I read much. I study much. And I devise much.

From: Malcolm McClurg <mmcclurg@mica.edu>
Subject: My Spatial Problem

Dear Professor X,

My name is Malcolm McClurg. I have encountered a problem regarding existence of space. I was wondering if you could, and would, be willing to help me resolve it, though any degree of advice will be greatly appreciated.

I'm unfamiliar with with methodologies, tools, jargon etc. that might may allow for a technical, more efficient, explication. I am simply, and loosely, compiling passing thoughts. These thoughts have led me to the the single problem.

But first,, a personal introduction.

I. INTRODUCTION

As mentioned, my name is Malcolm McClurg. I am a first-year student at the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA). My sculpture professor has given an assignment. Its directive is only one word, 'STRUCTURE'. Vague? Yes. That's art school. Luckily, such generality isn't of immediate relevance. My understanding and approach to art (hereon referred to as 'the artifice') is philosophical. Or perhaps my philosophy is simply artistic. Usually, I concern myself with both the philosophy of physics and metaphysics (truly, I want to be a physicist). I read much. I study much. And I devise much. The product of these three habits is the question at hand. 

When art school assigns a project, I balance my physical inquiries with the 'artistic' methodologies professors require. Experience tells me there is a point at which even MICA professors can find a piece of work too abstract, to theoretical. (be such theories well expounded or not). I adhere to this balance simply to respect my professors' authority. But, this professor has gotten on my nerves. During my negotiation of this balance, he has been overtly diminutive. I am no longer interested in pleasing him. Through this project, personal discovery is in what I am now solely interested. I want answers, or as close to them as I can get. So here I am.

A. Terms

And here are my the terms in which I'm contemplating the problem:

1. Ubiety: The spatiotemporal coordinates of any given entity, where an 'entity' is any object that necessarily exists beyond my direct perception (aka an independent existence). Ubiety is the whereness of existence. For our purposes, the specificity of whereness will not be qualitatively considered. (Ex. A jar fell off a cliff at the Grand Canyon on June 3rd, 1997, at 3:49:05 p.m. : all prepositional phrases within the statement compose the jar's ubiety.

2. Parallax / Parallactic: The discrepancy found between two or more perceived presentations of any same entity. The parallactic perception is that which does not necessarily reflect the true and independent existence of the object. A parallactic perception can hold an epistemic status no more certain than 'unreliable'. The analysis being conducted regards all parallax as speculative.

3. Dasein / Daseinic: Being-in-itself. It is a term central to Heideggarian phenomenology. He solidified the term in The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. It is existence stripped of its subjective, therefore fungible, ornament. 

B. How Might Space Defined & Identified?

The corollary of motion, is space. The dynamic is expressed in figure 1.

A → B

(fig. 1)

Motion is necessarily the product of movement; without movement prior, it cannot be. There can only be movement, however, if prior there is distance across which a thing can travel. Such that, the place of a given entity before (A) and after (B) said entity's movement can accurately verify the completed motion of this same entity. Motion, then, is the transference of truth-claim from ubiety (A) to ubiety (B), where ubiety (abbrev: ubi.) (A) can never share the truth-claim of ubi. (B). Ubietic change is motion. And, if this generic entity, (X), possesses ubiety, it must be daseinic. Further, (X) is composed, even if partially, primary qualities, and these primary qualities establish it as independent existence. This system describes the basis of my general method, specifically, the criterion used to identify space -- specifically, space-in-itself, daseinic space, true space. My intent is to provide for myself a deeper, perhaps even whole, understanding of space-in-itself, confronting the following question: Is it in fact possible to truly, absolutely, move from (A) to (B)? (i.e. If it can, how can the existence of space-in-itself be rationally proven?)

II. The Problem: Parallax and Regression,  The Identity-of-Your-Idea, . . . etc. 

An important distinction to make, ubiety is whereness, but it is not location. It is what allows there to be a location. Ubiety is the basest ability to occupy a position. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (I continue).

[ TLDR; Does space exist? Yes or no, can the answer be mathematically proven? Can the existence of space be mathematically proven? If not, why? If yes, how? Are there already proofs? If yes, where and what are they? If not, might my rudimentary line of reasoning, outlined below, be sound enough to at least point me in the direction of worthwhile research (though I'm aware regardless that I presently haven't the education to effectively pursue such research)? ]

I apologize for the somewhat abrupt stop. I don't want to take up your time, and, if allowed, I can ramble on for hours. I think the general gist of my rough contemplation / outline accurately composes my central concern, and the methodology through which I might further explore the topic: can the existence of space be mathematically proven. In the excerpt included above, there's a salient adherence to a logic-semantic line of reasoning (in the trend Kripke, Quine, Saussure, Frege, Russell, Whitehead, Lehrer, etc.). But don't let me fool you. Written are but little more than passing thoughts, starting points. I'm not attempting to, and am not interested in, arguing that space is not necessarily created nor maintained as a linguistic presupposition. Simply, the references made and ideas cited are the closest to those of the physical sciences that I, an undergrad (an art student, no less), have any familiarity.

Or, if I've only come across as unintelligibly pretentious -- a nonsense lunatic, sorry! Regardless, if you've read this, thanks for your consideration!

(I hope I make sense!!)

Thanks much,

Malcolm McClurg