The Universe.

[Age]

I did think that progress could be very, very easily made here, and very simply, I will add. But, you obviously want to stay where you are and do not want to proceed and move forward, so that is that.

Now, obviously water is a real physical thing, and what is just as obvious is that absolutely all things are made up of the exact same thing, that being "physical substance". But, what you keep missing and misunderstanding here is that there is the many physical things are all part of the one physical thing. Just one physical thing only. The exact same physical thing is not separated "somehow"and how it is not separated (even that it has many separate things) I have already explained, and which you do not want to 'look at', and 'see' and understand.

So, you can stay 'stuck' where you are "age" for as long as you like.

I have already proved your claim here False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Where, when, and how, exactly?

Also, what do you think or believe what my claim' is, exactly, which you, supposedly and allegedly, have already proved False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect?

And, you have, obviously, not been able to refute what I have said and claimed here.

Obviously this one is 'now' absolutely 'stuck' here.

[Age]

I have already given my answer. You are still conflating "space" with "distance". If you ceased from doing that, the answer should become apparent to you. There is no "anomaly" or "inconsistency" or "contradiction" once the realisation of the truth that - even that everything THING is physical, (this includes what is in the space between things) and that distance is a measurement and thus not counted as "something physical".

According to spatial relationalism, space is a nonsubstantial structure, i.e. a web of spatial (distance) relations between material substances rather than a substance itself.
Charles Peirce speaks of "the fallacy of treating the measure of a quantity as if it were the quantity itself"; and the mathematical (numerical) measure of a spatial distance is actually not to be equated with the spatial distance itself, which may hence be called a physical relation. Of course, physical relations aren't physical like physical objects, in the sense of consisting of physical stuff (matter). Physical relations aren't thin long material objects like wires. They are physical only in the sense of being part of the ontology of physics.

is this the pierce that died in 1914?
I don't think we can point to any part of space anymore and say it is empty, it is merely between things. Everywhere, so far, has fluctuations that are physical going on there in the quantum foam. So, it's not so much calling the distance a physical thing, but rather that, so far, it seems that there is no space that is merely between things and not in itself also physical.

Here we have another who has not yet recognized that if everywhere was physical, then what is being described is an infinite sized singularity. Which is obviously not what the Universe is, exactly.

[Age]

'space' is nothing more than just that distance between and around physical matter.

Are you sure about this? Everywhere you go in the visible universe, something is visible and there is gravity. Where is there nothing but distance between objects?

if you think or believe that I have been saying and writing that there is nothing but distance only between objects, then I have, obviously, not expressed my words clearly enough, for you.

To me, the word 'space' just refers to nothing more than the distance, or the area of distance, between and around physical matter.

That 'space', or the areas of 'no matter', around 'matter', may contain energy and/or gravity, is nothing I have been saying, nor meaning.

Also, and by the way, what do you see in between quarks and/or leptons?

[Age]

According to spatial relationalism, space is a nonsubstantial structure, i.e. a web of spatial (distance) relations between material substances rather than a substance itself.
Charles Peirce speaks of "the fallacy of treating the measure of a quantity as if it were the quantity itself"; and the mathematical (numerical) measure of a spatial distance is actually not to be equated with the spatial distance itself, which may hence be called a physical relation. Of course, physical relations aren't physical like physical objects, in the sense of consisting of physical stuff (matter). Physical relations aren't thin long material objects like wires. They are physical only in the sense of being part of the ontology of physics.

is this the pierce that died in 1914?

Yes, but his name is spelled "Peirce" (and pronounced like "purse").

I don't think we can point to any part of space anymore and say it is empty, it is merely between things. Everywhere, so far, has fluctuations that are physical going on there in the quantum foam. So, it's not so much calling the distance a physical thing, but rather that, so far, it seems that there is no space that is merely between things and not in itself also physical.

I was just describing spatial relationalism without defending it. Actually, I think it's false.
According to spatial relationalism, absolutely nothing is literally between spatially related material objects, not even the spatial relations "between" them. But how can there be a nonzero spatial distance between two material objects when there is absolutely nothing between them that separates them spatially from one another, and prevents them from touching one another?

