What you're talking about is a reductionist perspective of space/time/space-time, supported ppl like Leibniz. If I were to take an empirical substantialist / absolutist perspective I would challenge that you and your reductionist perspective is too empirically exclusive. In the case of time if follows that there can be no time without change from your perspective. if we seek to treat a period of time as a collection of events, we could not have a temporal vacuum. it would be a contradition to speak of an interval containing no event if an interval is just a certain collection of events. and in the case of space there could be no motion that was not the motion of bodies in relation to other bodies. suppose, for example, that we try to entertain the idea that the entire universe is moving to the left. before and after such a putative motion all bodies would have the same spatial relation to one another. but if locations are to be defined in terms of relations between bodies we cannot have a difference in location without a difference in the relations between bodies. if all bodies keep the same relations to one another it would be a contradition to speak of them as nonetheless moving. we must be allowed to posit absolute time/space in order to accurately account for time/space, thus the absolutist position.



False. You do not travel into the future by living, the 'future' travels towards you. Nice try though.



I agree. We accept unobservables in science. example? For instance, without believing in the possibility of observing free quarks we may nonetheless posit their existence ont he grounds that this is required if we are to explain the phenomena of hadronic jets.



Effects always occur simultaneously with causes. whats your point?

ripped from some b grade movie

Holy shit this thread is still up? I think I posted in here somewhere...