On Jul 8, 12:40 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > What sort of things are they if they are things?
Space and time are measures of things, not things.
> One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional > in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time;
One-dimensional time in a single given spatial reference.
> that is to > say that they consist of continuous manifolds, positions in which can > be occupied by substances and events respectively, and which have an > existence in their own right.
And measures given by time and space and also mass.
> It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions that events and > processes are to be seen as taking place after each other and > substances are to be seen in certain spatial relations.
True, in a given spatial frame of reference.
> Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the > objects and events that they contain?
Had there been no objects, the concept of space would not arise. Had there been no events, the concept of time would not arise.
> Did Einstein show, through his theory of relativity, that since space > and time can change in shape and duration that space and time are more > complex than just sustained perceptual constants?
Einstein was the most brillantly wrong analyst in the entire field of science, and the sooner the world realises this fully, the better.
