Customer Reviews

Time, Tense, and Causation

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Cooking Einstein's Book, February 18, 2006

Reviewer: Charles Gidley Wheeler from Tetbury, UK

Many theologians, and some contemporary philosophers, reject Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity because it makes nonsense of the notion of a God who stands apart from his creation, and deflates the supposed possibility of a mind-independent reality, absolute space and time, and the simultaneity of events. For this reason, it is seen by some as important to present arguments that will persuade us back to the classical, pre-relativistic view of time. This, if I have understood his book, is Michael Tooley's project. Tooley argues that the concept of absolute simultaneity is definable within any version of STR that meets two conditions: (a) that space-time is not viewed as being reducible to spatiotemporal events and (b) that the theory incoporates the idea of causal relations. Given these two conditions, he claims to be able to modify standard formulations of STR 'to produce theories with the desired entailement', i.e., a tensed, indeterminate view of time. Tooley claims to modify STR in three steps. First, the assumption that the one-way speed of light is the same in all inertial systems is 'jettisoned'. Second, additional postulates are added that entail that the relation of being in the same location at different times and the relation of absolute simultaneity exist in our world. Third, light is said to have a fixed velocity relative to absolute space. On this basis, Tooley claims, 'One no longer needs the postulate that the measured, average round-trip speed of light is the same in all directions within all inertial systems.' Tooley goes on to claim that absolute space-time points exist as contingent entities, and that the statement 'Two events, E and F, are absolutely simultaneous' means the same as 'E and F are simultaneous relative to some time frame of reference that is at rest with respect to absolute space, that is, such that no part is ever in different locations at different times.' Tooley declares that his goal is 'to defend a tensed account of the nature of time, and, specifically, one according to which, while the past and present are real, the future is not'; and he sets out to construct a theory 'which is closely related to the Special Theory of Relativity and which does entail that events stand in relations of absolute simultaneity. There seem to me to be four fatal fault lines that run from beginning to end of Tooley's thesis. First: Einstein was able to develop the Special Theory of Relativity only when he had abandoned the notion of absolute simultaneity, so I do not see how STR can be 'reformulated' to accommodate it. Second: By appealing to notions of absolute space and time to defend his absolutist view of time, Tooley begs the question. Third: Tooley's belief in an 'average round-trip speed of light' necessarily rests on a prior belief in the possibility of a burst of energy issuing from one absolutely stationary point to another absolutely stationery point and then 'back' to the first. Fourth, and perhaps worst of all, when Tooley refers to a 'desired entailment' he is blatantly putting the cart before the horse He seems to be saying, effectively, that because he doesn't like the implications of STR, he will juggle the theory in order to achieve the implication he prefers. This seems to me to be a most unphilosophical way of proceeding.

Tooley's arguments are convoluted and difficult to follow. I do not think they hold water.

A Good Boy Tomorrow: Memoirs of A Fundamentalist Upbringing

Basic Flying Instruction: A Comprehensive Introduction to Western Philosophy