Abstract
The second assertion constitutes a version of the theory of time. So far as I know, criticism of Griinbaum's argument has always focused on (2). Michael Friedman ([1]), for example, sees no reason why we must adopt a causal theory of time or, for that matter, any other reductionist analysis of temporal relations. Even (1) is true, he argues, it does not follow that there is no fact to the matter whether two events are simultaneous relative to a particular inertial observer. I am entirely sympathetic with Friedman's scepticism concerning (2). But even while avoiding debate over conventionalism and causal theories of time, one has grounds for rejecting Griinbaum's argument. On what seems to me a natural reading, assertion (1) is false. In a straight forward sense, the relative simultaneity relation of special relativity is uniquely definable from the causal connectibility relation. It is rather ironic. To the extent that one is committed to the if clause of (2) one
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.