There cannot be. If there was not a 'space' separating two material objects, or two particles of matter, then there would, obviously, be just one material object, or just one particle of matter.

If there were a substantial space and spatial paths between material objects—as is the case from the perspective of spatial substantialism—, then their spatial separation could be defined and measured in terms of the respective lengths of the spatial paths between them, with spatial paths not being spatial relations but parts (1D boundaries) of regions of space (qua substance).
According to spatial relationalism, no such spatial paths between material objects exist; so it has a hard time explaining how spatial distances are definable and measurable without recourse to spatial paths (as parts of a substantial space).

(Generally, relations are said to obtain between their relata; but they cannot literally be located between them, like an electrical cable is literally located between two electricity pylons. Realists about relations who regard them as immanent universals or particulars have the problem of explaining where relations are, literally speaking.)

Here's my list of conceivable relationships between space and matter:

1. identity: space = (spatially extended) matter
[Here, "matter" means "prime matter" or "aether". Matter in the form of massy particles can then be interpreted as a mass-density field with prime matter as its substrate.]

2. difference: space ≠ (spatially extended) matter.

2.1 attributionalism about space:
space is an attribute of (prime) matter, being its spatial dimension or extension.

2.2 substantialism about space:
space is a substance in its own right (so there's a physical substance dualism: the space-substance plus matter-substances):

2.2.1. material substances occupy regions of space (the space-substance):

There is space where matter is, so parts of the space-substance are penetrated by material substances. This means that the space-substance isn't "solid" in Locke's sense, i.e. impenetrable. The space-substance is penetrable (by movable material substances) but immovable.

2.2.2 material substances occupy holes in space (the space-substance):

There isn't space where matter is, so parts of the space-substance only surround material substances. This means that the space-substance is "solid" in Locke's sense, i.e. impenetrable. However, when material substances move through it by displacing parts of it, it behaves like a fluid or liquid substance. (For example, when a stone is thrown into a lake, it sinks and moves through the water by displacing parts of it, with the stone not being penetrated but only surrounded by water.) The space-substance is impenetrable (by movable material substances) but movable.

2.3 supersubstantialism about space:
(apparent) material substances are (really) (bundles of) physical properties (quantities) of regions of space (the space-substance).
The space-substance is both impenetrable (by other substances) and immovable. The (apparent) motions of (apparent) material substances "are replaced by spatiotemporal trajectories of successive lightings-up of properties of spatiotemporal regions." (C. B. Martin)

[2.3 can be regarded as including 1: space = prime matter/aether and elementary particles (and all things composed of them) are bundles of physical properties (e.g. mass density) of parts of it. But the parts of the substantial aether aren't reducible to property-bundles, so there's still a difference!]

3. antisubstantialism or relationalism about space: space is a structure consisting of spatial relations between material substances (or events). Motion is change of distance relations between material substances.

Here is a prime example of over-complicating the Truly simple, and easy. The Universe, Itself, is Truly simple, and easy, to comprehend and understand, fully.

To me, the words

'Space' refers to 'the distance' between and around 'matter'.

'Matter' refers to the physical parts, or physicality.

'Universe' refers to 'the all', 'totality', 'Everything', or 'all-there-is'.

The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'space' and 'matter', which both of exist always.

Space allows matter to spin and to move about freely, which by doing so, energy and gravity/magnetism also exists always.

'Time' refers to the measuring of, or to, the duration between perceived events.

Time is based upon 'light', itself.

The, apparent, expansion of the Universe only exists because of 'when' what is observed, is observed, from which other False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'assumptions' were made.

The Universe is infinite, in size/spatially, and, eternal, in time/temporally.

The so-called 'big bang' is nothing more than just 'another bang' of countless 'bangs'.

The words, 'In the beginning', [which have been misinterpreted, has led to, and caused and created, a lot of False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect pre/assumptions], refers to the HERE-NOW.

