//sci/
File: images(254).jpg (30.8 KB)
30.8 KB
>the ancient greeks were right, space is not a real thing. if you remove the objects in it, space itself disappears
>t. Carlo Rovelli

what the fuck is his problem?
Showing all 38 replies.
>>
>>16988193
>The ancient greens were right

Is 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.
>>
>>16988201
idg what you're saying, but the universe would still exist if every planet and star disappeared
>>
>>16988193
it's a pretty radical take 2bh, he's probably wrong though
>implying we can prove one or the other
>>
>>16988208
if you assume string theory is incorrect, his theory is the only one left
>>
>>16988193
I 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 eyes
ok bro
>>
>>16988299
Whom are you quoting?
>>
>>16988301
you
>>
>>16988207
Proof?
>>
>>16988314
That wasn't stated or implied anywhere in my post. Try again?
>>
>>16988315
picrel
>>16988319
you 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 life
No, I didn't. That makes zero sense. Are you on drugs?
>>
>>16988332
maybe you are, because you're the one who said it
>>
>>16988335
Ok, I can tell you're literally mentally ill. Moving on.
>>
>>16988329
Lol, faggot.
>>
>>16988342
I made that screenshot when I noticed that anons thought that asking for proof is proof that your statement is wrong, when it isn't
>>
>>16988193
He'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.
>>
>>16988403
There 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 disappears
Space 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.
>>
>>16988373
This actually makes sense

But is gravity a force again then?
>>
>>16988419
Are you retarded perchance?
>>
>>16988485

Yep. Turns out you should never go full retard.
>>
>>16988193
It'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 them
Gee, what do you think?
>>
>>16988373
Relativity is bullshit tho. Lorentz ether needs space.
>>16988247
>>16988193
>>16988208
Space 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
>>16988641
Can we read actual scientists and not philosofags?
>>
>>16988644
Actual scientists are themselves well-read philosofags.
>>
>>16988587
>Relativity is bullshit
Then why is the speed of light in a vacuum constant for all observers regardless of their speed?
>>
>>16988193
Things can be defined by what they are not
>>
>>16988760
And you, sir, are not not a fag
>>
>>16988193
I heard in a Witten interview that the consensus is that it's impossible to make a theory that can explain all the complexity of the universe (both quantum mechanics and gravity) with the current assumptions about the universe because that leads to mathematical equations that are too simple to support such complex behaviours
So string theory solves this by inventing 11 dimensions and LQG solves it by throwing away the traditional idea of space
>>
>>16988193
Space dissappears, but the void persists.
We're just evolving through time.
>>
>>16988201
>they predicted atoms
wrong. atomic theory is derived from philosophical atomism, which was alive in a continuous tradition until atomic theory was developed.
>>
>>16991211
it also partly arises out of mathematical and empirical practicality for modellng. limitations of our minds. but the idea of a fundamental particle, and other philosophical quirks that are not strictly needed for modelling, obviously comes from atomism.
>>
>>16988193
Does anybody know if he has a wife or gets laid?

Reply to Thread #16988193


Supported: JPG, PNG, GIF, WebP, WebM, MP4, MP3 (max 4MB)