StringJunky

I think this just shows that spacetime is not real; it's a model. Spacetime will go the way of phlogiston.

What is a physical thing to a physicist?

It's a model with measurable parameters; the parameters are the 'real' bits. Those parameters can be reassembled to create new relationships and make another model should the earlier one fail in some area. So, I suppose, one could say the data is real but the concepts that are made from them are just human artifacts.

I think is quite straight forward but it would have been, perhaps, clearer to say: Is spacetime real or is it just a model? Or, getting down to the nitty-gritty: what does real mean?

But it's about a purely scientific concept, isn't it? It can't be beyond the scope of science because Einstein's mentor, Minkowski, conceived it. Einstein curved it in GR as a way of describing gravity. Spacetime is a model.

Amazing woman. Her parents are too. Smoke gets gets in my eyes...

Cheers.

No, he's having problems getting his head around the way science works, just like you are; it's not easy.

GR embodies Newtonian gravity where the latter is correct. Quantum gravity theory will embody GR where it is correct. Where GR is correct, other models will have to agree with it in those same areas and not give different predictions because, otherwise, they will be wrong.

Consciousness is an emergent property of countless molecules i.e big or macro stuff. Quantum is about nano-sized stuff, is it not? I don't think quantum at that scale with stuff as big as a brain, does it.

Spacetime is an abstraction comprised of some measurable properties. An association has been made between those properties and called 'spacetime'. That association can change or be added to if someone comes up with a more complete idea.

IIRC Sucrose is glucose + fructose. The fructose part, if you have too much and doesn't get used, gets stored as fat in the liver (steatosis) which can lead to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)

Exactly,

No not small amounts. I just meant it as a principle. Sucrose is not good stuff.

A bit like saying a bullet covered in penicillin is better than one without it.

It's funny how we often can''t see what we are looking for and it's right under our nose. I think, probably, we have an expectation what something what should look like and where it should be and that blinds us because it has locked us out of any other possibilities.

In the context of this discussion, I think most scientists would say GR is incomplete but correct within it's domain of application, up to the point where it fails. Ultimately, this happens to all models. What you've said is right so what's the problem?

Doesn't it say "Delete my vote" at the bottom of the the poll?

Koti: Veni, Vidi, quod imitentur. - I came, I saw. I modelled it. That's all a scientist does. Ultimately, that's all anyone can do.

Forget about the ontology because science doesn't deal with it; it only deals with models. Ontology is a philososophical subject.

If a quantum explanation comes to fruition then gravity will be mediated by graviton virtual particles and spacetime curvature, as a way of describing gravity, will fade away, I think. I reckon there'll still be some sort of geometry to hang things on though and perhaps describe the paths of the gravitons.

Imo the only time one really gives anything resembling unconditional love is to ones babies and toddlers until they start to show some sort of autonomy and responsibility. It is a necessary state to have a wide margin of tolerance to give them the space to develop and make all their early self-induced errors in a safe and watchful environment;.

Yes, that's what I understand, so far. Yes, that's what I understand and was getting at earlier in post 83:

In science, nothing is written in stone. On the scale of centuries, science is always in flux.

The point of my example, as I already said, was about the contour lines representing altitutude./height is an abstraction.