Mythology is a reality

[Juma]

Do gods exist? Yes of course they bloody exist. Why the hell are you here wasting your time arguing with Christians if you truly don't also believe they exist? You might argue that they exist merely as "fictions" in light of scientific materialism but there you would also be wrong. Does space-time exist in a significantly different way to gods?

Absolutely. Space-time is a model of how reality behaves. There are lots of evidense for this behavior. There are no evidens of gods other than as fictional characters.

 

[skepticalbip]

Do gods exist? Yes of course they bloody exist. Why the hell are you here wasting your time arguing with Christians if you truly don't also believe they exist? You might argue that they exist merely as "fictions" in light of scientific materialism but there you would also be wrong. Does space-time exist in a significantly different way to gods?

Absolutely. Space-time is a model of how reality behaves. There are lots of evidense for this behavior. There are no evidens of gods other than as fictional characters.

Yes. Gods exist in the same sense that Superman or Mickey Mouse exist. The reason we argue about the existence of gods is that some people believe the fairy tales are reality rather than imagination. Spacetime existed before humanity and will still exist long after humanity is gone. Humanity brought gods into being and they will vanish along with Superman and Mickey Mouse when humanity goes, hopefully long before that.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Absolutely. Space-time is a model of how reality behaves. There are lots of evidense for this behavior. There are no evidens of gods other than as fictional characters.

Yes. Gods exist in the same sense that Superman or Mickey Mouse exist. The reason we argue about the existence of gods is that some people believe the fairy tales are reality rather than imagination. Spacetime existed before humanity and will still exist long after humanity is gone. Humanity brought gods into being and they will vanish along with Superman and Mickey Mouse when humanity goes, hopefully long before that.

Incorrect. Skepticalbip, your statement infers a matephysical, absolutist belief in the objectivity of space-time. As I've clearly demonstrated in this thread over here , there is a logical problem with that position. Yes, we agree that there is a "something" impressing itself upon the senses but we cannot call it space-time. (Rather space-time exists as a function of human cognition). You see the problem is that you have a lifetime of experiencing a supposed material reality, of bumping into things, of being subject to "gravity" and so forth to the point that your cognitive bias is so strongly in favour of that conditioning you simply cannot deeply believe in the logical fallacy of mataphysical materialism, despite quantum mechanics suggesting a far less "stable" reality. You might say "ok yes the Kantian philosophy has a point" and then claim to simply believe in the abstraction, the cognitive "space-time", but that's intellectually dishonest because deep down you truly belief in an actual objective space-time made of substance. (And your statement says as much). As I suggest in my thread here you simply can't enter into challenging that cognitive bias because your conscious ego will shift into an extreme anxiety producing position.

Ok, I'm not going to labour that point. Let's assume metaphysical materialism is actually true to some extent and that our cognition of space time is somewhat representative of an actual objective materiality. Even then, our scientific models are merely an abstraction. We don't mean to say the scientific model is actually space-time in itself, we know it is merely a mathematical abstraction. In precisely the same way mythology is a metaphorical abstraction of our social and psychological reality. Granted it's not as immediately apparent unless one has delved deeply into the study of psychology and mythology but you can't start by applying one set of standards to the hard sciences and another set of standards to the soft sciences. That's intellectual dishonesty. You know that some scientific formula is merely a representation of something, you don't take the math to be the literal object. Why must you apply literalism to mythology?

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes. Gods exist in the same sense that Superman or Mickey Mouse exist. The reason we argue about the existence of gods is that some people believe the fairy tales are reality rather than imagination. Spacetime existed before humanity and will still exist long after humanity is gone. Humanity brought gods into being and they will vanish along with Superman and Mickey Mouse when humanity goes, hopefully long before that.

Incorrect. Skepticalbip, your statement infers a matephysical, absolutist belief in the objectivity of space-time. As I've clearly demonstrated in this thread over here , there is a logical problem with that position. Yes, we agree that there is a "something" impressing itself upon the senses but we cannot call it space-time. (Rather space-time exists as a function of human cognition). You see the problem is that you have a lifetime of experiencing a supposed material reality, of bumping into things, of being subject to "gravity" and so forth to the point that your cognitive bias is so strongly in favour of that conditioning you simply cannot deeply believe in the logical fallacy of mataphysical materialism, despite quantum mechanics suggesting a far less "stable" reality. You might say "ok yes the Kantian philosophy has a point" and then claim to simply believe in the abstraction, the cognitive "space-time", but that's intellectually dishonest because deep down you truly belief in an actual objective space-time made of substance. (And your statement says as much). As I suggest in my thread here you simply can't enter into challenging that cognitive bias because your conscious ego will shift into an extreme anxiety producing position.

