> In physics and, more generally, in the natural sciences, space and time are the foundation of all theories. My opinion is that this is not true. If we assume

> In physics and, more generally, in the natural sciences, space and time are the foundation of all theories. My opinion is that this is not true. If we assume that what he calls "natural sciences" model nature by using equations and these equations correctly describe nature and; we believe by definition that the terms in these equations -and only those terms- describe nature -if so- then "space and time" are not "the foundation of all theories." Simply because t and d in those equations do not refer to "time" and "space" but to "interval" and "distance". And even this is not exactly correct because what I called "interval" is also distance. Because only distance can be measured, nothing else can be measured. Time or t, is just the unit distance marked on an oscillator and used to count how many times this unit distance occurs in d, the distance to be measured. Of course after necessary unit conversions. Reading the term "t" as "time" doesn't make it the philosophical time. Of course, this can only be true if we believe that we can only know what we can measure. So if we measure distance we say we measured distance. But this is not always the case, someone may say "t is called time and measures time"... I can only say that this is also an acceptable philosophical stand. So I correct myself and say "depending on your philosophical stand; the statement, 'space and time are the foundation of all theories' may or may not be true."