When people posit a material universe they usually allow for spaces between the material. This article proposes that space and time could be nothing more than primitive myths

COSMIC SOUP ANYBODY?

Much, if not most of modern physics is no more than a form of dualistic metaphysics employing usefully  fictive elements of denotation and mensuration [number, space, time, motion, etc.] Such is the manner in which important philosophical and scientific aspects of what is real are investigated and represented. The objective universe consists exclusively of moving matergy (energised matter.)  What we refer to as space is simply the variance or differential between the material characteristics or forms of that matter, which as humans we are capable of  detecting and the formalaic descriptions of that matter that we infer exists,  including dark matergy which at this stage in our scientific development of instrumentation we cannot yet detect.

The proposition made here is that even in a so-called vacuum there is no unoccupied space between entiatic singularities (objects.)

That which keeps matergy apart is not  those grotesque products of the imagination: force or energy, but forceful,  energetic objects.

The claim being made here is that there is no existential duality between matergic object and the so-called actions or behaviour of that object. Object-action duality is no more than a lay version of the notorious Cartesian soul-body error.  The movement of this moving arm does not exist - only the moving arm exists. It is the use of language which confuses us into believing that action exists - it is a confusion going back to the Greeks. In reality only active objects exist. Having difficulty in grasping the concept?

Consider these two sentences:

1. The above animated gif illustrates the movement of a cantilever TV arm.

2. The above animated gif illustrates a moving cantilever TV arm.

Notice that in 1. the linguistico-semantic use of the abstract noun movement suggests that movement is the name of something.  But how does the the existential modality of the cantilever TV arm split into two ontological domains simply because the arm has changed its spatial  location from one place to another?   Is  arm movement different to that which is physically denotated by the symbol arm? The use of the reification movement is no more than a mentalisation presented and  represented as something which is different (Heidegger spoke of an ontological difference) from the matergic object known as the cantilever TV arm. In fact no ontological difference is involved - the difference is no more than a crude semantic misrepresentation.

Now consider sentence 2. the pre-nominal positioning of the adjective moving evaporates the impression that  the reification movement is ontologically different from the physically energised concreta known as the arm. Semantically a Cartesian-like existential duality is no longer proposed, proclaimed nor promulgated.

If we cannot physically or ideationally separate the phenomenologically confusing movement of the arm from the arm itself, why needlessly mystify science by abstracting the object's existential modality (the way it exists in the world) away from the object?

                                   Take another look - Do you think that the movement of the policeman's baton exists - or just the moving policeman twirling (a synonym of moving) the  baton?

What a person or a thing DOES is in no way different from the way he, she or it exists. No magical, invisible, spiritual energy or power or force exists - it is a primitive myth on par with that of the primitive savages who believed that trees and rocks had powers or that the growth of a growing bush existed as well as the growing bush. . Only energetic (energised) objects can be found in the cosmos. If what I write seems counter-intuitive do not blame yourself for we are all imprinted with this information as children,  in a  rather a similar way that Konrad Lorenz working with greylag geese. demonstrated how incubator-hatched geese would imprint on the first suitable moving stimulus they saw within what he called a "critical period." Our ontological imprintation was a result of the language we picked up and internalised  in infancy.

Here on earth we are aware that all area within the atmosphere of our planet  is filled with gaseous atoms [oxygen] and the clouds of electrons [photons] that the sun has spewed forth in all directions. There is no space between you and the screen before you. There are only different kinds of objects [atoms of gas, minute fragments of detritus, etc.  However, once we depart from the earths envelope, we are aware only of spatial objects, our space vehicle and the stars, comets, asteroids, debris and the photonic clouds that exist in space  - photons without which we would see no stars or other objects when we looked through the spaceship window.]

We can only speculate as to the precise physical nature of the paticle-soup or  dark matter that fills the universe by using a similar complex of inferential general principles to that which by observing the regular and predictable perturbation of the visible star bodies we know that some stars have unseen twins

It follows that if space (rather than: that which is spatial) does not exist, then when one moving material spatio co-ordinational element of the cosmic-soup changes its position, the  spatial takeover can only be via a process of displacement, amalgamation or absorption of the previously occupied spatial area of the cosmic holism. Therefore such processes can be characterised as the mode or manner in which the cosmic super-holism exists in conformity with the physical constraints [laws in anthropo-speak] of the existential imperative, and NOT a so-called putative:  causality.

The rest is anthropocentric interpretation and extrapolation  arrived at on the basis of the creation of useful abstractions like speed, motion, number, time and other helpful fictions.

The Ontological Bottom Line?

This brass metal number six you fix to your front door exists, but the idea of number six does not exist. What exists is you-the-reader thinking about the number six. Only that which is numbered or counted exists, or that which was originally numbered by mankind and from which [historically] the idea of number was developed. Mankinds need to invent numbers arose from a desire to keep track of his possessions goats, stones, grains of corn etc., and to measure distances and to record and calculate the intervals between reifications known as: events [the passing of time.]

The things to be counted came first, the names and symbols supplying answers to  the questions:  how many?  The abstract numbers which came later, (though vitally useful to maths and the sciences (and by extention - to humanity itself)  themselves do not exist.

Only human numerators or enumerators exist.

Ideas do not exist - only we human ideators exist. Time does not exist - only that which is timed exists. Motion does not exist - only that which moves exists.

Such ideations or names for actions such as those above and any other abstract nouns or gerunds that you can possibly think of are nothing more than the helpful fictions we have evolved to enable us to understand and interact with the world in which we find ourselves.

Abstraction does not exist.  Concepts

or ideas not unassociated with any specific instance (nominatum) do not exist entities.

The abstractives abstracted by abstracting humans do not exist - only the abstracting humans exist.

The problem for philosophy and the sciences in particular and humanity in general is not the fact that we humans employ useful fiction for the creation of our models of reality - the problem is those otherwise intelligent  humans who, having been imprinted to a greater extent than others by the ontological misconceptions induced by language,  have internalised  and believe that the ontological duality of objects is real and who do not realise that they exist in a pseudo-transcendentalistic, insubstantial, irrealistic world of the imaginary.