I’d like to preface this post with acknowledging the fact that I’m aware of the discussion about limiting the role of a lay person on the forum to simply asking questions of the experts and not presenting actual arguments.
The first thing I would say about it is that it’s totally up to those running the forum as to what their objectives are and how they feel is the best way to accomplish those objectives. If they feel that limiting the lay person to simply asking questions of experts is the best way to accomplish their objectives, that’s up to them to decide.
And if that’s what they decide to do I’ll simply post my arguments on other forums and use this forum for the specific purposes that those running the forum have decided to allow. Having said that, it seems to me that an argument should be fundamentally judged by its legitimacy and not by the “expertise” of the person presenting the argument.
And for the sake of those who have concerns about my lack of expertise, I have had a professional philosopher look over the following argument that I’m about to present and in his opinion the argument is legitimate. So in all fairness I think it needs to be responded to in like manner.
One more thing. Though this is a topic which science is concerned with, I believe this is fundamentally a philosophical issue. So unless one is a professional philosopher, I would suggest the use of the “expert” card should be avoided, at least for issues that are recognizably philosophical in nature. Now for the argument.
Coming at this from a layperson’s perspective, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that what’s happening with relativity is, since it doesn’t seem possible to precisely determine an object’s orientation in respect to the prospect of space as an entity in itself, the most apparent alternative approach is to use a subject oriented perception of where objects are located.
Among other things, utilizing that perspective practically speaking provides a mathematically consistent and unique orientation. And so far it has proven to be the method which gives the most accurate results in respect to mechanical theory in physics for objects beyond a certain distance away in the further reaches of space.
But that in itself doesn’t seem to rule out a reality where objects exist in objective locations. In fact, it seems to me that all of the empirical evidence we have is of objects existing in objective locations. The most obvious examples that come to mind are of objects on the earth that we all recognize as existing in objective locations, e.g., The Eiffel Tower, The Four Corners Monument, Washington Monument, etc.
And if there are objects objectively located in space as we directly experience it, it seems that would possibly entail, or at least suggest in a significant way, that there are absolute locations in space in general, and hence that fundamentally space exists in an absolute sense.
Here’s a formal rendition of what I’m arguing:
Definition of terms;
Objective: in the sense of having been verified
Empirical: verifiable by observation or experience
Absolute: not dependent on relationships for existence
Space: area that can be said to encompass material objects but is distinct and separate from them
- All empirical evidence is of objects existing in objective locations in space
- If all empirical evidence is of objects existing in objective locations in space, then there is at least reasonably good evidence that there are absolute locations in space
- There is at least reasonably good evidence that there are absolute locations in space
- If there is at least reasonably good evidence that there are absolute locations in space, then there is at least a reasonably good probability that fundamentally space is absolute
- There is at least a reasonably good probability that fundamentally space is absolute
In no way does any of this reflect on the question of the effects described by the mathematical formulas of mechanical theories in physics. This is dealing specifically with the philosophical question of what is the fundamental nature of space.