What is "spacetime" really?

[watcher]

Then they magically appear from "another dimension."

yes.

Assuming the above, if I read you correctly is simply an ontological "quantum leap" of imagination positing a mystery dimension

quantum theory is the most successful theory ever. quantum leap is not an imagination of me neither of quantum physicists.

which lies beyond human comprehension.

let's limit it as only beyond human perception. we still can comprehend what's going on. and mystery only means it begs for an explanation, not outright dismissal, hehe

I will not take that leap. And there is no need for it.

why not? do you have a logical solution to zero's arrow and the paradox of motion without the quantum leap or can you explain quantum tunneling in classical terms?

But, ontologically "back atcha"... what is your proof that electrons (as above) don't exist in 3-D space before we make them show their little faces? And what is your proof that a "4th spacial dimension exists?"

beside the math and the experiments and observations already enumerated here again and again.?

There is actually empty space between things

can you actually really pin point exactly where a thing ends and the empty space begins so that your statement can actually be true?

So assuming that "emptiness" is just another "thing" is an ontological error.

i think you are the one reifying emptiness. i repeatedly said that emptiness should be a pronoun and not a noun. it does nothing but describes what is relative to a thing. emptiness is an attribute/property. nothing more nothing less.

So the vast majority of the universe is the empty space between things.

This empty space, for instance, accounts for the difference between the size of Earth as she is and the size she would be if all the empty space in her matter were gravitationally compressed out, making here a small black hole. The Swarzchild radius formula specifies this resulting extremely dense matter as about pea sized.

 

The difference is "empty space." Same applies on macro-scale as (no doubt) a different ratio but same principle between stars, planets, galaxies. Lots and lots of "empty space" compared to space occupied by things.

 

I do 'thing' I am done with the ontology of "empty space" at this point. :) If the above doesn't clarify it, being my best effort in the present, then... well... to heck with it. I've done my best on "the ontology of empty space" as a subset of the ontology of "spacetime.Michael

i agree with how you describe the functionality of empty space on the scheme of things.

but this is not ontology because a thing is a thing because of empty space. this idea was already mentioned here several times. an atom is a thing including the space between electrons and protons. same thing can be said to the solar system and galaxies.

 

protons is still divisible to quarks and spaces. the pattern was that things appear to be infinitely divisible revealing more empty spaces. if things cannot be called a thing without empty spaces, my conclusion it that empty space can't satisfy the question of ontology because 1. emptiness is a function of the overall scheme of things. 2. it is not ontologically nothingness because there is nothing we can say about nothingness.

[maddog]

Would it be correct to say that "space-time", since it is that which is intermediate between moments of "things", is what "field theory" tells us it is, and then "thing theory" (such as QCD, QED, etc.) tells us what "things" are. If so, then "field theory" + "thing theory" = epistemology as informed by ontology = Existence ?

Ultimately Rade, a good question. Using Spacetime as a Reference system (ONLY) does

link your moments together allowing one to work with a "field theory" (et al). Not sure

what "thing theory" meant. If "string theory" then this does give a theoretical notion of the

things (no evidential means or experimental results).

 

Using Wiki to assist with definition of "Ontology" is another way to say the underlying Metaphysical Nature of the subject (the "is"-ness or something). To say that any Ontology

"informs" us "anything" I wonder.

 

maddog

[maddog]

Hi Michael,

I thought you said you had nothing more to say on this thread? :phones:

Seems you had quite a lot.

 

So, do you want to start a thread on Ontology and actually teach me something, or do you want to keep beating that dead space-horse?

I second that emotion. In particular, I would like consider the Ontology of Thought. What

can one say on the underlying Metaphysical nature of Thinking as it occurs in the Physical World ?

 

maddog

[Pyrotex]

I third that emoticon. I want to know firstly, just what "distinction" does the word "ontology" make; that is, what is the difference, the dividing line between ontology and not-ontology.

Second, what is the purpose of Ontology? How does one use it?

