I think Roger has an incorrect interpretation the physics of Leibniz
I also think this discussion has reached beyond diminishing returns.
I will stick with the conventional definition of space and time.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:03:15 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>> Roger: So neither space and time nor spacetime
>> physically exist.
>> Richard: That is unscientific. Physics could be entirely wrong.
>> But I will bet on physics being correct and you and Craig being incorrect.
>> But you are entitled to your opinion however absolute you make it sound
> Craig: If we are right, then it is the Physics of Leibniz and Einstein (and
> probably others...Bohm?) are correct. Why does your interpretation speak for
> Physics but these others do not?
> Try this. Imagine universe with nothing but a ping pong ball in a vacuum.
> There really is no 'space' there. Without some other object to provide a
> frame of reference, there is literally no way to conceptualize a difference
> between one 'place' to be and another. No direction to face. Space is all
> information entropy. The lack of signal for us to make sense out of. It is
> nothing but the inferred gap between one participant and another in the
> particular visual-tactile-acoustic sense modalities of the participants
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at