What utter nonsense. You apparently have no understanding of science at all.

Ok, I'm not going to labour that point. Let's assume metaphysical materialism is actually true to some extent and that our cognition of space time is somewhat representative of an actual objective materiality. Even then, our scientific models are merely an abstraction.

Models are not abstractions. Models are descriptions.

We don't mean to say the scientific model is actually space-time in itself, we know it is merely a mathematical abstraction. In precisely the same way mythology is a metaphorical abstraction of our social and psychological reality. Granted it's not as immediately apparent unless one has delved deeply into the study of psychology and mythology but you can't start by applying one set of standards to the hard sciences and another set of standards to the soft sciences. That's intellectual dishonesty. You know that some scientific formula is merely a representation of something, you don't take the math to be the literal object. Why must you apply literalism to mythology?

WTF?

Certainly no one thinks a description of something in science (or anywhere else) is the thing itself. But to give an accurate description of a thing, the thing itself must exist. But then you could be one of those "mind in a jar" believers who claims that there is no external reality - all is the creation of mind (ultimate egotism).

Where the hell have I even implied, much less stated, that mythology is taken literally?

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Incorrect. Skepticalbip, your statement infers a matephysical, absolutist belief in the objectivity of space-time. As I've clearly demonstrated in this thread over here , there is a logical problem with that position. Yes, we agree that there is a "something" impressing itself upon the senses but we cannot call it space-time. (Rather space-time exists as a function of human cognition). You see the problem is that you have a lifetime of experiencing a supposed material reality, of bumping into things, of being subject to "gravity" and so forth to the point that your cognitive bias is so strongly in favour of that conditioning you simply cannot deeply believe in the logical fallacy of mataphysical materialism, despite quantum mechanics suggesting a far less "stable" reality. You might say "ok yes the Kantian philosophy has a point" and then claim to simply believe in the abstraction, the cognitive "space-time", but that's intellectually dishonest because deep down you truly belief in an actual objective space-time made of substance. (And your statement says as much). As I suggest in my thread here you simply can't enter into challenging that cognitive bias because your conscious ego will shift into an extreme anxiety producing position.

What utter nonsense. You apparently have no understanding of science at all.

Ok. Can you point out my misunderstanding then?

Models are not abstractions. Models are descriptions.

We don't mean to say the scientific model is actually space-time in itself, we know it is merely a mathematical abstraction. In precisely the same way mythology is a metaphorical abstraction of our social and psychological reality. Granted it's not as immediately apparent unless one has delved deeply into the study of psychology and mythology but you can't start by applying one set of standards to the hard sciences and another set of standards to the soft sciences. That's intellectual dishonesty. You know that some scientific formula is merely a representation of something, you don't take the math to be the literal object. Why must you apply literalism to mythology?

WTF?

Certainly no one thinks a description of something in science (or anywhere else) is the thing itself. But to give an accurate description of a thing, the thing itself must exist. But then you could be one of those "mind in a jar" believers who claims that there is no external reality - all is the creation of mind (ultimate egotism).

Where the hell have I even implied, much less stated, that mythology is taken literally?

Haha. No, I'm not one of those "mind in a jar" believers at all. In fact it's quite simple. You obviously haven't read the thread I made so that I don't have to keep repeating myself. It's here: http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?8123-Why-materialism-is-a-metaphysical-position

So once you've read the first post please explain how space-time as we have come to call it is a thing-in-itself and not a cognitive function of the human psyche.

But you still haven't addressed my point - why is it so difficult to see that mythology metaphorically describes our social and psychological reality? Are these not "real things" in the worlds (cognitive or metaphysical)?

 

[skepticalbip]

What utter nonsense. You apparently have no understanding of science at all.

Ok. Can you point out my misunderstanding then?

There are too many nested strawmen in both that part of this post and the post you linked to for it to make any sense at all. If you want to argue what science does, thinks, means then you should take the time to actually learn rather than offer a straw man version of it.

