>>12998445Space and Time aren't physical objects, retard. Associating physical properties onto concepts of pure intuition is nonsensical and no surprise that dialecticism is ruling physics and maths for a while now. Space is merely the form of outer intuition, and not a property of nor a system of relations between independently real things in themselves. Likewise, time is merely the form of inner intuition. But, as the necessary a priori forms of intuitions, they are thereby the forms of all intuition, and so, of all cognition. That is, everything we will ever perceive will be perceived as being in time, and every outer thing we will ever perceive will be perceived as being in space and time.
Thus, space and time are “transcendentally ideal” yet “empirically real.” They are transcendentally ideal because they are merely the forms of intuition and not properties of nor relations between things as they exist in themselves. They are merely the “subjective” forms of sense experience. But as the necessary forms of all experiences, they apply universally within experience. This is what it means to say they are empirically real or “objectively valid.”
Within the world as we necessarily experience it (within the “empirical world”), space and time are perfectly real. They are not illusory, but as (empirically) real as anything could be. But their very necessity and universality within the world as we experience it demonstrates that they are parts of the subjectively necessary conditions of the possibility of experience of objects. As subjectively necessary conditions, they are transcendentally ideal. As subjectively necessary (and consequently universal) conditions, they are empirically real. And this same thing then applies to all the objects that exist “in” space and time: they are at once transcendentally ideal and empirically real.
A few things: Space can't be bent, there is no fourth dimension, Time can't be bent, Space and Time don't possess physical properties.
