Live data from Hacker News

Is Spacetime Real?

forbes.com

101–103 of 103 posts

Re: Is Spacetime Real?

#101
This kind of question goes round and round. I'm tempted to say there's no time, only space and matter.

But then, someone once asked me 'what is energy?' So I rattled through the whole orthodox list, mechanical, kinetic, potential, electrical, heat, audio - and how each form may be transformed into another form. But then, the question was repeated 'So ... what is energy?'

'Ummm, matter moving in space, relative to some other matter.' Doesn't apply to potential, that's an object in a field. That snow and those boulders up the hill aren't moving relative to me ... but could be, any minute now.

In the end, there's matter moving (or not, relative to me) in space. The rest of what's 'real' is in our minds - each of which is different.

Re: Is Spacetime Real?

#102

This raise a bunch of interesting questions, but the first one that comes to mind is "should approving such cookie popup for your business be considered a clear sign of mental illness?". This is clearly the work of a dangerous and deranged mind that I would not feel comfortable letting my family hang out with.

Come on now, that's facetious and you know it. I'm on your side but hyperbole like that isn't going to get us anywhere. Let's just invoke Hanlon's razor and accept that these decisions are mostly just made without much thought or understanding.

To be honest I did hesitate on hitting the reply button because I knew it was a rage-fueled comment at the time. Yet, now that I calmed down I still don’t see how this could not have been

1. made poorly by design

2. approved by someone that have no clue why it was designed this way

So yes, my comment may seem hyperbolic but I still think that mixing with such people is a bad idea as long as they show no remorse knowingly doing damaging deeds.

That said, this is clearly off-topic and I regret starting this discussion here.

Re: Is Spacetime Real?

#103
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont agree its a false dichotomy. Yes every theory is just a model to fit observations etc etc. But Atoms are conceivable - they work as a model, but we can also imagine how to fit into the reality that we experience. We can 'see' them to an extent with special instruments. And their abilities/behaviours are evident in all the physical world of compounds and elements around us. You can disolve salt in water, you ca…

Our ability to conceive of something should not be in the definition of reality. Quantum mechanics and relativity have just as much, if not more experimental evidence to support them as atomic theory, and make even better predictions. This has implications in the "real world." If we base our definition on what is "intuitive" instead of what is provable, we end up with things like humour theory in medicine.

I'm not saying we should reject anything if it isn't intuitive. I'm just saying the statement Is Spacetime a real thing like an atom, or just a mathematical construct that is used to describe how mass 'generates' gravity? is not a false dichotomy
Post reply on HN