To arrive at an answer to the question, ‘what is space?’, we ought to remove from the analysis any sort of object different from it. For example, I am occupying space, but not identical to it. This appears obvious to me, but in case this assertion is considered questionable, it is conceivable that I, as a compound body, can be removed from a location in space and yet the space will remain, or I could be decomposed, and space will still remain intact. This subsistence of space apart from compounds entails an exemption from the objects that are suspended in it. The surrounding conditions of a system suggest a modification of space, as for instance a curvature of space through gravitational forces. These also must be eliminated in order to arrive at a complete answer to the properties of space apart from alteration.
Now then, logic informs us in a way that must be necessarily true for any foundation of knowledge to be possible, that there is no such thing as nothing or total emptiness. Nothing cannot be. Therefore, space is something, not nothing. Moreover, space cannot in the final analysis be composed of parts. To conceive of ‘spaces’ compartmentalized in an irreducible way is non-experimentally verifiable. If that were true, there would be a barrier between the spaces that cannot be breached or transfer information between the spaces, and could never experimentally know of a space beyond that boundary.
If at some point humanity reaches unfathomably far into the horizon of cosmic phenomena, only to find an ‘end’ to space – a wall beyond which there is no going further – if that barrier could not be broken, if no kind of transmission of information were ever transferred from without this barrier to us, no matter how we tried, we could know nothing about whether or not there is anything beyond, and could only suppose that’s the end of space and everything in it.
If this wall could be broken, or information ever transferred like when someone from outside knocks on a door, then that would suggest a common medium that allows for the inside and outside to interact, with information passing through something between them, in which case the division is reducible and capable of being divided by a common denominator. Therefore, space in both cases either has an end, or doesn’t have an end, but in any case it contains everything within its area, and must therefore be with respect to these things all-pervading and therefore indivisible. This pure space would consequently be without section – no parts in it; everything is in space, therefore space is everywhere and pure space is pervading all things without any division of its nature.
The alterations undergone upon space by forces acting through space take place upon this substrate, i.e. space. This means that space in its ultimate nature must persist even after it is modified, because this modification is based on the prior condition of space. In other words, if the pure space were somehow totally eliminated just because it was modified, then the elaboration would vanish because it would have destroyed the very basis of its formation. If your respiration depends upon the circulation of chemical elements in the atmosphere and the reciprocal exchange of oxygen for carbon dioxide within the ecosystem, respiration cannot occur if this very respiring ever eliminates the ingredients upon which it is based. Since physical systems are inefficient, in that the medium is more dense than pure space, information is always lost in transaction, and these systems eventually decompose. But space is not composed of parts, and therefore cannot be analyzed as an expression of more fundamental parts interacting with and bonding with one another.
Space is one thing. Indivisible. Everywhere. The more pure space is, the quicker information is passed through it. The process of information becomes more and more immediate, and space more and more transparent. In fact, pure space is invisible. The very foundation of existence and consequently objective scientific inquiry is a material substrate that cannot be seen, felt, heard, or in any way sensed. Empirical science cannot directly demonstrate pure space, only infer from experiment. It will never be able to ‘prove’, i.e. demonstrate objectively, that space exists as a thing among other things, which means it is unverifiable,unfalsifiable and therefore emprically unscientific. This also means that any so called disproving of the ‘ether’ is a bullshit conceit of modern hubris.
To make matters worse, space is not something definite at all. Space has NO DEFINITION, NO FORM. Space does not ‘exist’, at least not in the way we think of something existing. Space is indeed something, but it has no intrinsic properties. It is like an ocean that can only propagate perturbations and impulses that act upon it. This means that the forces that act upon space are apart from and beyond space. There is in fact a formal reality with nonlocal and non spatial properties. Existence is the result of these patterns and forces projecting their information through space, which results in a display of these forces with dimensionality. These forces in themselves have no depth, or dimensionality at all, and only display depth and dimensionality through space. In other words, the entire three dimensionality is a representation of these non-spatial forces through a medium that relates them to one another and simultaneously projects them into an objective representation.
And so we can more fully understand Heisenberg’s statement of quantum potentiality as a verification of Aristotle’s conception of potential, as suggesting “something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality.” This “something” standing in-between the possibility and reality is the “something” of which the homogeneity of space is the answer to. Space and Time cannot be seen apart from one another, and so there are further considerations about the process of information upon the substrate of space to be enumerated upon, but for now I will indicate that the non-spatial aspect to information is equally non-temporal – outside of space and time, with any kind of potential and actual distinction only pertaining to the physical world; the non-local, non-spatial, and non-temporal origin of information is therefore metaphysical, which our physicists cannot act upon or analyze physically. Whoops!
Something tells me the constituents making up the purely physical interpretation of things won’t be publicly admitting anytime soon that the nature of form as indicated by the process of information suggests a reality beyond the physical. It bursts a bubble they are rather fond in watching, so much that they will conjure up so many equivocal and complicated “explanations” when said bubble bursts, so as to project more and more ephemeral copies of the same vapor. But then, the day may come when there is no more solution to draw upon.