No it isn't. Why would you place such a false assumption on me as if I have to even bother with some burden to defending what I don't believe? I'm strongly atheist. And my assumption on reality is to base it on nothing at all. Thus, I'm arguing for a Nihilistic stance. You begin assuming nothing, knowing that you are a something which assures this is contradictory. Thus, by assuming it, you are assured that both a something AND a nothingness follow logically. By contrast, you can also argue by beginning with "something" and demonstrate that "nothing(s)" exist. But this is already understood. Only it is harder for many to comprehend that a nothingness is even more of a reduced concept than to assume something.Obvious Leo wrote:I have no objection to your use of the computer as a template for reality because I do the same thing but you're speaking of a computer executing a programme and I'm referring to a computer which programmes its own input, which you should understand is the Universal Turing Machine. An eternal reality maker needs no programme because cause and effect is all that is needed as an evolutionary algorithm for a universe sufficient to its own existence. Your Platonic mathematical forms cannot specify for such a universe because they are of supernatural origin. Your philosophy is intrinsically creationist.
On the other hand, you take the stance that things like space itself are nothing but as made up human referents. This to me sounds opposingly weird and I gave you the examples of how this to most religions is their justification for their derived belief in "Spirit" as they perceived the mystical nature of air. They too would have argued the same way about it as you do. That if it were something, should we not be able to see it as we do other things that "MATTER"? (thus the origin of the concept in science)
You only extend this rationale to space simply because you don't understand it "mattering" in a similar way. But I challenge you to try ignoring its existence by taking one of Brandson's space tours and stepping outside for a walk without a suit. If what you feel then isn't real to you, you win. Just please send some photos back so that I can see you gloat as you prove me wrong.
If space were unreal, than no distance even exists between matter unless you beg that some 'supernatural entity' is playing some trick on you to give you that illusion. The 'gap' in time you expect doesn't exist would have to be another version of Platonic formula you also disagree with. You send a beam of light out to the sky, when it hits the atmosphere, it hits some magical 'timer' that you cannot see that delays it long enough to give you the illusion of traveling through some non-existing thing.
