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

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.

As the thinker Manfred Schieder demonstrates in his treatise, "Ayn Rand, I, and the Universe," it is not even possible to logically use the word "is" following a term such as "space-as-absence." Schieder describes two premises that are essential for an accurate description of the universe and of "space-as-absence."

1) "What is, is"

2)

After the enumeration of 2) a blank space has been left on purpose, to better convey the sense of the premise immediately resulting from the first one, which is: "What is not, is not". As said before, our language is so object oriented that it cannot describe what is meant by the statement "What is not, is not" in any other way than by not saying it, since "what" already implies an object and "not" is the negation of either something existing or of negating the action of something existing.

Since "space-as-absence" does not exist, neither as an entity, nor as a quality, nor as a relationship, nor even as a totality of entities like the universe, it is fruitless to discuss it further. There is nothing more to be discovered about nothing!

But "space-as-absence" is not the only idea referred to when most people use the word "space." Another idea, best termed "space-as-relationship" is also implied in the same word. As such, the conventional English language's inability to separate the two terms engenders much confusion about what "space" means and thus triggers numerous philosophical errors which could be avoided with a clear distinction. Next, we shall explore the concept of "space-as-relationship," which differs noticeably from that of "space-as-absence."

Read other parts of "A Rational Cosmology" by clicking here.