Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I don't dispute that models say something about reality, but they are not that reality, they are a conceptual representation, that's what I'm saying.But we *know* through actual measurements that this model actually says something about reality. We *know* simultaneity depends on relative motion and on gravity.
And I would ask if you would say the same about space: does it only exist as a proxy? Something that we use rulers and other measuring devices to reveal regularities, but all measuring something that doesn't actually exist?
Is there an 'absolute here'? And why is that seen as such a different question than the existence of an 'absolute now'?
And a meter stick shows that the universal absolute here was present and continued for 100 centimeters? or, if you want, a wave on the water gives regularity over a distance in a similar way to the pendulum giving regularity over time.
But, again, that is different than whether simultaneity is absolute. We know it is not.
No, space does not exist as a proxy, it is real as an entity you can see, look at the sky. And you can see objects that have spatial shapes, look at a rock. Close your eyes and you can still easily visualize space. But you can not see time, there is not an entity to see, you can only see a proxy for time such as a the regular movement of stars or pendulums.
So the pendulum swings back and forth, or the sand flows through the calibrated hour glass, and we are measuring the universal 'now' continuing to exist. The concept of time was created by the human mind as a proxy for the continuation of universal now,, the concept of space is a real entity, not a proxy.