if someone snapped their fingers and instantly moved all objects to their 100 years
hence positions, it would not be the future
I beg to differ. Everybody would remember the motion having taken place; the history of that 100 years would be recorded. There is no way in principle to experimentally distinguish this occurrence from the normal progression of time by 100 years, so I claim they are the same.
There is a nice philosophical thought-experiment that points to the opposite position:
Suppose that some phenomena occurs (purple light is the original I believe) now and then in various places in the universe. Whereever it happens, a day later that region is “frozen in time” for an “external” week. The phenomenon then occurs everywhere. There is no way to tell whether a week of time has passed or not, but it’s a shorter theory, a better compressed description, that says that it has been frozen for an external week in this circumstance, that a week of time passed that no one experienced.
The similarities with snapping fingers to move objects to their future positions should be clear.
Even including Harry Potter and his sudden ability to move particular objects discontinuously 100 years into the future by snapping his fingers, my claim stands.
The point is regarding the instantaneous movement of every part of the universe to its future position, in which case inhabitants of the universe will see the signal (fingers snapping) and see nothing out of the ordinary happen. These observers will even continue to observe what happens throughout the next 100 years, or at least it will be indicated as such with 100% complete consistency in any and all records present at the end of those 100 years, including the memories of every living being. The only difference when including Harry in the picture is that our fundamental description of the physical laws change; when the whole universe is moved, not a single one of their consequences is distinguishable from time progressing normally, thus they are still equivalent statements. By introducing unphysical Harry, we develop a way to distinguish the two explanations, but this is irrelevant to our reality.
I beg to differ. Everybody would remember the motion having taken place; the history of that 100 years would be recorded. There is no way in principle to experimentally distinguish this occurrence from the normal progression of time by 100 years, so I claim they are the same.
There is a nice philosophical thought-experiment that points to the opposite position:
Suppose that some phenomena occurs (purple light is the original I believe) now and then in various places in the universe. Whereever it happens, a day later that region is “frozen in time” for an “external” week. The phenomenon then occurs everywhere. There is no way to tell whether a week of time has passed or not, but it’s a shorter theory, a better compressed description, that says that it has been frozen for an external week in this circumstance, that a week of time passed that no one experienced.
The similarities with snapping fingers to move objects to their future positions should be clear.
Even including Harry Potter and his sudden ability to move particular objects discontinuously 100 years into the future by snapping his fingers, my claim stands. The point is regarding the instantaneous movement of every part of the universe to its future position, in which case inhabitants of the universe will see the signal (fingers snapping) and see nothing out of the ordinary happen. These observers will even continue to observe what happens throughout the next 100 years, or at least it will be indicated as such with 100% complete consistency in any and all records present at the end of those 100 years, including the memories of every living being. The only difference when including Harry in the picture is that our fundamental description of the physical laws change; when the whole universe is moved, not a single one of their consequences is distinguishable from time progressing normally, thus they are still equivalent statements. By introducing unphysical Harry, we develop a way to distinguish the two explanations, but this is irrelevant to our reality.