And if Ontology is about "being" -- the existential essence of reality (or some such) -- then how does one access that? Or a better way of saying that might be, how does one separate the "ontology" of something from the subjective sensory-image interpretation that we assign to it?

 

I wanna know !! :phones:

[maddog]

JMJones:

Quote:

"There is also reason to believe that "space" is not limited to just three dimensions, but this argument is far beyond my understanding."

Me:

Quote:

"I would have to ask, "what reason?" Looks to me like three spacial dimensions have all three axes covered and time covers the "when." What else is required to explain what we can observe about "space" and "time?"

Watcher:

Quote:

"reason? what about things like electrons are not in your beloved 3d space prior to measurement? this is one reason to assume that space is not limited to 3d. or do you even understand what this means?"

If I understand you correctly you seem to believe that these little swarms of energy we call electrons are simply not located in conventional 3-D space until we take our observational snapshot. Then they magically appear from "another dimension."

I don't think that was the original intent. In QM, the orbitals of electrons around a nucleus is a cloud where the prediction of where an electron "is" is not know specifically or exactly.

This limitation is predicted by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, limiting what one can

predict in both Momentum and Location of a Particle or Energy and Time of said Particle.

Electrons do NOT orbit a nucleus in a Classical (like planets orbit a sun) manner. No

mysterious Extra Dimensions are needed. You are just limited in you knowledge how

accurately you can predict where an electron is (location) and momentum (mass & velocity -- where it is going).

Worse than that (as mentioned earlier), QM allows for Disconitnuity of motion. Best example is

Quantum Tunneling, the D-Orbital (orbital found in metals). QT is the principle of how

Transistors function.

 

 

Assuming the above, if I read you correctly is simply an ontological "quantum leap" of imagination positing a mystery dimension which lies beyond human comprehension. I will not take that leap. And there is no need for it.

Actually it is backed up by Mathematics.

No proof... but very good evidence, as follows:"Energy waves" (in 3-d space) manifest like "particles" when we make them run through the detector medium at the accelerator, leaving their signature "trails."

Yeah, trails from a cloud chamber.

But, ontologically "back atcha"... what is your proof that electrons (as above) don't exist in 3-D space before we make them show their little faces? And what is your proof that a "4th spacial dimension exists?"

That Mathematics you so much disdain. I am not arguing for 4th Spatial dimension here, only that the motion of an electron starts to become "fuzzy" when the resolution is

sufficiently small. The classical world breaks down. Extra dimensions is theoretical and

"proof" has not yet been demonstrated. Extra dimensions are not excluded, just not corroborated.

 

The burden of such proof is on 4th dimensional theorists here, strictly, ontologically speaking. (I just saw Modest's comment on this and agree. (Very rare indeed!)

Yes, I concur with the rarity, indeed. Doubly so, in that I agree with both you and Modest. :shrug:

Watcher:

"second: does wave propagates in space or wave propagate in nothingness? while the former is an accepted assumption, the latter is nonsense. how do you justify that nothingness has an existence of its own?"

I concur with Watcher hear the latter makes the most of nonsense.

Please try very hard to "hear" this, as I've said it many times before.

"Things" can be very broadly defined as various phenomena we can observe or detect... even "electrons." But the universe is clearly not "solid", made of solid "thingness." There is actually empty space between things (on all levels, micro to macro) as the English language assigns meaning to words, like "empty." So assuming that "emptiness" is just another "thing" is an ontological error. Emptiness is where no "things" exist, in between what does exist, rendering each such locus of "thingness" not "empty" at each locus.

I am beginning to wonder of the volume of empty space between your ears ?

So the vast majority of the universe is the empty space between things.

There is still Inter-Galactic gas between Galaxies so it is not quite "empty". Worse still

Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations allows spontaneously the creation of "particles" from "nothing" (or "empty space" as you call it).

 

maddog

[maddog]

A photons perspective is a fiction. And "proper time" is a fiction. See my "what is time" post. (I'll find it if requested.)

...

