Re:Do we really travel through time with the speed of light?
by guerrilla on Monday August 31, 2020 @08:58AM
(#24330984)
> If so, I don't know what.
Like the things I mentioned. Please read more carefully.
> Anyway, I think you're implicitly privileging one abstraction, called an "interpretation" over "just the plain math".
One doesn't need to privilege one over the other to ask what the math is about.
> Why is an "interpretation" a real thing and not the equations?
Nobody thinks the math is not "a real thing." They want to know what the math is about.
If so, I don't know what.
Anyway, I think you're implicitly privileging one abstraction, called an "interpretation" over "just the plain math". But if they're equivalent, what is real about choosing one or the other, let alone between different "interpretations"?
Why is an "interpretation" a real thing and not the equations?
This seems structurally similar to a classic theological argument between theist and atheist; ok, you believe in a god, but why that particular god? And if there's no reason for a particular god, why bother with any?