A Rational Cosmology: Why There is No Such Thing as Space

Essay XI

This is Essay XI of Mr. Stolyarov's series, "A Rational Cosmology," which seeks to present objective, absolute, rationally grounded views of terms such as universe, matter, volume, space, time, motion, sound, light, forces, fields, and even the higher-order concepts of life, consciousness, and volition. See the index of all the essays in "A Rational Cosmology" here.

There is no such thing as "space." In order to be defined as an entity, space would need to meet the first ontological corollary, which states that an entity is the sum of its qualities. In order to pass this test, space must have some qualities in the first place.

But space lacks any qualities whatsoever. "Space" cannot be said to have mass or a finite volume. As previously proved, there is no finite boundary at which "space" officially ends, nor is there a finite shape that "the entirety of space" can be fit into.

Moreover, though separate stretches of what can be termed "space" are measurable (such as the distance between Entity A and Entity B), linear measurements in three dimensions cannot be attributed to the totality of space. As an example, it would be absurd to propose that the entirety of space is twelve billion kilometers long, three billion kilometers wide, and sixteen billion kilometers high.

We have affirmed that space is not an entity. But what can be logically meant by the referent "space"? There are in fact two referents concealed in one, each of which has a different purpose with which it is used. Here, they shall be termed space-as-absence and space-as-relationship.

Space-as-Absence

The term "space-as-absence" is synonymous with "void," "emptiness," and "nothing." "Space-as-absence" denotes merely the non-presence of entities. It is essential to note that space-as-absence is not an existent. As follows from the axiom of existence, something is, but nothing is not.