For a photon traveling from sun to earth... an actual "distance through space"... the elapsed time in minutes is 8.3 (or so) minutes. the statement that "for a photon there is no elapsed time" is blatently nonsense.

Incorrect statement (bold part). One can take the perspective of a photon. Einstein did when he was 17 by imagining riding a beam of light. Doing so allow him to consider the consequences necessary to create Special Relativity. In fact from a photon (or any

massless particle traveling at speed of light - c) the "sense" of the passage of time is Zero (nada) or nonexistent. So to the photon coming from the sun it 0 seconds. This is

Not nonsense.

And on to 'curved space" .... more reification.

More diatribe.

And frankly, I am tired of saying it to ontologically deaf ears.

I am tired of you repeating yourself, when going down the tunnel with "no cheese" an expecting "cheese". Face it. Wrong tunnel.

The last statement is obviously true. It works just fine if you set aside your dogma long enough to hear my argument.... which you have never done in this exhaustive debate.

It is not my dogma that needs to be set aside. From my viewpoint, I am perceiving a

limited frame of thinking brought on by the considerable lack of mathematics and

then attempting to conclude things without the tools.

 

maddog

[Pyrotex]

...So I should let maddog trash me and just roll over and play dead?

...It was simply about how it is that I dare to criticize the most famous genius of all time....

Michael,

in any debate, or technical discussion, where there are one or more points of contention, a wise man chooses his battles very carefully.

If you exert as much effort on answering every little slight and innuendo as you do on defending your principle argument, you will never win. You MUST prioritize which sub-arguments are worth the effort and time -- and ignore the rest.

 

:phones: Many slights are merely "cheap shots" -- the clever pun or turn of phrase that was just too much fun NOT to say. They were just for a fast laugh. Ignore them.

:) Some slights would have made perfect sense if you had gotten to know your opponents first and learned their style. But you didn't and they're total strangers, and it's hard to know how much insult (if any) was intended.

:) Some slights carry useful information in them. On the surface they sound like insults, but they may be a short-hand way of pointing out that you're being too sensitive or repeating yourself too often. They're like bananas. The outer insult can be peeled off and discarded.

:) Some insults are better handled by a moderator. If *I* kick somebody, they stay kicked. :shrug: You can't do that. In those cases, be noble and rise above the fray. You have more important things to attend to: the logic, rationale and evidence for your argument.

:) Above all, look for trends in the thread. If you have gone over the same territory three times and STILL nobody agrees with you, or understands you, the most LIKELY reason is: your exposition and defense is just not up to the task. We've seen lots of really smart folks who lacked the basic word-smithing and rhetoric skills necessary to explain their point. Hey, it happens to us all sooner or later.

:) One of the biggest mistakes that smart people make when they visit Hypography, is they tackle a BIG, HUGE, COMPLEX argument before we have had time to get to know them, and before they have had time to lay the groundwork for their Magnum Opus. Starting a thread on Basic Ontology For Noobs would be a really good move, Michael.

:) There are times when "playing dead" is a really smart tactic. Ask a opossum.

 

You are only "trashed" and "rolled over" if you say you are.

[Michael Mooney]

I third that emoticon. I want to know firstly, just what "distinction" does the word "ontology" make; that is, what is the difference, the dividing line between ontology and not-ontology.

Second, what is the purpose of Ontology? How does one use it?

And if Ontology is about "being" -- the existential essence of reality (or some such) -- then how does one access that? Or a better way of saying that might be, how does one separate the "ontology" of something from the subjective sensory-image interpretation that we assign to it?

 

I wanna know !! :)

Pyrotex,

Ontology, like "rocket science" and its math, is a deep subject. I'll pass on starting a new thread to teach ontology. But here is an intro with more depth than the Wiki's, followed by a couple of published references to the ontology of spacetime in particular. One such article has already been linked and shared (by Modest) in this thread to no effect re: intelligent reply by participants here:

The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry

Here is a snippet from the conclusion... which seems totally lost on you, Erasmus, and Modest, among many others:

§4. Conclusion

 

Just because the math works doesn't mean that we understand what is happening in nature. Every physical theory has a mathematical component and a conceptual component, but these two are often confused. Many speak as though the mathematical component confers understanding, this even after decades of the beautiful mathematics of quantum mechanics obviously conferring little understanding.....

