| > Just because we prefer one arbitrary kind of reference frame above others here on earth (ie. euclidean) doesn't make it any more real. You got it all backwards. Our preference for a certain reference frame is exactly what makes it real, because that's what 'real' means. Certain frames of reference are almost useless, while others are very useful in our everyday life. This is why "I'm going to the store" is true, while "the store is moving toward me" is false: it is our application of those words in everyday life that defines what we would call 'true' and 'false' here. It is ridiculous to claim that the above are equally true because supposedly we can choose our reference frame however we like: this is simply not what we mean when we talk about "true" and "false" here. By focusing too much on physical vocabulary, you are losing sight of what certain words mean in the first place. If you develop a theory that says the fridge is moving toward me when I'm hungry (= I'm going to the fridge, from a different frame of reference) - you are not making a discovery, you are simply making up new definitions of existing words, and you are confused. Also, mathematical models are just that - math, useful abstractions we can predict stuff with. Assigning to them an ontological status is a matter of choice and of personal belief, not of knowing anything about physics. |