Space-time, the Lorentz contraction, and pragmatism

If, like me, you think that time is a fiction, where does this leave space-time? are science theories simply pragmatic, not explanatory?There is at least one way of dealing with time to explain it away: Before and after are the names of events. So when we say A comes before B we merely mean C is associated with either A or B.This proposal suggests that the idea that Lorenzian distortions (shrinking of matter when it is is travelling relatively fast) are caused by the workings of time (or space-time) is, at best, a metaphorical ruse.The ruse was needed when Physicists first noticed that Lorenzian effects are "relative". That is, despite the evidence, physicists could not say whether Lorentzian distortions actually happen or not. A ruse was needed to veil this conceptual nightmare.Their ruse was this. Once the physicists began to describe things as "relative" rather than "actual" they needed to find a metaphor that would provide the foundation for a "relative" rather than an "actual" reality. That metaphor was Space-time. But space-time was a concatenation of the actual (space) with the absent (time).The resulting metaphor for reality - "space-time" is conceptually nebulous. But this nebulosity was precisely what was needed to palm off a world that was "relative" rather than "actual". The physicists' New World of Relations left the rest of us feeling conceptually short-changed at losing our actual world.The only way around it if, like me, you do not believe in time, is to say that physicists' equations predict outcomes, but say nothing about why things do what they do. This is the situation with Quantum theory today. It, also, is just a predictive, not an explanatory science.If then, science is pragmatic only, at least when it comes down to difficult topics such as relativity and quantum mechanics, then it has no real profile that contradicts the religious perception, which is also pragmatic.

Hi John Jones,I don't think many members will be familiar with the pragmatic versus explanatory perspectives on scientific research. Within a philosophical context the terms pragmatic and explanatory have very specific meanings likely to be unfamiliar to most members here, so I have to ask you to define your terms.The last two paragraphs comment on other topics, quantum mechanics and religion. They should be replaced with a concluding paragraph summarizing the topic and your position.

I'm not aware that there is a technical meaning in philosophy to pragmatic, explanatory, and empirical. These mean the same in everyday parlance. They may be unfamiliar, but unfamiliarity isn't technicality. I always use standard grammar and meanings. There aren't many technical meanings in philosophy, and if there are then I try not to use them. For example, transcendental idealism is the name of an outlook on the world, but it isn't technical, as it means the same in everyday paralance. Nevertheless, the term is unfamiliar. That's why I preferred to use the term animism, which everyone is familiar with.Edited by John Jones, : commas

If you define your terms then I'll take another look at your proposal.

Stick it up your arse fellah.Meanwhile, to all my fans, let the internet be your midwife. Or have an abortion here.