Is "spacetime" a substance?

Question

.
Also: Do you agree with John Earman's (or John3's) more recent reformulation of the "hole argument" (originally proposed by Einstein himself for somewhat different purposes), against spacetime substantivalism?


Thank you for your comments.
.
.

Cautionary Note: In case this sort of frivolous matter is NOT your cup of tea and/or daily bread and butter already (or in case you have to read popular physics expository books in order to pickup on the jargons), PLEASE DO NOT TRY THIS QUESTION AT HOME, or else chances are soon enough you too might start acting like this wonderful being here, suffering from Acute Exponential Brain Extension and Warp Speed Eye Problems [:-)]:
.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTd3M4FTeI
.
.

Answer 1

The general theory of relativity and field theory of matter generate an interesting ontology of space-time and, generally, of nature. It is a monistic, anti-atomistic and geometrized ontology — in which the substance is the metric field — to which all physical events are reducible. Such ontology refers to the Cartesian definition of corporeality and to Plato's ontology of nature presented in the Timaeus. This ontology provides a solution to the dispute between Clark and Leibniz on the issue of the ontological independence of space-time from distribution of events. However, mathematical models of space-time in physics do not solve the problem of the difference between time and space dimensions (invariance of equations with regard to the inversion of time arrow). Recent research on space-time singularities and asymmetrical in time quantum theory of gravitation will perhaps allow for the solution of this problem based on the structure of space-time and not merely on thermodynamics

Answer 2

Ha ha, I wish I had the same motivation for trying these questions at home as when I accomplished 3/4 of a physics B.S. Alas, my brain has become a blob of space and time has removed access to the information that once was my primary substance. As such, I might say that spacetime is a substance with properties that absorb information, rendering it irretrievable.

Such notwithstanding, "no", to the first question, which logically produces "yes" to the second.
Perhaps too simplistic, my vantage is that this is analogous to the ether problem, which Michelson and Morley already answered. There is no ether. Spacetime is a logical construct in that not anything can exist without an empty place in which to reside and the sequence of existing that is duration.

Answer 3

Time is not a substance, as we undersand substance in the popular manner. Space too is not a substance, since substance is only matter. Now if one wishes he can give special meanings to the concept of substance to buid it in such a manner that both space and time could be termed suubstances, andspact time a substance, but then it shall be highly technical in any way. As such, space time space, and tiime can not be termed substances. time is there as a reality, but not as a substance, so is space.

Time is the sense of before and after, and space is the absence of matter. Light is a presence but darkness is the absence of light. heat the presence, but cold is the absence of heat. so one could say the darkness is real and eternal, cold is real and eternal and so on. They all are realities, but not substances.

Answer 4

For now, my view is that 'space' is a non-material field (gel-like) with enough tension through which light can move in waves and that through that field, matter evolves (from photons) and acts upon matter at a distance, centering itself in its immediate environment. Time is irrelevant.

Answer 5

Space-time HAS no substance, so it is NOT a substance. It is instead a descriptive term for a concept that encapsulates a multitude of substances and 'things'.

Answer 6

No, the three Johns are butt-clowns.

The universe is determinalist.

Answer 7

I would have taken physics if he was the prof.