 

Theory and History of Ontology. A Resource Guide for Philosophers

by Raul Corazzon

 

Ontology is the theory of objects and their ties. Ontology provides criteria for distinguishing various types of objects (concrete and abstract, existent and non-existent, real and ideal, independent and dependent) and their ties (relations, dependences and predication).

 

We can distinguish: a) formal, B) descriptive and c) formalized ontologies.

 

a) Formal ontology was introduced by Edmund Husserl in his Logical Investigations (1): according to Husserl, the true method of ontology is the eidetic reduction coupled with the method of categorial intuition. The ontology studies the genera of being, the leading regional concepts, i.e., the categories. The phenomenological ontology is divided into two: (I)Formal Ontology, and (II) Regional, or Material, Ontologies.

 

The former investigates the problem of truth on three basic levels: (a) Formal Apophantics, or formal logic of judgments, where the a priori conditions for the possibility of the doxic certainty of reason are to be sought, along with the (B) synthetic forms for the possibility of the axiological, and © "practical" truths. In other words, formal ontology is divided into formal logic, formal axiology, and formal praxis.

 

"In contemporary philosophy, formal ontology has been developed in two principal ways. The first approach has been to study formal ontology as a part of ontology, and to analyze it using the tools and approach of formal logic: from this point of view formal ontology examines the logical features of predication and of the various theories of universals. The use of the specific paradigm of the set theory applied to predication, moreover, conditions its interpretation.

 

This approach is best exemplified by Nino Cocchiarella; according to whom 'Formal Ontology is the result of combining the intuitive, informal method of classical ontology with the formal, mathematical method of modern symbolic logic, and ultimately of identifying them as different aspects of one and the same science. That is, where the method of ontology is the intuitive study of the fundamental properties, modes, and aspects of being, or of entities in general, and the method of modern symbolic logic is the rigorous construction of formal, axiomatic systems, formal ontology, the result of combining these two methods, is the systematic, formal, axiomatic development of the logic of all forms of being. As such, formal ontology is a science prior to all others in which particular forms, modes, or kinds of being are studied.' (2)

 

The second line of development returns to its Husserlian origins and analyses the fundamental categories of object, state of affairs, part, whole, and so forth, as well as the relations between parts and the whole and their laws of dependence - once all material concepts have been replaced by their correlative form concepts relative to the pure 'something'. This kind of analysis does not deal with the problem of the relationship between formal ontology and material ontology." (3)

 

B) Descriptive ontology concerns the collection of information about the list of objects that can be dependent or independent items (real or ideal)

 

c) Formalized ontology attempts to constructs a formal codification for the results descriptively acquired at the preceding levels.

 

Metaphysics, Theory of Objects, and Ontology

 

Metaphysics is the science that studies being in general (Aristotle), in other words it considers reality, which is to say existent or actual objects; according to Meinong, the theory of objects is an a priori science which concerns the whole of what is given, existent or non-existent. Existent objects must be distinguished from subsistent or ideal objects, such as identity, diversity, or number. Existence and subsistence are the two forms of being, whereas the 'pure object' considered in the theory of objects is beyond being and non-being

-------------------------------

On the ontology of spacetime:

Dennis Dieks, Professor, Ph.D., M.Sc., Institute for History and Foundations of Science, Buys Ballot Laboratory, Utrecht, The Netherlands

 

Description

The sixteen papers collected in this volume are expanded and revised versions of talks delivered at the Second International Conference on the Ontology of Spacetime, organized by the International Society for the Advanced Study of Spacetime (John Earman, President) at Concordia University (Montreal) from 9 to 11 June 2006. Most chapters are devoted to subjects directly relating to the ontology of spacetime. The book starts with four papers that discuss the ontological status of spacetime and the processes occurring in it from a point of view that is first of all conceptual and philosophical. The focus then slightly shifts in the five papers that follow, to considerations more directly involving technical considerations from relativity theory. After this, Time, Becoming and Change take centre stage in the next five papers. The book ends with two excursions into relatively uncharted territory: a consideration of the status of Kaluza-Klein theory, and an investigation of possible relations between the nature of spacetime and condensed matter physics, respectively.

