Thanks.
You didn’t answer my question: does the new “entity” created by relativity, “space-time,” describe the state of affairs more faithfully to reality than the traditional description, which sees space and time as separate entities?

I’m not sure I understood the question: do you mean that space and time are separate from one another, or that both of them are separate from us (that is, found in the world itself)?
Relativity sees space-time as one four-dimensional continuum, and that is of course a preferable description of reality; otherwise physicists would not prefer it to the previous description. But that of course comes together with a whole theory (that’s not the only difference from Newton). This is a scientific question, not a philosophical one, of course.

I wrote explicitly that I’m asking about two aspects: the separateness of space and time from us, and what interests me even more—their separateness from one another.
You write that space-time is a “preferable” description. In what sense? Is it because it describes objective reality more accurately?

The hybrid concept space-time is completely devoid of meaning in human intuition. We can conceptualize the notion of space in our perception, and likewise the notion of time. The notion of space-time cannot be grasped.

As for the question of objectivity, this is a question that stems from misunderstanding. All human words and concepts are human inventions. Do they describe something in reality? How can we know? After all, we have no instruments that measure reality.

Decisor,

Regarding the first part of your remarks, I’m inclined to agree.
Beyond that, within the limits of my understanding of modern physics, I see this new linguistic creature (“space-time”) as an expression of a new methodological norm. Its essence is the attempt of special relativity to blur the distinction between the objective and the subjective. The moment you paired space with time, you conditioned their conceptual existence on measurement (or on the observer’s frame of reference) and on velocity. In other words: the concept of space-time forbids us to look at either of these entities in isolation and instead dictates to us a priori to “derive” them as one unified whole from the empirical and “becoming” domain (in “Greek” language).

I’m attaching a link to some Q&A on the matter from someone I’m starting to think highly of.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P40/time-and-relativity-theory

As for the second part of what you said… well, I’m tired already.

Sounds like classic nonsense to me; I don’t see any connection at all between the concept of space-time and the definition of objective-subjective.

From the scientific point of view this is something completely objective. Space-time, like any physical object, does not depend at all on human experience. And beyond that, as I noted, this concept cannot be grasped at all. Among other things, because there is a combination here of a real quantity (space) and an imaginary quantity (time), such that their combined quantity yields the speed of light, which remains constant.

I explained that combining space and time into a four-dimensional continuum is one of the cornerstones of relativity (not the only one). Do you think physicists adopted it just because they felt like it? In your opinion, can Newtonian mechanics still be used today and describe reality well (even at high velocities)? I don’t understand these questions.

Michi, what you wrote in your last reply was joking, right?
If I didn’t know you, I would think from the response that you really don’t distinguish between a scientific theory and its philosophical interpretation, between a convenient auxiliary concept (space-time) and its real (or unreal) counterpart in actual reality.
Actually I’m convinced you decided to mess with me, and you did a pretty good job of it 🙂
Nicely done.