Try pointing to yourself or look in the mirror and you’ll have your answer. — NOS4A2

We observe change and we attempt to model that change. Then you can model that change however you like, — leo

What should you do now? — Purple Pond

Hygiene is a powerful tool, and I believe that organized structure in visual arts (ballets included) represent a projection in our affinity to high standards of hygiene. — god must be atheist

Does it matter if the person is conceived, gestated, born, aware, self-aware? — schopenhauer1

having wasted my high school years on electric guitar and acid — Wayfarer

Space isn't a thing in itself that can bend. — Terrapin Station

The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view. Space-time and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question, which was the more fundamental of the two. Space-time was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom, associated with perturbations of the metric - gravitational waves. Thus, space can exist and change with time in the absence of electrons, protons, photons, etc.; in other words, in the absence of anything that had previously (i.e., prior to general relativity) been subsumed by the term matter.

A more recent trend, finally, has been toward a unified geometric theory of all fundamental interactions, including gravitation. Prior to the end of the 1970’s, such a program seemed unrealizable; rigorous theorems were proven on the impossibility of unifying spatial symmetries with the internal symmetries of elementary particle theory. Fortunately, these theorems were sidestepped after the discovery of supersymmetric theories. In these theories all particles can be interpreted in terms of the geometric properties of a multidimensional superspace. Space ceases to be simply a requisite mathematical adjunct for the description of the real world, and instead takes on greater and greater independent significance, gradually encompassing all the material particles under the guise of its own intrinsic degrees of freedom. In this picture, instead of using space for describing the only real thing, matter, we use the notion of matter in order to simplify description of superspace. This change of the picture of the world is perhaps one of the most profound (and least known) consequences of modern physics.

Methinks it works like how a 2D space (a flat sheet of paper) bends in 3D space and leaves behind 3D space. — TheMadFool

A--B
|  |
D--C

Another approach that aims to reconcile the apparent passage of time with the block universe goes by the name of causal set theory. First developed in the 1980s as an approach to quantum gravity by the physicist Rafael Sorkin — who was also at the conference — the theory is based on the idea that space-time is discrete rather than continuous. In this view, although the universe appears continuous at the macroscopic level, if we could peer down to the so-called Planck scale (distances of about 10–35 meters) we’d discover that the universe is made up of elementary units or “atoms” of space-time. The atoms form what mathematicians call a “partially ordered set” — an array in which each element is linked to an adjacent element in a particular sequence. The number of these atoms (estimated to be a whopping 10240 in the visible universe) gives rise to the volume of space-time, while their sequence gives rise to time. According to the theory, new space-time atoms are continuously coming into existence. Fay Dowker, a physicist at Imperial College London, referred to this at the conference as “accretive time.” She invited everyone to think of space-time as accreting new space-time atoms in way roughly analogous to a seabed depositing new layers of sediment over time. General relativity yields only a block, but causal sets seem to allow a “becoming,” she said. “The block universe is a static thing — a static picture of the world — whereas this process of becoming is dynamical.” In this view, the passage of time is a fundamental rather than an emergent feature of the cosmos. (Causal set theory has made at least one successful prediction about the universe, Dowker pointed out, having been used to estimate the value of the cosmological constant based only on the space-time volume of the universe.)

Einstein knew very well spacetime is a human creation, a tool of tought, that curved spacetime doesn't explain gravity, it's just one complicated but mathematically elegant way to describe it. — leo

It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers.[5]
— Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3

There's not a "thing" that creates separation between objects. There's just the facts of their extensional relations. — Terrapin Station

You might have noted that it is not a super active place, if it is still open. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That particular forum did not last long on my favorite list. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That's kind of a silly thing to say, on the one hand. A field is "a physical quantity... that has a value for each point in space-time." And temperature is, of course, a physical quantity. One can talk about temperature fields, and electron fields, and all sorts of other physical fields, and they all exist in the same place (all place) at the same time (all time). But they are not physical objects, you would object! Well, yeah, when we talk about physical objects, we usually talk about things like chairs and stuff. So don't call things that are not object-like objects, and you'll get the conclusion that objects cannot be in the same place at the same time. Or do call them objects, and you'll get a different conclusion. Whoop-de-doo — SophistiCat

If all of the particles that made up the Empire State Building had the EMPTY space removed from them there would be an object about the size of a grain of rice left. With so much empty space in every object it might be possible to squeeze in another object or two. How the hell it could be done I have no idea though. — Sir2u

It's considered by physicists to be a physical object. Do you disagree with them? — frank

A Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is a model in particle physics in which, at high energy, the three gauge interactions of the Standard Model that define the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions, or forces, are merged into a single force. Although this unified force has not been directly observed, the many GUT models theorize its existence. If unification of these three interactions is possible, it raises the possibility that there was a grand unification epoch in the very early universe in which these three fundamental interactions were not yet distinct.

Experiments have confirmed that at high energy, the electromagnetic interaction and weak interaction unify into a single electroweak interaction. GUT models predict that at even higher energy, the strong interaction and the electroweak interaction will unify into a single electronuclear interaction. This interaction is characterized by one larger gauge symmetry and thus several force carriers, but one unified coupling constant. Unifying gravity with the electronuclear interaction would provide a theory of everything (TOE) rather than a GUT. GUTs are often seen as an intermediate step towards a TOE.

So why is the electromagnetic field a physical object, but a temperature field is an abstract object? — frank

I think you’re on a recruitment drive for an alternative religion. — Wayfarer

What about dimensionality? — Wallows