For example your: "scientific models are merely an abstraction". If you honestly believe this rather than just offering such a strawman because you think it sounds good then you should wonder why so much time, effort, and expense is put into making observations and measurements in order to formulate models that describe what was measured. If models are only abstractions then labs and instrumentation isn't necessary - scientists could just sit in their comfortable office chairs and imagine what they need to posit as true to justify what they want the universe to be, sorta like philosophers do.

Models are not abstractions. Models are descriptions.

We don't mean to say the scientific model is actually space-time in itself, we know it is merely a mathematical abstraction. In precisely the same way mythology is a metaphorical abstraction of our social and psychological reality. Granted it's not as immediately apparent unless one has delved deeply into the study of psychology and mythology but you can't start by applying one set of standards to the hard sciences and another set of standards to the soft sciences. That's intellectual dishonesty. You know that some scientific formula is merely a representation of something, you don't take the math to be the literal object. Why must you apply literalism to mythology?

WTF?

Certainly no one thinks a description of something in science (or anywhere else) is the thing itself. But to give an accurate description of a thing, the thing itself must exist. But then you could be one of those "mind in a jar" believers who claims that there is no external reality - all is the creation of mind (ultimate egotism).

Where the hell have I even implied, much less stated, that mythology is taken literally?

Haha. No, I'm not one of those "mind in a jar" believers at all. In fact it's quite simple. You obviously haven't read the thread I made so that I don't have to keep repeating myself. It's here: http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?8123-Why-materialism-is-a-metaphysical-position

So once you've read the first post please explain how space-time as we have come to call it is a thing-in-itself and not a cognitive function of the human psyche.

There is no way to explain in a chat forum all the measurements and data that have been made that verify the existence of space/time. The latest I am aware of is the detection and measurement of gravitational waves. Of course you would first have to understand what gravitational waves are before it would make any sense to you sorta like an experiment that measured ocean waves wouldn’t mean anything to someone who denied the existence of the ocean. Maybe your problem is that you can't imagine the existence of anything that isn't made of atoms – unless it is psychic.

But you still haven't addressed my point - why is it so difficult to see that mythology metaphorically describes our social and psychological reality? Are these not "real things" in the worlds (cognitive or metaphysical)?

I have but you didn’t like it. I explained how myths address our common needs, insecurities, beliefs, etc. as I understand Joseph Campbell’s (a premier mythologist, if that is a word) view.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

There are too many nested strawmen in both that part of this post and the post you linked to for it to make any sense at all. If you want to argue what science does, thinks, means then you should take the time to actually learn rather than offer a straw man version of it.

For example your: "scientific models are merely an abstraction". If you honestly believe this rather than just offering such a strawman because you think it sounds good then you should wonder why so much time, effort, and expense is put into making observations and measurements in order to formulate models that describe what was measured. If models are only abstractions then labs and instrumentation isn't necessary - scientists could just sit in their comfortable office chairs and imagine what they need to posit as true to justify what they want the universe to be, sorta like philosophers do.

There is no way to explain in a chat forum all the measurements and data that have been made that verify the existence of space/time. The latest I am aware of is the detection and measurement of gravitational waves. Of course you would first have to understand what gravitational waves are before it would make any sense to you sorta like an experiment that measured ocean waves wouldn’t mean anything to someone who denied the existence of the ocean. Maybe your problem is that you can't imagine the existence of anything that isn't made of atoms – unless it is psychic.

You're still buying in to the naive idea that space-time is an objective thing-in-itself rather than understanding the role of cognition in our formulation of of the INTUITIVE IDEA of "space-time". This is why we need philosophy - to explain the context and meaning of scientific results. You clearly didn't read the first post of my thread on why materialism is a metaphysical position, did you? You see empiricism does not describe the thing-in-itself, an objective supposed "space time", it describes our collective inter-subjective cognition of space-time. How can it be any other way? To cite an over-simplified example, if for example dogs really do only see in black and white, how will they ever conceive of something outside of that limitation? Even if they develop instrumentation to detect the full spectrum of light, their results will always be subjected to that cognitive and sensory "distortion" - their models will always interpret the data back down to "black and white" because they do not have the sensory or cognitive capacity to understand anything beyond that. This is why I say "abstraction" rather than "description". The only way they could understand colour would be through an even further abstraction like mathematics or via metaphor.

