Observers are able to distinguish time and space (from each other). But even today we don't seem to be able to explain what they really are. About the only thing that seems to be a consistent property of space and time is that they're both insubstantial, we can't "take them with us". But we assume they are both physical. What happens when we (try to) assume one or the other isn't "real", Do we need to define more closely what we mean by "something real"? Is there no reason for either time or space to "exist" other than our need for them, in order to explain our status as observers?
You could say that space and time is the stage on which the universe unfolds. We can't conceptualise a universe without space and time, so both your questions are open.
This pretty much hits the nail on the head. At least if general relativity is to be believed, mass-energy makes up all the stuff in the universe, while spacetime gives that stuff a place to be. arfa brane: You're right that for questions like this, we need a more precise definition of "real" that we usually use. Asking whether spacetime is real is a bit like asking whether north is real, or whether math is real. But if you define real as opposed to imaginary, I'm pretty confident that spacetime is real, because it plays a crucial role in the laws governing the universe that goes well beyond our own perception of it.
There is already a problem with even the word 'observer', since 'observe' cannot make sense without that both space and time are real.
Remember something real is only something that majority agree on. Like i said elsewhere i think something like 80% of our reality we agree on, the rest is down to the observer, with there lens of hate that we all have. Whos lens of hate is better or more true than others, is open to question. Everyone thinks they are right, but i would suggest only a small minority of all humans can really analytically think, and that includes most people in science too, most of them cannot think either other than being repeaters. I found in my life of 38 years, that sometimes even the biggest tramp on the street could have found out something more than 90% of the rest of the human race. So judging the book by its cover like the science establishment is wrong, as most of them cannot analytically think either. One thing that makes me smile, is that science will have to work out christmas day to work out the universe, lol, like they ever will.
I can't say that you're wrong, just that you haven't elaborated on these points. What do you mean by "work out christmas day"? That seems to make very little sense.
If you try to understand Andy instead of degrading him you might actually see where he's coming from.
He is trying to say that everyone has their own reality in their own mind. I think his terms "Christmas day" is an analogy for the magic that occurs in a child's mind on Christmas morning. He says when science can explain that then that is the day when he will start listening to science!
So he's just saying that he's not convinced by science. How does that have anything to do with the topic of the thread? And, by the way, the "magic" can be explained by science. Anyway, he starts by saying "something real is only something that majority agree on." Error no. 1. Reality exists independently of whatever crap people agree on/believe in.
When science can explain the magic in a child's mind? Hmm...is that so appealing? I was thinking more along religious lines, that science would only solve the mysteries of the universe when Christ returns. That is called derailment, and just like a train, it cannot be stopped. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of course, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Your point is moot! You asked if I understood what he was saying, so I told you. Now you are asking me to defend his statements? You didn't even know what he was saying to begin with.
No, to defend your opinion. But your opinion ain't fact, so I can't say it's wrong. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