 

See also "Minkowski space-time: a glorious non-entity" (Missed author ref... sorry)

 

See also Einstein's reference above in this thread to spacetime having no existence as an entity independent of the objects, the trajectories of which are observed to curve. So if it doesn't exist without such objects, what is it proposed to be as a curving, etc. medium? The assumptions involved are ridiculous, "ontologically speaking."

 

Edit; another piece... my emphasis in bold:

 

On the Ontology of Spacetime in a Frame of Reference

Alexander Poltorak1

 

One of the fundamental problems of the spacetime ontology is how matter affects the

geometry of spacetime and, vice versa, how spacetime affects the behavior of the matter

therein. Another problem is the emergence of spacetime in the frame of reference of an

observer, i.e. how an observer affects (or, perhaps, creates) the spacetime, or its

geometry. As we shall demonstrate here, these two problems are closely related.

Another, perhaps more "fundamental problem" is how spacetime is granted reality as an entity above if it doesn't actually exist in the first place... Minkowski's miraculous "non-entity."

 

Another page full of equations will not answer these questions!

Michael

[watcher]

See also Einstein's reference above in this thread to spacetime having no existence as an entity independent of the objects,

 

you have misunderstood einstein.

Einstein also meant the vice versa. i.e. objects have no independent existence from spacetime the same way that spacetime has no independent existence from the objects in it.

 

this is what true emptiness means in eastern philosophy. everything is empty of essence or self existence. not only spacetime. that is why the buddhists loved Einstein. the doctrine is called interdependent origination.

 

your newtonian worldview is a total opposite of this einstein/buddhist concept of relativity/emptiness. if you have claimed spacetime and objects in it were just a hologram, i could have supported you. hehe

[watcher]

I want to know firstly, just what "distinction" does the word "ontology" make; that is, what is the difference, the dividing line between ontology and not-ontology.

curiosity.

 

Second, what is the purpose of Ontology? How does one use it?

understanding is joy, knowledge of nature is the key to future survival - carl sagan

And if Ontology is about "being" -- the existential essence of reality (or some such) -- then how does one access that?

logic can only show you the door, but it is you who must enter.:)

 

Or a better way of saying that might be, how does one separate the "ontology" of something from the subjective sensory-image interpretation that we assign to it?

we cant, we are always the "knower" but...

1.we only resort to interpretation if there is not enough information (incomplete data) streaming thru our sensory organs

2. the principles/process/laws/mechanisms of existence is not dependent to our whimsical subjectivity.

[maddog]

I third that emoticon. I want to know firstly, just what "distinction" does the word "ontology" make; that is, what is the difference, the dividing line between ontology and not-ontology.

Second, what is the purpose of Ontology? How does one use it?

And if Ontology is about "being" -- the existential essence of reality (or some such) -- then how does one access that? Or a better way of saying that might be, how does one separate the "ontology" of something from the subjective sensory-image interpretation that we assign to it?

 

I wanna know !! :)

I sympathize with these remarks. The way "ontology" has been thrown around hear has

got me to wonder. Borrowing from Wiki's definition has what I've been setting my course

on with treating like the "underlying Metaphysical nature of" etc.

As for Ontology being related to "being" and "being in the world" -- so according to

Martin Heidigger. A couple of books by him -- "Being and Time" (one I am still trying to

get through) and one I just found recently "Ontology - The Hermeneutics of Facticity".

 

I picked this last one up in Borders when I started thinking, I may not be aware of all the

nuances in the use of the word "ontology".

