This bee is buzzing around an underlying triangulation:
- Space, the dimension (non-reified: defined by entity relations);
- Time, the dimension (non-reified: defined by event relations);
- Spacetime, the universal ‘stuff’ (reified: defined by entity–events in a dynamic continuum of localised spatial and temporal variables — being = difference that makes a difference).
What I’m tentatively advancing here sounds incredible.
I’m suggesting that everything is spacetime and, at root, only spacetime — nothing extra required.
But how on earth could all entities, from complex to the most simple, be made out of non-reified dimensions?
Surely a metaphysical tautology?
Yet check the premise of the question — it assumes that entities are made from prior space and time — but these three intrinsic existents are mutually inducing. This is a crucial point. Entities define space and time as much as space and time defines entities. Indeed one can’t exist without the other two; all three are implicitly reciprocal. Entities are not made out of pre–existing spacial and temporal dimensions, rather entities at root are occurrences of difference and it's only through such difference that space and time can become a measurable existent.
But occurrences of difference in what?
Spacetime.
But that's just space + time isn't it?
No, spacetime is more than the sum of its parts.
Spacetime has/is variation whereas the divorced dimensions are invariable. It’s the difference that makes all the difference — spacetime has/is the ‘bumpiness’ out of the relative smoothness which defines reification itself — yet this variation is at root only in terms of space with time. Spacetime is patently more than the sum of its non-reified parts.
At this point it might clarify things to contrast spacetime with ‘nothingness’:
- Spacetime = the localised temporal/spatial differences through which entities/events can be separated out as ‘bumps in relatively smooth nothingness’;
- Nothingness = no differentiation between space and time — therefore no scales of space, time or spacetime entities.
NB, of course nothingness can't metaphysically exist as an absolute, we can only talk about relative nothing in between existent ‘bumps’. However, there always seems to be a boundless macro/micro scale in which differentials between space and time continue play out.
Mechanics of fundamental contrasts
OK, this has all been metaphysical talk so far, all about defining the ‘three ingredients’ of existence — but we haven't yet been able to fully extracted ourselves from a presumed tautology…
…until we can picture the mechanics…
How can space itself be ‘thick’ or ‘thin’?
The density of space relates to the time it takes to traverse through it.
How can time itself be ‘slower’ or ‘faster’?
The speed of time relates to density differences in space.
Both space and time define the other.
But it is the localised variations between them that also define ‘the third ingredient’: spacetime.
The density of space relates to the time it takes to traverse through it.
How can time itself be ‘slower’ or ‘faster’?
The speed of time relates to density differences in space.
Both space and time define the other.
But it is the localised variations between them that also define ‘the third ingredient’: spacetime.
Entities represent ‘one part’ of spacetime, parts of a holistic process. What we perceive as entities, distinguished from the rest of their surrounds, are merely the relatively thicker–slower zones of spacetime in contrast to the relatively thinner–faster parts. No extra ‘stuff’ is needed.
These are not passive but dynamic differences, implicating basic ‘positive forces’ of attraction and ‘negative forces’ of repulsion (and a cascade of issuing complexities; mass, gravity, electromagnetic charge, energy, entropy, etc.). So, rather than discrete matter floating around in a spacial void (+1s in 0), the thinner–faster parts act as active ‘anti–matter’ within a continuum (+>0s with −<0s), introducing the dynamics of imbalance and equilibrium throughout boundless scales.
These are not passive but dynamic differences, implicating basic ‘positive forces’ of attraction and ‘negative forces’ of repulsion (and a cascade of issuing complexities; mass, gravity, electromagnetic charge, energy, entropy, etc.). So, rather than discrete matter floating around in a spacial void (+1s in 0), the thinner–faster parts act as active ‘anti–matter’ within a continuum (+>0s with −<0s), introducing the dynamics of imbalance and equilibrium throughout boundless scales.
I could go on but I think I’d better leave it there for now.
For a much more physics-heavy approach to spacetime as integral, check out John A. Macken’s free-to-download book The Universe is Only Spacetime
My notion is a far simpler, more metaphysical approach than Macken’s.
I’m trying to research anyone else with similar theories + any refutations.
The bee continues to buzz — but does my armchair musings amount to metaphysical madness or an inkling towards a bold breakthrough?
E-mail me to let me know what you think.