Space-Time and Reality
In philosophical discussions definitions are useful, so what is time? Since time is not material, it does not exist in reality and, therefore, does not have a reality definition. Time, however, is a concept and it can be defined as what clocks measure, but time is not limited to this definition. Measurements of time result in a number, so in this sense time is mathematical.
Space-time can be defined as an existent that creates gravity by mass curving its fabric. No atoms compose the fabric, and the existence of dark matter as the fabric is as elusive as the either once was. Space-time with this fabric would have an unlimited extension and would be an ocean for inhabitants if it existed in reality. A definition of space as a real immaterial existent that makes existence possible by providing place, in my view, is correct and realistic, not space-time with a fabric.
The combination of a non-existent (time) and space with a fabric (theorized) produced space-time, the curving of which creates gravity, is doubtful. Gravity may have been created during the formation of the solar system.
Space meets the Kantian requirements as a transcendental because it is absolute, necessary and universal. Space as a transcendental is immaterial which means that it has no fabric--it is absolutely massless.
Space-time can be defined as an existent that creates gravity by mass curving its fabric. No atoms compose the fabric, and the existence of dark matter as the fabric is as elusive as the either once was. Space-time with this fabric would have an unlimited extension and would be an ocean for inhabitants if it existed in reality. A definition of space as a real immaterial existent that makes existence possible by providing place, in my view, is correct and realistic, not space-time with a fabric.
The combination of a non-existent (time) and space with a fabric (theorized) produced space-time, the curving of which creates gravity, is doubtful. Gravity may have been created during the formation of the solar system.
Space meets the Kantian requirements as a transcendental because it is absolute, necessary and universal. Space as a transcendental is immaterial which means that it has no fabric--it is absolutely massless.
Comments (75)
Interesting statement.
Transcendental.....what?
A reality definition that is limited to what is material and does not include time is an inadequate definition.
Quoting val p miranda
There are concepts of time but that does not mean that time is a concept.
Quoting val p miranda
If space both exists and makes existence possible, does that mean that the existence of space make space possible by providing itself a place? Where is this place in which space is made possible?
Quoting val p miranda
Transcendental conditions, according to Kant, are the conditions for the possibility of experience. Both space and time are transcendental, that is, they are conditions of the mind that structure experience rather than derived from experience.
But that's obviously muddled. This post was made after yours; hence time has passed.
Better to start there, don't you think, then to jump right in to Kant ( , ) and Einstein?
Mww and I are in good company!
Time is the measure of material change just as space is the measure of the lack of material change.
So yes, they are measures - the coordinate system. And you need both. One isnt conceivable without the other, despite what Kant might say.
A lack of change can only be measured in terms of the possibility of a change. And reciprocally, the possibility of a change can only be measured in terms of the lack of a change.
Special relativity glues these coordinates together as spacetime, using the speed of light to express this reciprocal relation. Then general relativity adds in the further reciprocal deal that exists between a spacetime container and it material contents. This uses G as the constant that connects the two halves of the deal.
Quantum theory speaks to the material contents. It is the coordinate system for describing the fundamental action. And once more this is a unity of opposites related by a constant. Under QM, position and momentum are related by h. Time and energy are also a complementary pair under the reciprocality of the uncertainty relation.
Quantum field theory then shifts the point of view from point particles to spacetime-filling fields by uniting QM with special relativity. This is done by using both c and h as scaling constants.
So as Okun's Cube of physical theories tells us we leave the Newtonian world familiar to Kant behind by discovering the greater unity between all the parts of the Cosmos.
We have a unified theory of the spatiotemporal container in GR and a unified theory of the material contents in QFT. Next we look for a theory of Quantum Gravity that brings together all three fundamental constants - c, G and h - into a single system of reality measurement. We have a description of the Cosmos that combines the container and its contents as a reciprocal set of co-ordinates.
All the ontological elements are crisply defined in terms of their dialectical relations. Each becomes the measure of its "other" in a system of interactions.
