kidding. I think most of us who have been raised by mothers would say the same thing, and with the same sincerity. Meaning that of course his mother contributed to the way he was raised.

But I would not associate her contributions as being determinative with the results of his life.

In addition, not that it means anything substantive, there is no hard evidence that Einstein ever said, much less wrote your quoted aphorism about fairy tales.

"Photographs Division, Reproduction Number LC-USZ62-60242 (b&w film copy neg.)

Albert Einstein, the physicist behind the Theory of General Relativity and other crucial theoretical advances of the 20th century, is often considered one of the greatest scientists of all time. But did you know that he also liked folklore?

At least, he did according to some commentators. A direct quotation, often attributed to Einstein, runs:

If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.

You can find this item all over the internet, on blogs, tumblrs, quotation sites, and those captioned images that have come to be known as “memes.” Sometimes it’s a bare quotation, other times it’s embellished with physical details of the gestures Einstein made or what he looked like at the time.

Because of the quotation’s popularity, and because of its association with folklore, members of the AFC staff have been asked more than once about whether Einstein really said this. Our analysis suggests that the story is itself folklore."

And it's very pleasant folklore. And at his base is something a bit more substantive. Here's a positively attributed quote to the great man:

"This school with its liberal spirit and teachers with a simple earnestness that did not rely on any external authority, made an unforgettable impression on me. In comparing it with six years schooling at an authoritarian German Gymnasium, I was made acutely aware how far superior an education that stresses independent action and personal responsibility is to one that relies on drill, external authority and ambition." If you want to put Fairy Tales into this sentiment, they fit.

I suggest thinking holistically, and not spend so much time trying to defend a castle in the sky that ultimately is unlivable.

The other night I watched a TV documentary on the latest venture to the moon.

Both men said they felt a "kind of spiritual feeling" while out in space. I found this very interesting.

Polly.

I get a "spiritual feeling" whenever I hear Bach's Cello Suites or Handel's Giulio Cesare, whenever I climb the Rockies or walk along a cold beach.

There is power and majesty in nature and art, and I personally believe there is no need for a supernatural being to produce that.

The inevitable and entirely predictable direction of this thread is all the proof needed that free will is an illusion. ;)

Someone has been through the drill before, methinks, and is alert enough to remember.

"It's not a commentary on free will when smelling smoke causes someone to pull the fire. alarm."
--Judic West, Chief Fire Warden, Sussex Downs & Nettles