|
|
|
|
|
|
by tel
3974 days ago
|
|
|
The mathematical models of space and time suggest that there might be a philosophical stance where "spacetime" itself is a physical object. What this means, really, is that one might want to talk about situations where two choices of spacetimes differ in configuration. The problem with this POV is that "internally" we're only able to perceive certain things and, indeed, these things are ignorant to changes in spacetime configuration. This is exactly the power of this mathematical formulation. So the Hole is a thought experiment where you construct two differently configured spacetimes, ones you might want to distinguish between, and then show that the perceptions of these two cannot differ in meaningful ways. And then one should question as to whether or not they want to believe with any fervor that spacetime has a physical sense. |
|
|
As I read that, I felt it was a bit too strong - isn't the issue whether spacetime have an independent physical sense? I went back to the article, and I see that it starts "What is space? What is time? Do they exist independently of the things and processes in them?" As the argument starts with a manifold of events, an answer of 'no' to the third question seems reasonable to me (though I realize, from experience, that that's probably because I haven't fully grasped the argument.)
As far as I can tell, the article doesn't indicate any particular problem with the 'no' answer.
In the argument in section 10.3.3, don't you have to accept the reality of K(t) in order to see a paradox?