All discussion here assumes 17th century Newton's physics.
We made an error here because we were aware of three facts but not aware of a fourth. The answer is wrong but the data is consistent. That’s important for finding bugs. It’s also important for establishing intent.
If I bonk you with a bat, it might be an accident. If I had just found out you’ve been sleeping with my wife, people should be asking a lot more questions. If I don’t know that, then there’s no causal link between these events.
Doesn't that imply knowing which of two events happened first? Imagine, after your bat accident I took liberties with your wife as a revenge?
Please pardon my 17th century's line of thought :)
If an event that I didn’t observe happened first, it didn’t influence my decisions. It might influence yours though, but when things get grey we give benefit of the doubt.
In scientific causality, A shall cause B to the degree to which A is explanatory for B.
the question is "who reserved the last seat on the airplane" and that question is entirely resolved by chronology
causality is unrelated to intent
As I have just proven, Einstein's relativity is really a confabulation of what is obvious, resulting in people getting lost in that model universe. It is only useful for taking measurements within that model, everything else is worshiping light, the speed of.
That we pretend the relative speed of light is constant, and this proves black holes and big bangs, that is pseudo science taking a model beyond it's working boundaries, where it's calculation have no meaning; to wit, this is a physical analogue in optical aberration, where the rim of the lens is asymptotic refraction to the point of unreliable measurement (not a singularity, unless of course you model it as such, in the abstract).
The real question is why so much energy is used staring at model aberration. The "Uncertainty paradox" has everyone believe the model is real, and even ask the question "at what point does the model become real". The model is never real, and never becomes real, it stays a model forever. Whether the cat is dead or not is simply a measurement where, if you mistake the paradox for theory, you don't realize the probability of dead or alive given decay is nothing more than a measurement taken ex post facto, and not proof that the real world accord to the model.
In what particular way is space real that time is not?
> Einstein's times is a quantum model of change over space, but really only proves that where you stand is relative to where I stand, and our relativity changes if we move through space.
I think you might have misinterpreted the vocabulary: in the "principle of relativity", the word "relativity" refers to the relation between two coordinate systems, not the relation between two points in space.
> As I have just proven, Einstein's relativity is really a confabulation of what is obvious, resulting in people getting lost in that model universe.
All you have done is made assertions, without evidence or reasoning. You can certainly do that, but how is it supposed to prove anything? What is the argument?
2: More than one point in space makes a coordinate system, and more than one point is a prerequisite of relativity. (Source?) Plus, within the questionable physics models which allow for singularities, the notional difference between a coordinate system and a point is conspicuously broken in order to explain other things. But that's how we get vague terms like spacetime, descriptions for weird parts of the model.
3: I did prove it, and you can reproduce it yourself by going to the nearest mountain range and yodel. In other words, I don't need math proofs from within abstruse models to prove my point, so my argument is more sound scientifically. I proved "relativity" is nothing more than understanding the difference in change over space, which is a very obvious/observable thing, perhaps the most basic of all material existence, comporting to the idea that no two things can be one, or "occupy the same space".
Time measures change over space, a thing you witness firsthand when your yodel returns in echo from the mountain. If space did not change from point A to point B, there would be no distance, no coordinate system, and our yodel would not echo from anywhere. Without change over space there is no time, so that tells you which one is primary. The measurement of the echo, taken in time units, aka intervals, gives useful information. It does not however indicate anything of some model's out-of-bounds parameters, like what if the mountain had infinite gravity?
The measure of an echo could not prove a black hole, even by the very definition of a black hole, for an echo would not return (infinite inches of time til return). Ergo no measurement can prove a black hole. Only a model taken to mathematical infinity "proves" a black hole, and that is not real science, it's just math. Math proofs and scientific falsity are not the same side of a single coin. The observation yields math, not the other way around, or else I could say look here in my notebook, it's a real black hole!
I'm still not following what you mean. What is "space"? You claim it is real, in the same sense that a physical clock is real. Is it some kind of physical thing in the world? Is it the general idea that two objects can occupy different positions?
What does it even mean for "space" to "change"? Does it refer to the existence of different positions? Does it refer to the idea that a physical object can change which position it occupies? Why does the concept of distance depend on the existence of "change over space"? We can make the obvious observation of transmitting a sound to a distant object and receiving an echo back. But I don't see how to derive your concept of "change over space" from such an observation.
Further, why is "change over space" in particular the quantity that "time" measures? Normally, I'd think that "time" refers only to the intrinsic relationship between different events that allows us to place them in an ordered sequence. What does this necessarily have to do with "change over space"?
no rational discourse is possible here
epistemology is a category set of theories of knowledge, e.g. husserl, it doesn't describe any specific bias for specific/observed data??
your sentences parse grammatically but afaict carry no meaningful semantic information
tl;dr: speak more plainly