However, that doesn't mean that we need to defend it as absolute truth either. If there are philosophical problems, we can deal with them by denying the problem, offering differing interpretations (i.e., versus the standard formulations), new physics, or simply leave the questions unanswered and continue to on. I think the last option is more preferred than the latter choice - that is, when we are sweeping dirt under the carpet.

All and all, I don't see any major differences in our view. I think we are more or less quibly about this specific philosophical problem introduced by Barrett. I prefer to just accept this connundrum as evidence that SR is an approximation, whereas I gather that you think this thought experiment should just be ingored as philosophical fluff.

Warm regards, Harv

• Correction - harvey1 - November 29, 2002 - 05:42 UTC