Alex and Kyle,

I'm not a physicist so I cannot debate the scientific or mathematical merits of one view or another. However, knowing what I know of this debate, I can sympathize with both of you from a philosophical point of view.

I see Alex's point of view in that many presentists (those who do not believe in an existing past and an existing future) reject time as a valid dimension. They will point to the general relativity equations that involve time as only something that admits time as a coordinate. As I understand it, in quantum theory the Hamiltonian is time-dependent, and this is perhaps the most fundamental theory we have.

Then, there are those who believe like Einstein that time is another dimension (called four-dimensionalists or eternalists in the philosophy of science). Hawking, I believe, has a static view of time, and therefore he might be classified as an 'eternalist'.

Fact is, we don't have a thorough understanding of time. So, the debate is much more philosophical than anything else. Perhaps I've spoken out of turn?

Warm regards, Harv

• You GO Harv... - smartguy - October 10, 2001 - 15:29 UTC
  • In physics time is a coordinate, not a dimension. - alexander - October 10, 2001 - 16:34 UTC
    • Time travel? - harvey1 - October 10, 2001 - 16:54 UTC
      • No. Logical contradiction. - alexander - October 10, 2001 - 18:18 UTC
        • ??? - harvey1 - October 10, 2001 - 18:47 UTC
          • Time travel is a logical contradiction (thus impossible). - alexander - October 10, 2001 - 18:57 UTC
            • Justification is in order - harvey1 - October 10, 2001 - 19:08 UTC
              • That is, closed time curves (or CTC's) - harvey1 - October 10, 2001 - 19:27 UTC
              • The paper must have major flaw in it. - alexander - October 10, 2001 - 19:44 UTC
                • It's not a bet - harvey1 - October 10, 2001 - 19:48 UTC
                  • Bending time by cosmic strings (2-D gravity). - alexander - October 10, 2001 - 20:24 UTC
                    • Yes, but... - harvey1 - October 10, 2001 - 20:35 UTC
                      • Should I find out for you why this does not work too? - alexander - October 10, 2001 - 21:02 UTC
                        • Bah - stormcrow - October 10, 2001 - 21:47 UTC
                          • Hear, hear! (n/t) - luis_hamburgh - October 10, 2001 - 23:36 UTC
                          • Laws do not change. - alexander - October 11, 2001 - 20:01 UTC
                            • I'm not talking geometry - stormcrow - October 11, 2001 - 21:13 UTC
                              • But it follows from math. Math can't change. - alexander - October 11, 2001 - 23:07 UTC
                        • I can't pay much - harvey1 - October 10, 2001 - 21:53 UTC
                          • Correction: Kip Thorne (oops!) - harvey1 - October 10, 2001 - 21:59 UTC
                          • Anyone can make mistake. - alexander - October 11, 2001 - 23:41 UTC
                      • My two cents!! - doctordick - October 11, 2001 - 14:57 UTC
                        • Clarification - harvey1 - October 11, 2001 - 15:37 UTC
                          • If I can be clear. - doctordick - October 11, 2001 - 20:37 UTC
                        • Thank you....this helps me to express what I wanted to tell alex - smartguy - October 11, 2001 - 16:56 UTC