 

One that get me twisted up most is "of what use" is Ontology, what is it's purpose ?

I hear ya' Pyrotex. I feal similarly.

 

maddog

 

ps: I like Alanis and that song... B)

[modest]

I wanna know !! :evil:

ps: I like Alanis and that song... ;)

I’ll embarrassingly agree

 

Personally, when I read,

Hi Michael,

I thought you said you had nothing more to say on this thread? :)

Seems you had quite a lot.

It reminded me of:

Tool - Eulogy

on more than one level... I wonder who else has been turning Pyro’s sentiments into lyrical form :hihi:

 

In any case, thank you Michael for a lively discussion these past months. While this issue has clearly beaten itself dead, there are many more intrigues on these forums I hope you’ll find :)

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

In any case, thank you Michael for a lively discussion these past months. While this issue has clearly beaten itself dead, there are many more intrigues on these forums I hope you’ll find

 

Yer welcome. Seems a damn shame tho that after over three months and 65 pages, no one here even has a clue what an ontological inquiry into "spacetime" ("what is it , really?" even means.

 

This is confirmed by the "no comment" status of reply to my post above on ontology in general and the ontology of spacetime in particular.

 

Same kind of "huh?" or 'so what?' avoidance of the link (and my commentaries) you originally introduced on the subject in conjunction with the transition form Euclidean to non-Euclidean models/cosmologies.

The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry

http://www.friesian.com/curved-1.htm

 

So, what use is such an examination? It actually attempts to discover what, if anything, it is in the real world that we are talking about when we say "space", "time" and "spacetime."

Is this inquiry actually irrelevant to everyone in this forum? So it seems. Some of you actually believe that there is no "real world/cosmos", that it is all in our minds! (But what supports our minds if there are no real bodies with real brains? Absurd.)

 

Others say there is a real cosmos but it is unknow-able cuz of the limits of human perception. There was no reply to the challenge of gnosis or even acknowledgement of the "a-priori" branch of epistemology. (Just subjective imagination to all died-in-the-wool hard core empiriical materialists!)

 

Late edit: I challenged someone here,( I think Pyrotex) to tell me how he "knows" that there is a real cosmos out there without using his all-too-fallible perceptions of it. All I got was a metaphorical wink.

We who *know* there is a real cosmos know so because we trust our collective perceptions of it to some degree... at least enough to avoid the absurdity of total denial of its existence. I have taken this trust a further step in my 40 yr discipline of setting aside my "left brain" functions and "opening" to the possibility of an undistorted "view" of "what is" as specified by a particular focus as inspired by a given sincere inquiry.

This is how I can "see" from a cosmic perspective which transcends the local perspectives of relativity... and "break the lightspeed limit" with impunity.

 

Just a final point of clarification before my immanent departure.

MM

 

You are willing to say that "for a photon there is zero elapsed time as it travels between its source and a target object." In the next breath we all acknowledge the constant speed of light and calculate the time it takes for light to travel from "there to here."

(Say... If a photon had eyes in the back and front of its head.... what would it see in both directions? Now... there is a thought experiment!... I know... it's been done. Shucks!)

 

If you set your mouth just right and ignore the obvious, then invoke the correct formula and its numbers... presto... sun to earth in zero time... "for the photon."

 

Likewise "empty space." If we don't like how much light bends going past massive objects, according to our assumptions about photons and mass (and momentum acting like mass), then we take the liberty of saying space is actually "something that bends"... even tho if the mass were not present, the "something that bends" would also disappear....

And look how well the equations of relativity work to predict these phenomena! No doubt!

But what if we distinguished the "spacetime metric" from the claim that it is an actual medium with the various properties of curving, expanding, contracting, dilating, having shape, etc? Ontology examines such differences as abstract concepts and coordinate metrics vs "real malleable stuff" in the real cosmos.

 

Ontology examines the absurdities of the above assumptions. Whereas mathematicians are content to say that if the math works better using the spactime metric, then to hell with the question, "does spacetime actually exist!"

