Something concrete, please. What is this nature? What is the philosophical position and what is the physical position? Where is that middle?
The standard example is Einstein’s invocation of the Mach’s principle, which is actually a bad example. GR shows that, contrary to Mach, acceleration is absolute, not relative. One can potentially argue that the frame dragging effect is sort of in this vein, but this effect is weak and was discovered after GR was already constructed, and not by Einstein.
The natures of space, time and causality for a start.
Something concrete, please. What is this nature? What is the philosophical position and what is the physical position? Where is that middle?
The standard example is Einstein’s invocation of the Mach’s principle, which is actually a bad example. GR shows that, contrary to Mach, acceleration is absolute, not relative. One can potentially argue that the frame dragging effect is sort of in this vein, but this effect is weak and was discovered after GR was already constructed, and not by Einstein.
It’s not a question of positions. The point is both philosophy and science study these questions.
You claimed that there is a middle. Point one out, concretely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Clarke_correspondence. The point is both philosophy and science study these questions.