Quoting val p miranda
You are using terms that simply negate rather than "other". You oppose the material to the immaterial. And that is question begging when materiality itself is understood as substantial being of some kind. We know from Aristotle that substance is a hylomorphic unity of opposites the combination of raw material potential and formal necessity.
So anything that exists in an actual or substantial way is complex. It is matter with form. To fully dematerialise it, you would have to take away both the matter and the form.
Again, modern physics accepts the irreducible complexity of the relations that could constitute a cosmos. Broadly you get to the same place a GR container with its QFT contents. But also you preserve the unity the symmetry between these two sides to the story.
Spacetime tells matter how to move, matter tells spacetime how to curve. You've heard the expression of how the two are connected in a reciprocal fashion.
And a final theory a QG theory uniting the three constants would turn that aphorism into a concrete mathematics.
Quoting val p miranda
Kant was dealing with Newtonian physics. It was a mistake to psychologise time. It was a mistake to talk in antimonies rather than dichotomies.
Kant was a systems thinker, but he made some basic missteps.
A moment moves? But there is no time?
Then what does a moment move in?
TIme is real, for what it's worth. You muddle words together, "real immaterial existent"... as if mortgages and emotions and theories were not real. You seem to want to deny time while you are embedded in it, like a fish denying the ocean in which it swims.
This is what you said, followed by my response.
Quoting Fooloso4
An existent is something that exists. If space exists then it cannot be what makes existence possible, unless it is causa sui. Is that what you are claiming?
If space is place then what is the place of any particular object? The place where I put the dishes is not space.
Where is it being said in relativity as a theory of spacetime coordinates that time doesn't exist or that time adjusts the speed of light?
You are making arguments based on your misunderstandings, not on the metaphysical implications of the scientific theory.
If what exists exists in space and if space is an existent then space exists in itself. If it exists in itself it cannot be the same as itself. Space has become very crowded.
Quoting val p miranda
Quoting Mww
Quoting val p miranda
Thing is....the pure conceptions belong to understanding and are called categories, of which space is not one.
...Consequently, the original representation of space is an intuition a priori, and not a conception....
...Space is no discursive, or as we say, general conception of the relations of things, but a pure intuition....
....Hence it follows that an à priori intuition (which is not empirical) lies at the root of all our conceptions of space....
But all that doesnt answer, transcendental....what?
Ok. Thanks.
Maybe it is. A possible definition of space. :snicker:
Psychological time is far more varied and malleable. What feels like a day for one person can feel like a few hours for another. The very lingual articulation of time transforms our experience. Our world becomes a set of appointments and zones; for eating, sleeping, working etc.,.
Space is the same. It is likely that our appreciation of time comes about due to spatial association (psychologically speaking).
Given that we have advanced our civilisation due to segmenting time and measuring it it is clear there is a benefit to stretching our temporal appreciation.
Time is a psychological product such as feelings, awareness or perception. It doesn't exist out in the world.
Quoting val p miranda
Measurement of time is a measurement, but not time itself. Mathematic is a mapping tool for time.
Thats certainly an improvement over metaphysical idea.
Quoting val p miranda
Ok, so we have...space meets the Kantian requirement of a transcendental idea, because space is absolute, necessary and universal?
....If (something) carries with it strict and absolute universality and necessity, that is, admits of no possible exception, it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely à priori....
This shows that space is a valid something purely a priori, which is admitted already, but does not show space is a transcendental idea.
Quoting val p miranda
but then in the case of space you say:
Quoting val p miranda
In that case either materiality is not a requirement for existence or if it is then space does not exist in reality.
Quoting val p miranda
and
Quoting val p miranda
Do you even understand what you wrote?
If X does not exist because it is not material then if Y is not material then Y does not exist.
If X = time and Y = space then
If time does not exist because it is not material then if space is not material then space does not exist.