But that's a very simplistic example and what you need to realize is that space-time itself is a cognitive distortion of the "thing-in-itself". Why? Because it is an object of sensory data and cognition. This is why empiricism describes our cognition of the objective thing-in-itself even when we use instrumentation that gives us a kind of sensory input beyond our ordinary human senses. This is why as we approach the thing-in-itself it becomes completely counter-intuitive, like quantum mechanics - it points out our cognitive bias. But even then we're only approaching the thing-in-itself. In the words of the psychologist Jacques Lacan "The Real resists symbolization" meaning that an objective reality defies an objective understanding. Even the idea of "understanding" is not objective in the sense of an objective reality "out there" because it's a subjective human faculty.

Read the thread I linked to and you will understand a bit better.

I have but you didn’t like it. I explained how myths address our common needs, insecurities, beliefs, etc. as I understand Joseph Campbell’s (a premier mythologist, if that is a word) view.

Ok, I didn't see where you said that. And so are our common needs, insecurities, beliefs not part of an actual objective social and psychological reality? (whether cognitive or metaphysical)

 

[Juma]

You see empiricism does not describe the thing-in-itself.

And nobody says it does.

You are attacking a strawman.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

And nobody says it does.

You are attacking a strawman.

...Of course you would first have to understand what gravitational waves are before it would make any sense to you sorta like an experiment that measured ocean waves wouldn’t mean anything to someone who denied the existence of the ocean...

Skepticalbip's language use here infers that someone must first believe in the objective metaphysical reality of the ocean in order to interpret empirical data about the ocean. You see the way he has phrased this implies the metaphysical belief in the metaphysical reality of the ocean.

...Spacetime existed before humanity and will still exist long after humanity is gone...

Here again, he infers that space-time as we know it is not a property of human cognition but rather a metaphysical reality. Can you see the intellectual dishonesty? You can't say "yeah sure, we know the limits of science in telling us about the thing-in-itself" but then go on to take the results of empiricism to infer something about the thing-in-itself. Sure, we know that something might continue once humanity has dies out but we can't call it "space-time" as we know it.

But ok, granted, this was not you saying that, so I take it we are on the same page then?

So the implications of this are that our scientific models are not actually the descriptions of a metaphysical reality but rather descriptions of our cognitive conception of a metaphysical reality (whatever it might be). In the same way mythology is a description of certain cognitive conceptions, our social reality, our psychological behaviours and so on. We know for example that just as "7" does not exist as a metaphysically real object in the world but is rather an "idea", a part of human cognition - we know that maths and physics are simply used as ideas to describe the cognition of the thing-in-itself. But so is the idea of "father" an archetypal "idea" that describes an object of experience (just like our cognitive space-time) in the world. From there we can continue to extrapolate - so is "the archetypal dark mother" or "the Witch of Repunzel" a description of a psycho-social (cognitive) reality.

This is fine, (pseudo) skeptics here seem to accept the idea reasonably well. They seem to agree that mythology can be a description of a cognitive "object of experience" but then say it's not the same as science, it's a description of an "idea", like Mickey Mouse and that science really tells us something about a metaphysical reality. Do you see the problem?


Maybe we need to approach this differently. Let's forget about metaphysics for the time being.
We would probably all agree that both "space-time" and "mother" are objects of experience. Right?
Of course the difference would be that we would say that there is only one space-time that is common to all human experience and there are many experiences of "mother" that may differ from individual to individual. The point is that these are both objects of experience. We would hence expect to find a single and consistent description of space-time but many differing descriptions of "mother". In fact we actually find different descriptions of space-time within different context, at different scales and inside a black hole for example, just as we find different description of "mother" depending on the individual context. Still both are "objects of experience". Since we don't conflate our differing models of space-time with the actual object of experience we don't conflate our mythological descriptions of with the actual object of experience. It too is a "model". We say that not everyone experiences that dark archetypal all-consuming mother described by Baba Yaga, but we can say that our myth describes the all-consuming mother as an object of experience in the world in certain individual contexts. The mistake everyone is making in the theist-atheist debate is saying "Baba Yaga" does (theist) or does not (atheist) exist as a direct object of experience, but in the same way we don't mean scientifically or mathematically that "7" exists as an object of experience. Ok, yes, they can be objects of experience in the sense of "ideas" as in I can experience the "idea" of Baba Yaga or the idea of "7" but these ideas are a different order of idea, a different kind of "object of experience" from our pre-conscious cognitive intuitive conception of space-time or "mother" which are experienced as "objects in the world". So epistemologically, science and mythology are effectively on an equal footing here.

