>>13415874

For one thing, most use Minkowski's fusion of three-dimensional space with the one dimensional temporal manifold to describe the world according to special relativity. Though this is only one common way it is done, and not the only, which immediately raises the problem of underdetermination. There are multiple ways of mathematically describing and reproducing the same experimental results, but how to discern which one is the "true" story? Mathematics is not ontology, though it can be a useful guide provided we put on our philosopher's caps and engage in conceptual analysis. It's really the same issue with quantum mechanics. You've got copenhagen, bohmian, transactional, everettian, etc etc approaches, all with different mathematical apparatuses that net the same results, but each tell a different story about what is going on behind the scenes.

So far as relativity is concerned, the world described is either a fatalistic block or a pluralistic solipsism à la Howard Stein.