The last option suggests that at a fundamental level there is no distinction between real concrete stuff and abstraction. Here is my point. Einstein General Relativity says that spacetime is more like real stuff, because it follows its own equation. Non uniform motion (for example of a spinning object) must exist in relation to spacetime, some real stuff. Yet, it is conceptually very difficult to consider that spacetime in itself is real stuff. Usually, we think that the stuff that progresses in time is what is real, whereas past and future and even time itself are concepts. In other words, we think of spacetime as an abstraction that is required to express the relationships between events. Are these two views inconsistent? Maybe not. After all, through physics we tried to find the "real concrete stuff" out there and we found that it is an abstraction only created when we observe. So, why not considering that the intelligent laws, abstraction, spacetime, etc, is what is real?
2007-07-15
04:51:24
·
2 answers
·
asked by
My account has been compromised
2
in
Physics