Where it becomes interesting is when we do draw in metaphysics and if we posit that philosophical idealism is true, then ideas themselves as "objects of experience" have a metaphysical reality. So we can say that the idea of "7" really does exist as a metaphysical object but then we also have to say that God or Baba Yaga really exist as metaphysical objects. But that would be a faith-based position just as metaphysical materialism is a faith-based position.

 

[tantric]

bah - what you need to understand is that history is state mythology

 

[Juma]

...Of course you would first have to understand what gravitational waves are before it would make any sense to you sorta like an experiment that measured ocean waves wouldn’t mean anything to someone who denied the existence of the ocean...

Skepticalbip's language use here infers that someone must first believe in the objective metaphysical reality of the ocean in order to interpret empirical data about the ocean. You see the way he has phrased this implies the metaphysical belief in the metaphysical reality of the ocean.

...Spacetime existed before humanity and will still exist long after humanity is gone...

Here again, he infers that space-time as we know it is not a property of human cognition but rather a metaphysical reality.

No he does not. He infers that space time is a physical reality.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is no way to explain in a chat forum all the measurements and data that have been made that verify the existence of space/time. The latest I am aware of is the detection and measurement of gravitational waves. Of course you would first have to understand what gravitational waves are before it would make any sense to you sorta like an experiment that measured ocean waves wouldn’t mean anything to someone who denied the existence of the ocean. Maybe your problem is that you can't imagine the existence of anything that isn't made of atoms – unless it is psychic.

You're still buying in to the naive idea that space-time is an objective thing-in-itself rather than understanding the role of cognition in our formulation of of the INTUITIVE IDEA of "space-time". This is why we need philosophy - to explain the context and meaning of scientific results.

It is an objective thing in itself. Your personal refusal to recognize a chair as existing because the room is dark so you can't see it even though you stump your toe on it and trip over it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This has to be some special kind of denial. We have not only stumped our toe on spacetime, we have busted our shins on it. It is there. We have confirmed it as well as we have confirmed that the chair is in that dark room.

You clearly didn't read the first post of my thread on why materialism is a metaphysical position, did you?

I have already said that I read it and found it to be unintelligible because of the nested strawmen.

You see empiricism does not describe the thing-in-itself, an objective supposed "space time", it describes our collective inter-subjective cognition of space-time. How can it be any other way? To cite an over-simplified example, if for example dogs really do only see in black and white, how will they ever conceive of something outside of that limitation? Even if they develop instrumentation to detect the full spectrum of light, their results will always be subjected to that cognitive and sensory "distortion" - their models will always interpret the data back down to "black and white" because they do not have the sensory or cognitive capacity to understand anything beyond that. This is why I say "abstraction" rather than "description". The only way they could understand colour would be through an even further abstraction like mathematics or via metaphor.

But that's a very simplistic example and what you need to realize is that space-time itself is a cognitive distortion of the "thing-in-itself". Why? Because it is an object of sensory data and cognition. This is why empiricism describes our cognition of the objective thing-in-itself even when we use instrumentation that gives us a kind of sensory input beyond our ordinary human senses. This is why as we approach the thing-in-itself it becomes completely counter-intuitive, like quantum mechanics - it points out our cognitive bias. But even then we're only approaching the thing-in-itself. In the words of the psychologist Jacques Lacan "The Real resists symbolization" meaning that an objective reality defies an objective understanding. Even the idea of "understanding" is not objective in the sense of an objective reality "out there" because it's a subjective human faculty.

Read the thread I linked to and you will understand a bit better.

The link is nonsense, I have read it as I already explained. It can only seem to make "sense" to someone who believes your strawmen and has not one whit of a clue about science. Although you seem to be awfully proud of it - why, escapes me.

I guess as long as you only present that scree to other philosophers then you could probably pass it off as thoughtful. But maybe not. There are some philosophers who do understand a little science.

I have but you didn’t like it. I explained how myths address our common needs, insecurities, beliefs, etc. as I understand Joseph Campbell’s (a premier mythologist, if that is a word) view.