 

I've made the latter point many times, and it still falls on deaf ears.

 

Big sigh!.... Oh well. My happiness does not depend on this forum getting the above point.

 

But I would go away with a much better impression of this as a "philosophy of science" forum, if at least one person understood what I just said.

 

Time is not "real stuff." Space is not "real stuff." It is the emptiness between real things and stuff... no matter how "fuzzy" the boundaries which *define* these things and stuff!

 

Together, time and space are still not "real stuff"... ontologically speaking.

This is the conclusion of an ontologist who has studied "spacetime" for hmmm... over 45 years (with an IQ of 178... "poor form" as it is to brag, yet again.... but I'm radically honest and no one here can talk me out of it.. It is true that this score occurs only once in every ten million plus people, so....

 

One possibility is that no one here is smart enough to understand what I have been saying.

I introduced myself to the "forum community" with the disclaimer that I am not a mathematician. I am a philosopher and psychologist. Mathematics is not a requirement for making the cogent ontological argument against the ubiquitious reification of spacetime embedded and indoctrinated into the scientific community ever since Minkowski/Einstein invented it.

I say all of the above knowing full well that it will probably piss off most if not all of you. I'm OK with that.

Michael

[lemit]

Michael,

 

I may be repeating what other people have said--I've been wading through this thread but I've been distracted by things like eating, sleeping, doctor's appointments, taxes, changing the calendar, and seeing my lawn and my beard change colors--but if there is someone out there who understands what you are saying but happens to disagree, that will be fine with you? It seems we've come a long way if that is all that's needed.

 

I think your ontology's fine. I'm not smart enough--or passionate enough--to question it. From the few pages I've slogged through, it seems to me that some people might be questioning your epistemology.

 

Like I said, I'm not smart enough to know exactly what the problem is. (This is one of those occasions when I definitely feel like an old dirt farmer.) I'm just suggesting that maybe it's not the destination but the route that bothers some folks.

 

Does that make sense to anybody? If it doesn't, it won't be the first time for me.

 

--lemit

[freeztar]

Umm...Michael...Did you forget about me? I completely understand what you are saying.

 

 

Nonetheless, I also understand the arguments of those in favor of spacetime ontology. As Erasmus stated, it is odd that we could draw perfectly straight lines in the universe and the angles would not equal 180 degrees. Your objection, which made me chuckle, was that "anyone who says a triangle has more (or less) than 180 degrees is not talking about a triangle" (or something similar). I found it both amusing and at the same time disheartening that the correspondence between Erasmus and yourself regarding this did not end in mutual understanding. As an outside observer, I think that the confusion was generated by different conceptual maps for the word "triangle". I'm curious if Erasmus had used "hyperbolic triangle" in place of "triangle", would it have saved several posts.

 

Anyhow, as I asked before, "what next?". You responded that textbooks need to be rewritten and thinking needs to be re-oriented. But, I'm not completely satisfied with that.

How do we reconcile a "spacetime-liberated ontology" with our measurements and perceptions? Is it even possible?

[Michael Mooney]

Lemit:

but if there is someone out there who understands what you are saying but happens to disagree, that will be fine with you? It seems we've come a long way if that is all that's needed.

I would have welcomed disagreement with my ontology of spacetime if anyone here understood what the phrase means. The" disagreements" all began with spacetime as an established entity with all its given properties and then proceded to document (sometimes with posts mostly full of complex math) how well the concept works as a coordinate metric for the math of relativity to play out with nicely refined predictions of how bodies (and light) move through "curved space" and "dilated time."

 

it seems to me that some people might be questioning your epistemology.

 

Part of my ontology rests on what I have "seen", lets just say "in my minds eye" of the cosmos "as it is"... with real objects and actual distances between them and some mysterious absence* of "things" (a tough concept in this forum) between them.

