koti

Noted.

Will do, thank you for sharing. To me it doesn't feel right. And it's not just because of QM which states that the universe is not fully deterministic - I felt that way before I knew that.

"Do you have a model without known flaws that has supplanted GR?" Obviously you do not believe that I can answer this question positively. If you know the answer to your question which is "no" then what is it exactly that you are trying to achieve by asking it? Thank you for fixing my post properly btw.

This question is unfair and is an invitation into a quarrel. This false statement of yours about my position is also unfair and is alao an attempt to get into a quarrel. Would you consider changing your rhetoric with me?

When you are at the stage of asking what dark matter is (or any previous stage for that matter) does it mean that the earth orbiting the sun model has failed? Or even remotely has it become inaccurate?

I like the irony which you caught. I don't think I can agree with that view on the universe but the irony is sleek When you talk about "slices" are you loosely referencing the holographic universe theory or the multiverse theory or some other theory? I'm not familiar with "Block-Universe Determinism" I will have to put it on my list of stuff to check out. I'm having a real difficulty in coping with: "the accident depicted in the referenced movie would have been unavoidable" It's like drinking freshly squezed lemon juice

You agree that a model of the sun orbiting the earth was flawed. We have a new model now which states that the earth is orbiting the sun. You state that all models fail at some point. I'm sory but Im having difficulties agreeing with that logic.

The question at hand is seriously flawed in my opinion: "Is Space-Time a Physical Entity or a Mathematical Model" ? Einstein's equations which deal with spacetime are a MODEL of spacetime. Spacetime is not a model unless Einstein's equations are a model of a model? As far as I know, these equations have been experimentally confirmed numerous times - time dillation, gps time compensation in sattelites, etc. If we agree that Einstein's model is accurate in describing spacetime this should mean that its an accurate model. I realise that its not accurate in describing the quantum world and many other fenomena but that doesnt mean that spacetime is a model nor that spacetime is or is not an entity does it- for the same reason that you do not use scissors to hammer in a nail.

Model of the sun orbiting the earth was a bad model which did not reflect reality - Can we agree on that? What you wrote about building a model where dark is a phenomenon and light is the absence of dark implies that nothing can be established and used as refference . Hypotheticaly...if string theory or some other new theory manages to put QM, GR and gravity gracefuly together proving on its way that spacetime is part of something far greater and far more complex than what we know now, would this mean that spacetime would become "unreal" or "real" all of the sudden? Would mass suddenly stop having an impact on spacetime if that new fantastical theory of everything would become available?

"Dark" is absence of light. Isn't "dark" just a concept which is not dependent on models? How does that correlate with spacetime being or not being real/a model ?

"Reality" as I see it, is much more than what our 170K year old species can currently understand. I think it would be bigheaded to assume that the nature which is 13.7B years old is constructed in such a way that our mere 5 senses have to grasp it all.

I'm not sure if I grasp properly what you ate saying. I would like to dig into this subject deeper, Im stuck at work now and I will have more time to discuss in the evening. As a teaser...I think we deal with issues non detectable by our 5 senses all the time with them being very real.

Is it adequate to conclude that essencially what you mean is "If we can't sense it with our 5 senses it's not real" ? Im not an expert but I dont think that our current QM is "good enough" for "testing for reality" Also I think we would have to define the meaning of reality in depth first. I think that the disagreements might come from semantic differences and the differences in general perception of "reality" I have no idea. Stil I would lean towards considering spacetime as "real" as radio waves or any other entity which is not dirrectly graspable by our 5 senses but as geordief wrote effects of it on the world are reproducable/repetable.

Correct me if I'm wrong but following the above logic might get us to the point where nothing can be proven real...even a nail being hit by a hammer.

Please do prove that notion

Strange quoted someone at the begining of this thread: "On another forum, someone has defined "real" as meaning "you can hit it with a hammer". By this criterion, space-time is not real, even if the mathematical model accurately describes something that exists!" You cannot hit radio waves with a hammer and yet they are very real. If you hit space-time with gravity instead of a hammer you will be able to see that it reacts, Einstein did a pretty good job explaining that. Spacetime is as real to me as the phone Im holding in my hands right now. Ofcourse spacetime is a mathematical model too, I dont see why it couldn't be both.

I can already see that coming to this forum will do my nerves a great deal of good. Glad to be here.

I may be wrong but I always thought that reproduction has to involve DNA passing and inheriting? Crystals would be out of scope then, Im not familiar with the vesicles you are mentioning.

Is there any existing or extinct life that could not reproduce? Is there any matter considered non-living that can reproduce? Isn't reproduction a single criterium which is enough to classify things by living and non living ?

ajb...What you wrote is clear and I agree with it. What is your aproach purely on a plilosophical level on the issue from the film I described above? What would be your thoughts in this guys situation?

Let me try to put my thoughts on this into perspective but first... I'm very glad that you are very glad Studiot. Although don't judge me yet...I have been accused of "preaching" in drunken debates. Mainly by conspiracy theorists and religious fundamentalists though so I guess it doesn't count I presume the 2 sentences you are reffering to are: 1. "For me it's mind boggling how could someone lean towards a pre-determened nature of reality" 2. "Then again a lot of modern science is extremely counter intuitive for me, quantum mechanics beig at the top of the list" English is not my first language so please excuse me and explain how these 2 sentences contradict each other ? As I wrote in the title of this thread, a deterministic universe feels profoundly counter intuitive to me. On the physics level, Heisenbergs and Plancks ( about 100 years ago if I'm correct) works in its essence debunk a deterministic reality - all good here. What I'm ranting about is why do people have an intuition so profoundly different then mine - my philosophical rant. As for putting my thoughts into perspective, here's an example of what I'm talking about...the other day me and my wife watched a movie called "127 hours" by Danny Boyle about a guy who got trapped in the mountains by a rock clinching his arm for 127 hours. The poor guy (its a pretty good movie based on a true story btw) had some emotional moments in which he "accused" the rock of flying in space for millions of years before fullfilling its goal of trapping him in that mountain. He also mentioned that all his life, every step he took, every action he made took him to that morbid moment when he tripped and got trapped. I've never been in such a crappy situation (not gonna spoil it for you with details in case you want to watch it) but I had my share of mayhem in life and I'm pretty sure that his philosophical aproach is BS in my book. I guess what I'm trying to complain about is why do people debate whether stuff happens for a reason when clearly I think it's not needed Oh and yes, apparently I came here to complain and rant about a movie but please don't ban me yet. PS. Studiot...please do post the links to the threads you mentioned. Strange...from the physics point of view - good enough for me to.

Strange - I agree and hopefuly you are right that modern QM shows that a fully deterministic universe is not a reality, Hawkings work shows that. I guess I'm kind of mad that something so profoundly contradicting my nature is the subject of debate (speaking purely from philosophical point of view) I kinda like your canceling out analogy but unfortunately that is not how things work

I'm curious what are purely philosophical opinions on this subject. For me it's mind boggling how could someone lean towards a pre-determened nature of reality. Then again a lot of modern science is extremely counter intuitive for me, quantum mechanics beig at the top of the list. What do you think ?