When we describe or define things, whether they be objects or materials or, more generally, events of any kind, we can only do it in terms of our direct or indirect perception of their properties, in fact we could argue that things just are their properties. However, space is not something the properties of which we can directly perceive, that is we cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell it, and it is very difficult to describe something that does not affect any of our senses.
- Our inability to sense space in any way makes it almost impossible to describe.
- The are only two ways we can know an object, material or event, the first is through a description of its properties and the second through direct contact with it.
- Asking what space is implies that it is something more than the sum of its properties.
- Only absolute space gives the necessary degree of substantiality to support the properties that we are able to infer.
- Whether space does play an active role in the movement of light, or whether it simply allows light to traverse it, means that the medium of space is at least compatible with energy.
- Does space precede both energy and matter?
- If space is ponderable material it can exist only as either discrete elements or as a continuum.
- Postulating that space is material and discrete, requires the relationist view of space, which we have rejected.
- We also conclude that a continuum of material space is not possible.
- The alternative that we will consider from this point on is that space is an energy field.
I acknowledge that we have reached this stage by a process of eliminating the material alternatives rather than by a process of deducing or modelling the energy alternative, however, on the basis that there do not seem to be any other viable alternatives, we will continue with the next part of determining the nature of space as an energy field; the creation of event cells.
As with all philosophy, this is a journey of inquiry; enjoy the journey!