 

I sit still an hour a day... 40 yrs now and let it come to me without 'screening" it all through my preconceptions and analytical/belief system framework. This is the direct experience of "a-priori" knowing... a branch of epistemology including "gnosis" which empirical scientists (everyone here) deny, calling it simply subjective imagination.... since they have no direct experience in that realm. (Therefore.... not so logically... it can not be knowledge.) Just another example of the prevailing stupidity here... or at least narrow minded bias against how I "see."

 

I'm just suggesting that maybe it's not the destination but the route that bothers some folks.

Well, my above "route" not only bothers folks here. They flatly deny its validity and imply my stupidity (or state it outright.... as all "space between my ears" as the rabid dog put it.)

 

My destination is for everyone to realize that "spacetime" is a convenient fabrication which works well as a framework (metric... whatever) for relativity and its excellence as an analytical and predictive tool... without the (excuse the repetition) reification.

 

When I call that "*mysterious absence" "empty space" here, all hell breaks loose, and I'm told emphatically that "it's all stuff", including "spacetime." No empty space between things/stuff.

Does that make sense to anybody?

Yes. Your sincerity and humility (I have none) is refreshing after this long debate with cock-sure scientist who are absolutely sure that "All is relative"... 'and the math proves it... and we don't care if 'spacetime" is quote, "real," end quote, or not!'

("Who gives a damn about ""ontology"" anyway? The epistemology of empirical science is the only way to know anything, and all other claims about quote, "reality," end quote, is subjective imagination.... metaphysics!! and that sort of drivel.")

 

Thanks for your post.

I'll reply to you, Freezetar, tomorrow. With any luck, then this ordeal will be over.

Michael

[watcher]

So, what use is such an examination? It actually attempts to discover what, if anything, it is in the real world that we are talking about when we say "space", "time" and "spacetime."

Is this inquiry actually irrelevant to everyone in this forum? So it seems. Some of you actually believe that there is no "real world/cosmos", that it is all in our minds!

pyrotex divided the world into OUT and PUT to try to steer the discussion into perspective.

 

so to what category do you think your ontology of space and time fall?

 

1. ontological universe of things (OUT) (the real thing) or

2. perceived universe of things (PUT) (the image of the thing)

 

please explain

 

Others say there is a real cosmos but it is unknow-able cuz of the limits of human perception. There was no reply to the challenge of gnosis or even acknowledgement of the "a-priori" branch of epistemology. (Just subjective imagination to all died-in-the-wool hard core empiriical materialists!)

gnosis is beyond the scope of science. gnosis are also subject to one's interpretation. interpretations are subject to cultural, environmental, linguistics and other biases.

 

IOW, they are not infallible. even buddha and christ arrived at different conclusions with their gnosis.

If you set your mouth just right and ignore the obvious, then invoke the correct formula and its numbers... presto... sun to earth in zero time... "for the photon."

well maybe photon is more fundamental than space and time. it is possible, right?

Ontology examines such differences as abstract concepts and coordinate metrics vs "real malleable stuff" in the real cosmos.

there are lots of deep thinking eggheads of the scientific community who actually believed that the latter is what the concepts pointed to.

Time is not "real stuff." Space is not "real stuff." It is the emptiness between real things and stuff... no matter how "fuzzy" the boundaries which *define* these things and stuff!

okay the real (things) and space (no thing) is bounded by fuzziness. what the heck does it mean? the orbital clouds were also conceptual representation of density probabilities. they aren't real but they do point to something real.

Together, time and space are still not "real stuff"... ontologically speaking.

This is the conclusion of an ontologist who has studied "spacetime" for hmmm... over 45 years (with an IQ of 178... "poor form" as it is to brag, yet again.... but I'm radically honest and no one here can talk me out of it.. It is true that this score occurs only once in every ten million plus people, so....

with your troll like tenacity?, yep.

One possibility is that no one here is smart enough to understand what I have been saying.

we understand you. we can't just go there with you because we can't take the leap of faith from spacetime as a concept to space and time as nothings.we use bridges to cross, and you have not presented any.