3 ms·

I do agree with your point, but I think we are seeing the limit of language: when we don't attach the exact same definition to words, we can misunderstand each

I do agree with your point, but I think we are seeing the limit of language: when we don't attach the exact same definition to words, we can misunderstand each others while trying to convey the same thing. The way you use "real" is the way I would use "valid": A theory is valid until proven otherwise. And the way I use "real" (and I think it is the same way the article used it), is whether something has any grounding in our universe (some pattern as you said before). For example, wormholes are possible following the theory of general relativity, but we don't know if they are "real", e.g. can there actually be a wormhole in our universe. If we do end up finding one, then they are real. If we however find conclusive evidence that they cannot exist in our universe, then they are not real, but only an artifact of our (incomplete) theory of general relativity.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> And the way I use "real" (and I think it is the same way the article used it), is whether something has any grounding in our universe (some pattern as you said before). Many of the things you described as "real" don't have grounding in our universe, i.e. things like "chair". It's possible I misunderstand your usage of the term "grounding". > For example, wormholes are possible following the theory of general relativity, but we don't know if they are "real", e.g. can there actually be a wormhole in our universe. If we do end up finding one, then they are real. If we however find conclusive evidence that they cannot exist in our universe, then they are not real, but only an artifact of our (incomplete) theory of general relativity. Sure, but how does that apply to spacetime? We know, so far as anything can be known, that space and time are two different perspectives of the same thing. Relativity described it, and we have measured and the effects it predicts with startling accuracy. Here's a question: It matters if wormholes can or cannot exist regardless of if the current model permits them or not. Does it matter if spacetime fits your definition of "real" or not?
8note 6y ago
Sabine's version of "real" - that the universe cannot exist without this is a better one imo Worm holes aren't real until we can't describe phenomenon without them. Same with the aether. Black holes and chairs are real because we can't make a theory that doesn't include them while still making accurate prediy
- aeternum 6y ago
  but the universe can exist without chairs

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

> And the way I use "real" (and I think it is the same way the article used it), is whether something has any grounding in our universe (some pattern as you said before). Many of the things you described as "real" don't have grounding in our universe, i.e. things like "chair". It's possible I misunderstand your usage of the term "grounding". > For example, wormholes are possible following the theory of general relativity, but we don't know if they are "real", e.g. can there actually be a wormhole in our universe. If we do end up finding one, then they are real. If we however find conclusive evidence that they cannot exist in our universe, then they are not real, but only an artifact of our (incomplete) theory of general relativity. Sure, but how does that apply to spacetime? We know, so far as anything can be known, that space and time are two different perspectives of the same thing. Relativity described it, and we have measured and the effects it predicts with startling accuracy. Here's a question: It matters if wormholes can or cannot exist regardless of if the current model permits them or not. Does it matter if spacetime fits your definition of "real" or not?

8note 6y ago

Sabine's version of "real" - that the universe cannot exist without this is a better one imo Worm holes aren't real until we can't describe phenomenon without them. Same with the aether. Black holes and chairs are real because we can't make a theory that doesn't include them while still making accurate prediy

aeternum 6y ago
but the universe can exist without chairs