I have given enough thought to space to forget what the logical difficulty is. That has only one significance: my notion of space has shifted subconsciously.
I have, therefore an explanation as to why i suddenly can think of space as a field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics).
I start with myself, a construction some way down the road from the sensory experience a collection of cells share by a convoluted connected network of electrochemical conduits. At the level of self i have a computed response to some set of innate internal and extant external signal sources. Much remains unconscious to that slowly developing fragile construct call conscioussness within which a notion of self even more fragile is constructed.
As a consequence i experience what i call the Logos Kairos Summetria Response which provides me with my de facto experiences ready to receive cultural determination and distinctions.
Research has persuasively argued that i develop a notion of place which i develop to the notion of space as i mature and interact more with cultural ideas, ideals and paradigms.
In this sense the notion of place must some how be apriori to the notion of space. However i am not convinced of this construct, as it implies i have no notion of space except that culturally determined, whereas i think the logos response provides me with a notion of space which is interactively shaped into place within space.
Thus a full understanding of place and space develops simultaneously , but not synchronously. Clarly in my early years, while constructing a model of my environment starting with my mothers face and smell of milk, i concentrate more on place than space ,family that nation , village or town that country earth and sky than universe. But there is always a context within which place is situated. That context is what becomes called space eventually after theoretical and cultural musings about what it is and who or what inhabits it.
The theoretical nonsense that we may believe unintentionally is that space is nothingness. This is quite different to space being an empty receptacle after te notion of Democritus and Leucritius, who really attempte to counteract the notion that space is an illusion, not really knowable, just experiential.
Space being nothingness is a modern misconception. No sage, philoaopher or devotee in the past would ever have entertained it. Space whatever it is, is somethingness! The received wisdom is nothing can come from nothing!
Thus every philosophy or metaphysics starts with Monad, tht is something that is one. It was some extremem religious theologists in order to exhibit the absolute power of their Christian God who ventured the illogical idea that creation was ex nihillo! But even tis concept may have been misconstrued to produce error in the misinformed, because clearly this god spoke into space and his words formed things: not quite ex nihillo, but rather ex logoi!
Leaving this illogical propaganda behind i reurn to space being what? The very word What in many languages start with "ma" and leads naturally to "matter", indefineable substance or illusory substance, or playful substance.
Some philosophies, in order to maintain logical consistency have defined this substance as primodial mind in the sense of nous not noe. However we may have a empirical alternaive and that i think is field.
The notion of space as a receptacle for atoms goes back to Democritus et al, and is based on his observation of Brownian motion. However, had he been able to perceive a field as we now regularly do i think he would have been happy to start there.
Fields are such magical things that it is no wonder hat we might attach a late medieval concept of spirit to them. However the association of fields with geist, djin, and daimons is long established. Some cultures used an obvious symbol as a model, that is wind especially tornadic or vorticular winds: dust devils! However this tends to obscure he empirical nature of a field or field like effect.
We have 3 fields as examples Electric, magnetic an gravitational, and there may be more.
The trick is to hold the field in its proper context. The field or fields are what is our notion of space and within the fields we find objects that exist as dense aspects or intensities of the field. Thus we have dense space in the gravitiational field,not so dense electrons in the electric field and some as yet unrecognised densities in the magnetic field. potentially lighter than the electron.
These are empirical fields, not theoretical or mathematical. My contention is that they do not fill space, rather they define space and together are space.
There is some research into a possible quantum field or a string field. When these are empirically established they will deepen my understanding of space not undermine it.
There are also currently theoretically posited weak and strong nuclear fields. These are not well understood, but seem to have an empirical basis. However, some think that these forces can be explained by interractions of the other 3 well established ones.
When i defined Shunya as a Relativistic rotational motion field, with relativistic motion transfer properties, my notion of field was entirely mathematical. Now i think that the field is empirical, and as a consequence the rotating fields are the electric, magnetic and gravitational ones. Such a combination may be sufficient to explain observed behaviour, or not. If not, the way forward is to look for more empirical fields to add to the mix.
The three empirical fields are vectorial and at least 2 are orthogonal. My hypothesis is that he 3 are orthogonal in a spherical rotating region and that the density field acts toward the centre of density in a rotating density region while the electric field act tangentially to the surface of the rotating region, and the magnetic field act tangentially at the surface in a perpendicular direction to the electric field.
At this stage i will leave this hypothesis unexplored until i have devloped the grassmann Algebra to deal with it.