Ok, I didn't see where you said that. And so are our common needs, insecurities, beliefs not part of an actual objective social and psychological reality? (whether cognitive or metaphysical)

You have your just-so-story. Other philosophers have their just-so-stories. I see no compelling reason to accept your nonsense over theirs.

 

[skepticalbip]

...Of course you would first have to understand what gravitational waves are before it would make any sense to you sorta like an experiment that measured ocean waves wouldn’t mean anything to someone who denied the existence of the ocean...

Skepticalbip's language use here infers that someone must first believe in the objective metaphysical reality of the ocean in order to interpret empirical data about the ocean. You see the way he has phrased this implies the metaphysical belief in the metaphysical reality of the ocean.

Damned dude... I was trying to explain it in terms that even you could possibly understand. You certainly can not understand a technical description. Though it is now obvious that you don't want to understand. You only want to make typical philosophical arguments that are only useful to those who enjoy mental masturbation.

 

[skepticalbip]

bah - what you need to understand is that history is state mythology

Exactly.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Skepticalbip's language use here infers that someone must first believe in the objective metaphysical reality of the ocean in order to interpret empirical data about the ocean. You see the way he has phrased this implies the metaphysical belief in the metaphysical reality of the ocean.

...Spacetime existed before humanity and will still exist long after humanity is gone...

Here again, he infers that space-time as we know it is not a property of human cognition but rather a metaphysical reality.

No he does not. He infers that space time is a physical reality.

LOL. You are too funny.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

It is an objective thing in itself. Your personal refusal to recognize a chair as existing because the room is dark so you can't see it even though you stump your toe on it and trip over it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This has to be some special kind of denial. We have not only stumped our toe on spacetime, we have busted our shins on it. It is there. We have confirmed it as well as we have confirmed that the chair is in that dark room.

See, that's not what I said. To use your example, I am saying there is an objective "something" (metaphysical) which is the cause of sense impression which appears to me as a chair. That is different from saying the chair itself is an objective (metaphysical) reality.

I have already said that I read it and found it to be unintelligible because of the nested strawmen.

Fantastic. Please point them out to me. Happy for you to do it in that thread if it's easier.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

bah - what you need to understand is that history is state mythology

Exactly.

Yeah but that's a different definition and context from the context I described in the OP. Sure people can twist or alter narratives to manipulate others. That's precisely the very reason propaganda works because we believe the political reality of it even if it is a "fiction".

 

[Juma]

Skepticalbip's language use here infers that someone must first believe in the objective metaphysical reality of the ocean in order to interpret empirical data about the ocean. You see the way he has phrased this implies the metaphysical belief in the metaphysical reality of the ocean.

...Spacetime existed before humanity and will still exist long after humanity is gone...

Here again, he infers that space-time as we know it is not a property of human cognition but rather a metaphysical reality.

No he does not. He infers that space time is a physical reality.

LOL. You are too funny.

You clearly dont understand. What we know about space time does not rely on our senses. It is based on observations that doesnt need humans to be performed.

Even if all humans are gone, space time remains as it existed long before any living ting.

 

[skepticalbip]

Skepticalbip's language use here infers that someone must first believe in the objective metaphysical reality of the ocean in order to interpret empirical data about the ocean. You see the way he has phrased this implies the metaphysical belief in the metaphysical reality of the ocean.

...Spacetime existed before humanity and will still exist long after humanity is gone...

Here again, he infers that space-time as we know it is not a property of human cognition but rather a metaphysical reality.

No he does not. He infers that space time is a physical reality.

LOL. You are too funny.

You clearly dont understand. What we know about space time does not rely on our senses. It is based on observations that doesnt need humans to be performed.

Even if all humans are gone, space time remains as it existed long before any living ting.

I think you may be wasting your time. I don't see that modernPrimitive2 wants a discussion. It looks more like it is either agreement or a never ending argument with constantly shifting of goal posts that is the aim of these posts.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

You clearly dont understand. What we know about space time does not rely on our senses. It is based on observations that doesnt need humans to be performed.

Even if all humans are gone, space time remains as it existed long before any living ting.

LOL. So if I observe something through night vision goggles I'm no longer observing it? If there are no human minds observing quantum experiments then how do we even know about them?

Like I said, you are too funny.