Your position is, then, that air, water, jello, whatever, as media, simply exist, but not anywhere because there is not any where for them to be? But you mentioned measurement, as the representation of what was measured. If my desk is four feet from my bookcase, that is four feet of what? Air? And the air being withdrawn, which is possible, or replaced with water, which is possible, does that alter the distance between desk and case? — tim wood

Yet, without measurement, nothing may exist. Even thinking is measurement, I would argue, or put more simply, 'noticing things', which is what we are all doing right now, is it not? Without this pre-existing condtion, no discussion would be possible.

I agree with the gist, I think, except for the qualification 'merely' - what's the Feynman quote, 'nothing is "mere"'? But overall I agree that there is an inextricably subjective element in the observations. This conforms with QBism (Quantum Baynsianism) as I understand it. — Wayfarer

I was using the word 'merely' to denote that it seems there exists no pre-existing 'grand scheme' external to our perceptions so, that it is we who have a participatory role in the formation of reality That's not to downplay our role but to point out it is a matter of what is right in front of us. This goes back to what I was saying earlier about us not being able to be directly be aware of the true complexity of nature but may only construct a kind of 'subject' workspace within which to operate. To claim there may be some kind of grand scheme in place is meaningless, I contend, since a 'scheme' implies design.

An excellent TPF best kind of question! Nothing complicated or difficult. Let's try a short-cut: if in consideration of my actions, you aver that I have knowledge, then I have knowledge, and I know about what I have knowledge of. And of course we may both be wrong. But I invoke knowing in this context to distinguish between them what knows and them that don't. And those who do not know will often argue in an expanded and concealed way that because they don't know, they know. E.g., it isn't X therefore it must be Y. And it can get pretty twisted, as with out interlocutor in this thread, viz., — tim wood

This statement does not seem to have any consistency. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Space and time exist as concepts produced for the purpose of facilitating measurement, and representation of what is measured, just like a coordinate system, which I mentioned above. — Metaphysician Undercover

Surely, if space and time exist as concepts, they exist!

Without revealing too much of my own framework, this is my description of logic:

Hilbert said, "Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things." This applies to all of logic, as does its opposite. For logic is also the art of giving different names to the same things, and in a sense, these two actions are the same.

For my definition of logic, you'll have to wait for my magnum opus, if it ever comes. — Ø implies everything

Is this a riddle?

Space is not something which we measure. We measure attributes like size, volume, and various relations (distance for example) between things. And by the conventions of modern physics we do not measure time either. Time is the measurement, and it is a product of the act of relating movements, or actions, one to another. When Newtonian "absolute time" was replaced with Einsteinian "relative time", time was no longer conceptualized as something measured, and then became only the measurement. The duration of time is completely dependent on the frame of reference, which is artificial. — Metaphysician Undercover

If space and time cannot be measured then why do they exist? Or are you saying they don't really exist?

If we agree on that, I would say that any location marked on the map is the very same principle. A "location" marks something on the map which has no real existence independent of the map. So for example, if I put an X, and say that the treasure is buried at the X, on the map "X" means a location, but on the ground "X" means what ever is there, according to interpretation of the map. Whether it is a treasure which is there, or whatever, is to be determined, but whatever is there is not "a location", it is a real physical thing. So whatever it is on the ground, is something other than a "location", and the thing on the map, which is said to be "the location" is completely different from what is on the ground because "location" refers to something conceptual, a set of rules intended for finding something on the ground, or determining a thing's position relative to other things. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, i.e., a representation of the physical world in the same way as mathematics is. But mathematics is NOT the physical world. We have to use ciphers in order to organize our experiences.

You appear to have forgotten the magic phrase, "I (we) don't know." Without it, you're in trouble. For example, "I cannot (do not know how to) drive that car," and, "That car cannot be driven." Big difference, and I assume you see the potential for trouble. — tim wood

tim, may I ask you what you mean by 'knowing?' I need some more clarification.

Could we postulate that as space and time are things we can measure, therefore, they exist? This is summed up in the idea "I think, therefore, I am.' Perhaps this could be re-phrased as 'I measure, therefore, I am!' This is important because unless we can establish our own existence how can we establish things we experience?

I think this shows that mathematics is both intuitive and formal at the same time. We shouldn't forget that mathematics is a creation of more than one brain function and, as such, can appear contradictory in the same way as someone can hold two or more positions in their head simultaneously.

Darkness is what you make of it...

tim wood, the problem is, any 'proof' will simply mean proof of what we have observed, ergo, a subjective kind of proof. One cannot step out of one's consciousness and observe in any independent sense. A radio cannot be a TV, although it does have the capacity to receive and convert sound waves, but not pictures. Similarly we cannot know anything outside of our consciousness although we do have the ability to receive things analogous to 'sounds waves', so to speak. This is a a priory kind of proof, not a scientific one. That is impossible.

wonderer1, exactly, so what we term 'reality' may only really be our subjective reality and bear no resemblance to the truth. What is the term? 'You can't handle the truth?' So, if there is no absolute reality, this may be why we get surprised when we delve into new areas of physics, such as the quantum world, where there have never been any preexisting 'rules of engagement' so to speak, and so it is how we set-up an experiment in order to gain new knowledge that sculptures this new landscape. My take on it is we can never totally divorce ourselves from any experiment, which means we are really performing an experiment not only what we think is the objective world, but on the system as a whole, including ourselves! For example, how else may entanglement be explained within our current framework of spacetime? It can't, which seems to indicate that spacetime and entanglement are merely human constructs that account for data collection. Presumably, this is how scientific progress proceeds - by observation of data and modification of existing scientific theories. This is what happened to Newtonian mechanics,which was a perfectly good description of the cosmos up to a point, but because it was incomplete, required a radical new approach, i.e.The Theory of Relativity! The data required it. I think people should remember that whatever scientific instruments are used in any measurement, the human 'biological measuring instrument' plays a crucial part since it forms part of a causal chain which yields the final result.

Can we not regard our experiences of 'the real world' as something which is being filtered through our sensory system, which can be likened to a kind of 'headset', analogous to wearing a VR headset, and that what is truly going on 'behind the scenes' is far too complicated for us to understand? However we want to define the physical world, in the final analysis, it has come to represent something our evolutionary pass has equipped us to survive in. Logic, in this context, is just the label we assign to events and experiences that retain a consistent pattern over time and serves the needs of our survival and well-being.That's why, I think, when the quantum world was discovered, it was such a shock to many because it does not seem to fit our patterns of nature, which we are a part of.