that thread was painful to read. He actually argues that the world does not exist if we are not conscious. That's raping objectivity right there, things exist whether we perceive them or not, that has been proven over and over.
The what is space, what is time etc questioning is ridiculous as well, you cannot answer a question that is posed improperly. If i ask you what music is you have to describe it using its parts there is no other way to answer such questions. The fact that reductionism is the only way to answer these what questions is stepped over and then denied from being acceptable answers.
What are philosophical answers to what is space? Answer it without reducing it. reductionism is based on observation, if you cannot observe it there is no point in talking about it since all bets are off and any conjecture can be true. Logic is also failed, at least when discussing the nature of reality since the true nature has been shown to be counter-intuitive. Suggesting there is something more to existence then the substances it is made of gets us no where and can never be articulated since only things that are material and observable (directly or indirectly) can truly be elucidated, otherwise it's just a guesses.
the human mind can only do so much, it is bound by it's limitations, namely that of our senses and experiences, science is not. You pick which view equates to truth.
science includes our logic but extends it also.
show something exists that is immaterial, eternal and infinite. It's impossible by definition.
