>the ancient greeks were right, space is not a real thing. if you remove the objects in it, space itself disappears>t. Carlo Rovelliwhat the fuck is his problem?
>>16988193>The ancient greens were rightIs there a more meaningless sentence than this? Yeah sure they predicted atoms but some of them also thought everything was made of fire. The actual real thing the greeks gave us was a word for what became God. Fate. Some of the best scientists today are working on it calling it Super Determinism. It's all psychological goblydgook but who hasn't felt the hand of fate every now and again.
>>16988201idg what you're saying, but the universe would still exist if every planet and star disappeared
>>16988193it's a pretty radical take 2bh, he's probably wrong though>implying we can prove one or the other
>>16988208if you assume string theory is incorrect, his theory is the only one left
>>16988193I don't know. What's YOUR problem? Humans interpret reality in terms of spatial relationships but what does reality itself need space for? It should be perfectly happy with them only being implicit in its mathematical structure.
>>16988247>reality is the math symbols I wrote with my pen, not the actual things that are there and we can observe with our eyesok bro
>>16988299Whom are you quoting?
>>16988301you
>>16988207Proof?
>>16988314That wasn't stated or implied anywhere in my post. Try again?
>>16988315picrel>>16988319you said if space exists in mathematics, it doesn't need to exist in real life
>>16988329>you said if space exists in mathematics, it doesn't need to exist in real lifeNo, I didn't. That makes zero sense. Are you on drugs?
>>16988332maybe you are, because you're the one who said it
>>16988335Ok, I can tell you're literally mentally ill. Moving on.
>>16988329Lol, faggot.
>>16988342I made that screenshot when I noticed that anons thought that asking for proof is proof that your statement is wrong, when it isn't
>>16988193He's clearly correct, how else do you explain relativity? Space isn't a substrate, it's a relation between things.
Then maybe reality is not a real thing either. If you remove the observers, it disappears. We're not observing the observerless causal chains.
>>16988403There is no bird's eye view of reality, no preferred frame, things only "exist" in relation to one another.
What we consider reality is just a mathematical collection of all possible universe states transformed by all possible laws into the multiverse. All moments in all possible universes are mathematically consistent, therefore to the embedded minds they are reality. Mathematical structure IS existence WITHIN the structure. Embedded minds cannot distinguish “mathematically instantiated” from “metaphysically real,” because all evidence available to them is generated internally by the structure itself. If a structure fully generates observers, causality, memory, physics, and self-consistent experience, then “being reality” is indistinguishable from “being experienced as reality by embedded observers.”The argument is not necessarily that mathematical existence and metaphysical existence are proven identical, but that privileged metaphysical status becomes explanatorily idle if it produces no internally accessible consequences.If reality has additional properties, they either causally interact, leading to distinct differences, or they do not. In either case they must be described mathematically, which collapses us back to a mathematical timeline.My position is that either everything possible is real in some timeline or other, or nothing is real. Our local embedding forces a limited perspective on reality.Logic exists because it's possible. This is the predicate on which the multiverse hangs, and it's load bearing for all reality.
>if you remove the objects in it, space itself disappearsSpace is a medium through which things relate to each other. If everything disappeared, space continues to exist in this sense as it, itself, becomes defined by the spontaneous disappearance of everything in its new form of indefinite nothingness. Perhaps death itself yields the ultimate tableau of nothingness for preserving everything that ever occurred, because space, in this state, is related to everything that once existed.
>>16988373This actually makes senseBut is gravity a force again then?
>>16988419Are you retarded perchance?
>>16988485Yep. Turns out you should never go full retard.
>>16988193It's true. If space existed then it would be E = mc^2 + AI + Space. But we know that it's just E = mc^2 + AI
>>16988373>how do you explain ball A moving relative to ball B when there are other balls between themGee, what do you think?
>>16988373Relativity is bullshit tho. Lorentz ether needs space. >>16988247>>16988193>>16988208Space is needed to even measure things. Read kant. Where do you think your object is existing? In a tensor? No, in space.
>>16988587>Space is needed to even measure things. Read kant.You read Kant, retard. Kant completely agrees with me (>>16988247).
>>16988587>>16988641Can we read actual scientists and not philosofags?
>>16988644Actual scientists are themselves well-read philosofags.
>>16988587>Relativity is bullshitThen why is the speed of light in a vacuum constant for all observers regardless of their speed?
>>16988193Things can be defined by what they are not
>>16988760And you, sir, are not not a fag
