View Single Post
Dec17-11, 12:32 PM
P: 724
Quote Quote by bohm2 View Post
Now, I'm confused as I always thought that with respect to the ontolgy of space-time there were only two options:

1. Relationist: space and time could not exist without matter.
2. Dualist substantivalist ("container/bucket"): spacetime is the container/bucket and material objects are the contained (objects in the container).

With (1), if you remove matter there's "nothing" left. With (2), if you remove the objects the bucket/container/empty set still remains. But apparently there's a third option:

3. Monist substantivalist: There is no need for the dualism of the container and the contained (or for fundamental containment relations):

Spacetime the one substance

So I'm guessing that in this third ontology, if one removes that "one" stuff, nothing should remain? But what about stuff that may not be described as propagating in space-time like quantum correlations? Gisin has argued that:

Quantum nonlocality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signaling

Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time? Nonlocality, free will and "no many-worlds"

I mean, if stuff like these quantum correlations defy spatio-temporal descriptions, it seems that all 3 views are somehow flawed? Although I'm guessing the relationist view would still be safe?

Classical concepts like matter, space and time are linked together by motion. DO you understand what motion is? I don't. I don't think anybody does(i haven't seen anyone who does and certainly haven't seen anyone who understands quantum motion). We have a description, classical in nature that is deeply flawed. It implies that objects cease to exist at point X and reappear at Y a moment later. A quantum description would imply that we don't know what happens to object when in transition from X to Y, or if it moved at all. It would appear to require a measurement(a specific conscious inquiry), thus a strong point can be made for Wheeler's participatory universe, which imo is a better and more consistent ontology than the ones you listed.