We are acquainted with references to space and time, as if we are dealing phenomena of the same kind. Yet we shall argue that juxta-posing space and time amounts to nothing van comparing apples and oranges. In general time is often associated with the flow or duration. Yet as soon as we consider something like time-measurement it appears that time takes on different shapes. Stafleu points out that time measurement initially simply boiled down to counting (days, months, years, etc.). Then time was measured by the relative spatial position of the sun or the stars in the sky (with or without the help of instruments like the sundial). Subsequently time was measured by utilizing the regular motion of more or less complicated clockworks. More recently time is measured on the basis of irreversible processes, for example, in atomic clocks. But time is not merely one aspect of reality - it is an ontic dimension of the universe in its own right which comes to expression within every modal aspect of reality in accordance with the unique meaning of such an aspect. Space belongs to the dimension of modal aspects, alongside others such as the numerical aspect, the kinematic aspect, the physical aspect, the biotic aspect, and so on. As a modal-functional aspect of reality space co-conditions the existence of all kinds (classes) of entities. Its modal universality implies that all classes of entities function within the spatial aspect. The relative position of the aspect of space among other modal aspects will be analysed in this article. It will be argued that time is neither merely physical in nature nor solely to be identified with any other specific modal aspect. All modal aspects and entities are embedded in the ontic dimension of time - and the aspect of space is just one of the multiple modal functions of the universe. Therefore, it is not correct simply to position space and time next to each other for then apples and oranges are compared. More specific issues and questions addressed in our analysis are: the infinitely large and small; does nature make jumps?; wat is entailed in the switch from Kant to non-Euclidean geometry; how do we have to account for different kinds of space - such as physical space, biotic space, sensory space, or logical space?; are analogical terms inevitable; do we live in a space-time continuum?; why is perceptual space non-Euclidean?

Username
Password