Greta wrote: However, since those relationships exist, the phenomena exist.
Obvious Leo wrote:The notion of the "object" has an epistemic currency in the consciousness of the observer but no ontological currency whatsoever because an object is actually an event.
I find the "it's a new you every Planck interval" line of thought too reductionist and I think our difference seems more semantic than ontological. The semantic of the the word "object" suggests something unalive, immovable, unchanging and fixed in time, which of course is an ideal, not reality. Despite the constant incremental change at the Planck interval, it's still me, the dog, a rock or a table tomorrow as it has been so far today.
There is surely some scale of time and space where everything we know is basically an immediately dissolving blip in reality or entirely invisible but in all other cases each scale of reality has its own objects.
Obvious Leo wrote:This is the entire central point of relativity. If differently located observers observe a different distance between you and your home then how are we to determine which is the "correct distance"? Galileo, Leibniz, Poincare and Einstein were in lockstep on the point that there is no valid reason why one observer's referential frame be preferred over that of another? Ironically modern physics accepts this as well which is why distances in theoretical physics are ALWAYS measured with a clock and then translated into a spatial co-ordinate system. The REAL distance between you and your home is a time interval and the duration of this interval depends on the relativistic motions of you and your home and nothing more. The most precise way to measure this would be by timing an E/M signal and this is exactly what physicists do.
Physicists are trying to create models that are efficacious on a range of scales. I'm not - I'm trying to get home from "here".
Those models, as you say, aren't reality. No physicist would argue that the distance to my home was not x kms, with x describing either the distance as calculated by GPS or the arc of the Earth's surface between two points - take your pick. Given that such a small distance wouldn't require reference to light speed, physicists would not refer to that distance in terms of time because they wouldn't know my speed of travel.
You can fairly say that spatial dimensions are not what we think they are due to their relativistic nature, but you can't say that they are not reality. I don't see why entities should need be significant or noticeable at all scales in order to be considered real.
Greta wrote: without space everything would be mashed together in a infinitely small area.
Obvious Leo wrote:This statement is meaningless.
Yes, but that's what your words evoke, and not just in met.
Obvious Leo wrote:Without space the concept of area is not a physically valid construct. This has created a lot of difficulties in sub-atomic physics where it is only possible to model particles as dimensionless point-like entities. Notions such as "area" and "volume" are completely invalid at the sub-atomic scale so at what arbitrary level of scale should they suddenly acquire some significance? The question is a rhetorical one because the answer is obvious. "Area" and "volume" only have an epistemic meaning in the mind of the observer of them and we cannot directly observe the sub-atomic world. We can only observe space on the macro scale.
Space is present at quantum levels, hence electron orbitals. My understanding is it's Planck scale where space is supposedly meaningless.