You’re welcome.

Not only are there many interpretations of reality, but it seems most people want answers, not truths. So we have many priests and politicians, but philosophy is neutered and generally confined to the back alleys of academia, to chew on the same bones of contention they have for ages.

Consider that math is descriptive, not explanatory. Epicycles were brilliant math, as a description of our view of the cosmos, but the crystalline spheres were lousy physics, as explanation.

For example, three dimensions of space are really just a mapping device, the xyz coordinate system. It is no more foundational to space, than longitude, latitude and altitude are foundational to the biosphere of the planet.

If all physical properties are removed from space, it has the non-physical qualities of infinity and equilibrium. Infinity because there is nothing to bound it and equilibrium is implicit in Relativity, as the frame with the fastest clock and longest ruler is closest to the equilibrium of the vacuum, the void of absolute zero. So space is the absolute and the infinite.

What fills space is this energy and the forms it manifests. The energy radiates to infinity, while the forms coalesce toward equilibrium. Both of which are entropic, yet diametrically opposed.

I think it’s safe to say that I’ve used fairly basic logic and easily comprehensible to anyone willing to think it through, but it goes against the grain of everything that’s taught, so very few are willing to consider such arguments. Which does say a lot about the degree to which we cannot see beyond the culture in which we are educated.

I just if it was easy, it wouldn’t be that interesting.

Cheers,

John