What if the Bohmian model turned out to be correct?

[Demystifier]

You are just saying things like "there is no time flow" ... and I don't see any reasons to accept such statements. So far they look just as your point of view.

First, it is not only my point of view. Such a view of time is actually the mainstream point of view. I am surprised that you don't see ANY reason to accept such statements. If the message of the theory of relativity is that there is no big difference between space and time, such a view of time is quite natural.

I am not saying that there are no reasons to be skeptical about such interpretation of time, there certainly are. What I am saying is that I cannot accept that you don't see ANY reason for such an interpretation.

 

[akhmeteli]

First, it is not only my point of view. Such a view of time is actually the mainstream point of view.

I am not aware of that being a mainstream and I cannot agree that it is without strong arguments confirming that.

I am surprised that you don't see ANY reason to accept such statements. If the message of the theory of relativity is that there is no big difference between space and time, such a view of time is quite natural.

The problem is with the "if". The sign in the metric tensor makes a huge difference between space and time, so the theory of relativity definitely does not state that there is "no big difference". Again, if there is an abstract possibility that it is so, that does not mean that it is so. In my book, an abstract possibility is not a reason to accept it.

I am not saying that there are no reasons to be skeptical about such interpretation of time, there certainly are. What I am saying is that I cannot accept that you don't see ANY reason for such an interpretation.

I did not say "I don't see any reason for such an interpretation". As far as I understand, your reasoning is that if you cut (or disturb) the trajectory by the measurement, its continuation disappears, whether it is in the past or in the future. That far I can see. But that may be a reason for you, but not for me. As far as I am concerned, this is just your statement, and, with all due respect, I am under no obligation to accept it. What I said was "I don't see any reason to accept it". And I really don't. The reasoning above just does not impress me at all. Actually, if I agreed with your logics, I would have to suspect that the solid trajectory in the past should also become unphysical after the measurement. Indeed, how is it better than the dashed trajectory? But that is too much for me. Again, it may well be that you are right, and I am wrong. All I'm saying is your argumentation does not seem convincing to me.

 

[Demystifier]

I am not aware of that being a mainstream and I cannot agree that it is without strong arguments confirming that.

I certainly cannot convince you that it is the mainstream. I can give you a list of well-known books that explain time in that way, but it would not be a proof. You can only convince youself by yourself, by reading a lot of stuff on that issue. If you do not read a lot about the nature of time, you cannot know what is the mainstream view and what is not.

I've been reading a lot about the nature of time (and the origin of time arrow), so I can tell what is the mainstream. I guess you spent more time by reading something else.

I suggest to continue that discussion here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=184168

 

[akhmeteli]

I certainly cannot convince you that it is the mainstream. I can give you a list of well-known books that explain time in that way, but it would not be a proof. You can only convince youself by yourself, by reading a lot of stuff on that issue. If you do not read a lot about the nature of time, you cannot know what is the mainstream view and what is not.

I've been reading a lot about the nature of time (and the origin of time arrow), so I can tell what is the mainstream. I guess you spent more time by reading something else.

I suggest to continue that discussion here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=184168

Demystifier, I believe the thread that you mentioned relates to general relativity. I readily admit that I know next to nothing about general relativity. Furthermore, I won't be able to learn more about it in the next few years (or ever), so I am afraid I am not in a position to take part in that discussion. However, as far as I know (and I think I should ask a friend of mine, who's a specialist in general relativity, to make sure) , there is no consensus on whether time travel is more than an abstract possibility, moreover, the yet-to-be-developed quantum gravity can dramatically change the status of this issue (if you disagree with these two statements, please advise), and that means that I don't have to accept any time-travel-based arguments. Sorry.

 

[Demystifier]

OK then, I have no further arguments.