As the Mad Hatter told Alice:
Quoting val p miranda
See the difference between these two concepts of "time" val? The one says that time is what is measured. The other says that time is a measurement. Clearly these are not the same concept. The clock measures something, time in sense 1. And, we also produce a measurement, time in sense 2. It is impossible that the thing measured, and the measurement itself, are one and the same thing. Therefore we have two principal senses of "time".
I think space is immaterial and I dont give a damn for the origin of the universe.
Carry on.
In math, time = t. So simple.
Nonsense.
1. There was a flower, now in its place a fruit, then the fruit ripens (it can be eaten). There's progression of states (the plant hasn't moved) i.e. it's not a space thing; we need another dimension, let's call it time.
2. A and B both went from their settlement to the neighboring village. A got there before B; an order (1[sup]st[/sup] & 2[sup]nd[/sup]) but they both travelled the same distance; the sequence must be in a nonspatial dimension, time
time is a concept (opinion) that has no reality existence. Space is a concept (opinion) that has reality existence as an immaterial existent. If I muddled that I want to apologize to the readers.
It seems like you are just playing with words. Suppose your idea is accepted. What difference does it make besides a brief discussion in a faculty lounge? Is it really worth the effort?
No, I didnt. As I said, doesnt interest me.
But space also changes, doesn't it? I mean, I understand it is supposed to be expanding, although this is not the kind of change I am referring to, since it is supposed to be caused by dark matter, and Im not considering it (dark matter) to be material; again, this is not the kind of change I am interested in discussing. Now, at any time t, a body occupies a given place in space; same for every body there exists (not going into QM - let's keep it simple), but not all space is occupied by bodies (assumption - a huge one); meaning that at any time t, there is some free space. If one could create a 3d map of the distribution of free space and see its evolution through time, I think one would see its distribution change, and this change would be due to the movement of material things. (Mapping of the universe suggests its matter to be distributed in space in the form of a reticular network - and I am assuming that as the network changes its architecture with time, the distribution of free space must also change !!! the distribution of free space would be the inverse of the distribution of matter, nah?) Anyways, I don't really understand the quote, and I wanted to ask you if you could talk a little bit more about it.
I was talking about the basic Newtonian conception of space as the context that gives location to objects.
Of course relativity then shows space aint an inert and immaterial backdrop. But then that is why it has to be treated in terms of 3+1 dimensional spacetime.
And it is dark energy that would be driving the current metric expansion of the universe under Einsteins equations. Dark matter is the source of gravitational potential that is instead trying to put the brakes on and collapse the distance between things.
One has to keep in mind that Kant was a Newtonian. The notions of space and time Kant had in mind, no longer apply. Which does not mean that his general framework is obsolete, far from it.
But using modern notions to classical ideas can bring about problems, if one isn't careful with the details. As for space and time being immaterial, that's terminological, not substantial. One needs to provide an adequate definition of the physical, and say what the immaterial has, that the physical does not.
It can be consciousness, as it depends on the brain. Unless you would say that the brain isn't physical, then we simply say, everything is immaterial. What we can say is that the brain is what we categorize and recognize as this thing behind our skulls which plays a crucial role in experience.
If time is not material, then what's the meaning of talking about "curving", which refers to material things?
My knowledge in Physics is slim, but the notion of a curved time and space (spacetime) has never passed the threshold of my gates of logic. So there's not even room for me for doubting the theory.
So, I wonder how did Einstein define time. I only know that he told that time is relative, which makes sense, of course. But it looks to me like he took "time" as something granted. And, since he talked about its curving, he most probably thought that it was material. But, is this so?
The satisfaction of your curiosity resides in my non-scientific satisfaction with The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, Ch1, Remark 2, 1786. Which has the added bonus of logically proving the relativity of space, both contra Newtons absolute space, 1687, and as precursor to Einstein, 1905.
Hardly; I never even went to college.
My view of immaterial space is certainly less exotic than yours. All I need for space to be understood as immaterial, is the fact that Ive never experienced bumping into it, and Im pretty sure no one else has either.