Western philosophy has become a “religion”, justifying its position without questioning the premises it has been built upon. It suffers from circularity of its own arguments.
I do not believe there is narrow content. All content is contextually based. All utterances of non-contextually based content is done so in the context of the utterance. Such content is still contextually based. Context-free utterances are an impossibility.
To do ontology is to ask what exists and what does not exist. To do epistemology is to ask what we know, how to we know it, and what we cannot know. To say what we do not know is to say that it is possible to know something even though we fail to recognize that it is impossible.
There is no metaphysical reality, only a physical ontological reality.
None of us have the experience of knowledge of the absolute reality, if there is indeed such a reality at all. It is speculation, and nothing more, speculation in the normal sense of the word.
And when we do speculate about such a place, the question of why we require the known physical reality never seems to come up. That the “mundane” reality is not worth considering, like its namesake – ordinary, not interesting or exciting.
How is it that the ordinary is uninteresting or unexciting a given?
Buddhism states there are six senses. But strictly speaking there are six facilities – five senses (sight, sound, smell, taste,and touch) and one faculty (mind).
The senses are to experience the reality. The mind faculty is to make sense of the reality.
In other words the mind is not an organ to sense directly the environment. It is a secondary faculty when compared to the other senses.
When I said object-space-time is a system I mean they are not found separately. Except for in the mind as a concept objects can be separated out from space and time. This is true true of space and time as well – for only in the mind as concepts can this be done. In reality itself this is impossible.
Try removing something you dislike from the reality, and you will find that ignoring it is not the same thing as it doesn’t exist in this reality.
Space is not empty. It is known that in order to truly make space empty, a quantum vacuum, a large amount of energy is needed to do so. In other words, to dismantle space in the same way we dismantle or make atoms (nuclear fission and fission) requires similar expenditure of, if not more, energy. While we have no observable experience of space as we do of objects we can infer from the behavior of objects in space to know about space and time. Space seems to be a special kind of object.
But to speculate on this though is futile. We do not need to know everything about an object to understand it. The car is an example. I can drive it without knowing how the engine or steering work. All I need to know is a car will go forward if I step on the accelerator, and that it will turn left if I turn the steering wheel anti-clockwise.
Spatiotemporal continuity is the property of well-behaved objects in space and time, that they do not ‘jump’, or in other words if a body exists at one time and a later time, then it exists throughout the interval, and if it is in one place at a time and a different place at a later time, then it traced a path through space from the one place to another.
I would note that what is well-behaved are not only objects but space and time as well.
We can infer from objects and space the characteristics of time, from object and time the characteristics of space, and from space and time the characteristics of objects.
No place can be occupied by multiple objects. Nor can place be occupied by multiple spaces. And no place can be occupied by multiple times.
Any abstraction is necessarily the removal of one of these entities within the mind, the representation.
In other words, objects-space-time is a single system. It is reality. It is what exists. Abstracted objects do not exist (they cannot be properly called “objects”) but an object that makes abstractions may exist (a universe without an abstracting conscious object is entirely possible but not likely).