> To be clear, you're suggesting that physisticsts reject general relativity's unification of spacetime because Kant, who obviously had no knowledge of GR nor t

> To be clear, you're suggesting that physisticsts reject general relativity's unification of spacetime because Kant, who obviously had no knowledge of GR nor the empiricism that supports it, did not unify them? I am suggesting that if someone wants to escape from the current paradigm of physics it may help to understand how it came about instead of wasting a lot of time speculating about what space and time “actually” mean. And in any case, there is nothing in math that prevents someone from being a flat-earther. If nothing else, set theory and qauntam mechanics has done nothing but flatten our empirical world. Kant was Modern but his work was not, one can read his Opus Postumum as an attempt to reconcile his physics with an intuition that would be capable of bringing about the “feeling of life” that arrives from the experience of natural beauty—which, while very odd, clearly follows from the 3rd critique and the critical project more broadly, unless you throw out the concept of Freedom entirely and all the moral philosophy that follows from it and stay, as some have, in the analytic. But that’s clearly not what Einstein did, Einstein is a Schopenhaurian, he based GR heavily in the Aesthetic, but an Aesthetic devoid of this possible “third” intuition, that of feeling of form, since spatiotemporality annihilates all other possibilities of dimensionality besides space and time. Now what I’m saying is, its not possible for contemporary physicists to critically interrogate their theories without having a solid intellectual grounding in how they came about. Doesn’t mean that someone couldn’t simply come up with something new and brilliant spontaneously, but not by questioning spatiotemporality itself but by developing an entirely new framework that disregards it. But that’s much more difficult than starting with the basics, right?