Here's an update on things I've had going on. It feels important. I think this is a big deal.
cosmicave.org/2026/01/18/t...

🧪 ⚛️ 🔭

Reality and the ways we perceive it fascinate me.

Not just “what physics says.”
And never what I want it to be.

The universe itself.

Given room to be what it is
—and patience to infer without prejudice.

That’s what science should always aim for.

cosmiCave.org/links/

🔭 🧪 ⚛️

The common idea that spacetime is the fabric of reality — that it even exists at all — is ineluctably false on basic definitions alone.

So how did we get here?

Cognitive dissonance?
Intellectual inertia?
A failure to interrogate basic concepts philosophically?

cosmicave.org/links/

Does space-time really exist?

That idea has shaped physics for over a century. But when you look closely, it doesn’t hold together.

This article explains what goes wrong.

Read here: cosmicave.org/links/

Eternalists — from Parmenides to Penrose, Brian Greene, and many philosophers of science today — have long relied on the false idea that space-time exists, taking from it a false sense of security that obscures the deeper error: treating occurrences as things that exist 1/
🧪 🔭 ⚛️ #philsci #philosophy

A second (related) issue:

Physicists interpret collapse using picture (b)—a naive Cartesian reading of a non-Euclidean geometry, described in one coordinate basis, projected onto a Euclidean plane, and then taken to represent ontological reality.

But GR only gives us (a) (7/)

Why is b always interpreted as the story? It takes a non-Euclidean geometry, describes it in one coordinate frame, projects it onto a Euclidean plane, then makes a Cartesian reading. I think c is a more compelling story, avoids paradox — and GR does not discriminate!! Ie GR only gives us a.
🧪 ⚛️ 🔭