On Jul 7, 11:23 pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:40:44 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >What sort of things are they if they are things? > > >One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional > >in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; 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. > > >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. > > >Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the > >objects and events that they contain? > > >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? > > >Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlyn > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/ > > There are probably 'higher' dimensional aspects to the situation. > Whatever that means? The place is quite mysterious, and 'we' > are quite 'stuck' 'herein'. Other than that 'we' have 'our' model > stories, perhaps that's all 'we' can handle. What is anything in > 'itself'? More mystery. > > BTW, I resent the shallow understanding > with which 'we' seem to be stuck. > > In the meanwhile, 'higher' > dimensional measurements and considerations are very interesting. > Even negative results, such as the 'recent' studies of gravity over > millimeter distances. Some of the 'space' studies are 'higher' > dimension oriented. String theory, though surprisingly productive,
Not according to Peter Woit.
As for your quotation mark habit, consult Strunk and White, and you may be broken of it.