>What sort of things are they if they are things? > >One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional >in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; that is to >say that they consist of continuous manifolds, positions in which can >be occupied by substances and events respectively, and which have an >existence in their own right. > >It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions that events and >processes are to be seen as taking place after each other and >substances are to be seen in certain spatial relations. > >Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the >objects and events that they contain? > >Did Einstein show, through his theory of relativity, that since space >and time can change in shape and duration that space and time are more >complex than just sustained perceptual constants? > >Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlyn >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/
There are probably 'higher' dimensional aspects to the situation. Whatever that means? The place is quite mysterious, and 'we' are quite 'stuck' 'herein'. Other than that 'we' have 'our' model stories, perhaps that's all 'we' can handle. What is anything in 'itself'? More mystery.
BTW, I resent the shallow understanding with which 'we' seem to be stuck.
In the meanwhile, 'higher' dimensional measurements and considerations are very interesting. Even negative results, such as the 'recent' studies of gravity over millimeter distances. Some of the 'space' studies are 'higher' dimension oriented. String theory, though surprisingly productive, remains very non intuitive.