HERE-NOW is (in) 'the beginning' of all of what is about to be revealed, and to be-come.

[VVilliam]

To me, the word 'space' just refers to nothing more than the distance, or the area of distance, between and around physical matter.

Why do you have that view/definition of "Space"?

In the picture I offered;



there is something more than distance or the area of distance, between and around the objects.

So your definition (of space) fails in this particular circumstance because clearly there is no denial from you (as far as I can ascertain) that there is something rather than "nothing more than" distance, or the area of distance, between and around the objects. The objects themselves are moving within an object itself.

Also, why do you refer to matter as "physical matter"? what other type of matter is there, that you refer to matter in this particular way?

Could it be that in doing so you are attempting to say that objects which can be observed (like the objects in the picture) are made of "physical matter" and objects which cannot be observed (like the water the objects are within) are (somehow) made of "non physical matter"?

[VVilliam]

I have already given my answer. You are still conflating "space" with "distance". If you ceased from doing that, the answer should become apparent to you. There is no "anomaly" or "inconsistency" or "contradiction" once the realisation of the truth that - even that everything THING is physical, (this includes what is in the space between things) and that distance is a measurement and thus not counted as "something physical".

According to spatial relationalism, space is a nonsubstantial structure, i.e. a web of spatial (distance) relations between material substances rather than a substance itself.
Charles Peirce speaks of "the fallacy of treating the measure of a quantity as if it were the quantity itself"; and the mathematical (numerical) measure of a spatial distance is actually not to be equated with the spatial distance itself, which may hence be called a physical relation. Of course, physical relations aren't physical like physical objects, in the sense of consisting of physical stuff (matter). Physical relations aren't thin long material objects like wires. They are physical only in the sense of being part of the ontology of physics.

Thanks for that information.

I think that just because some objects (space being the primary object which other objects move in) are not easily observed as being physical themselves (itself) does not mean it is not physical (in nature) as a consequence.

[Age]

To me, the word 'space' just refers to nothing more than the distance, or the area of distance, between and around physical matter.

Why do you have that view/definition of "Space"?

Because that view fits in, perfectly, with a GUTOE.

In the picture I offered;



there is something more than distance or the area of distance, between and around the objects.

Of course there is.

Are you trying to deceive and be deceptive here, or are you really missing or misunderstanding what I actually said and wrote above here?

Once you inform 'us:, then I can and will clear things up for you here.

So your definition (of space) fails in this particular circumstance because clearly there is no denial from you (as far as I can ascertain) that there is something rather than "nothing more than" distance, or the area of distance, between and around the objects.

My definition does not fail at all. And, for a couple of reasons.

you, obviously, are not understanding the actual words I said and wrote here, are misinterpreting them as well as taking them out of context. Which, by the way, I have already expressed how I have not been expressing clearly enough if you are missing or misunderstanding 'my meaning'. I have also expressed this view in another way, which either you have obviously also missed, or misunderstood.

But, while you keep speaking and writing, like what you are here, you will still be a long way from understanding what I am actually saying, writing, and meaning here.

The objects themselves are moving within an object itself.

So what?

you are just showing that you are a very long way from what I have been saying, and pointing out, here.

Also, why do you refer to matter as "physical matter"? what other type of matter is there, that you refer to matter in this particular way?

To me, there is no other. And, if you provide 'us' a link to where I have said anything like that, if I have, then 'we' can 'look at' and 'see' what it was in regards to, exactly, and/or in what context, exactly, also?

Could it be that in doing so you are attempting to say that objects which can be observed (like the objects in the picture) are made of "physical matter" and objects which cannot be observed (like the water the objects are within) are (somehow) made of "non physical matter"?

Are you some kind of absolute idiot or imbecile?

1. How could water not be observed?

2. What you are asking here could not be any further from what I have been talking about, writing down, and meaning here.

3. Are you purposing trying to twist and distort things so much here, so as to deceive 'the readers' and/or to deflect away from your inability so far in answering the clarifying questions I posed, and asked you here?

4. I suggest you start again. Start from the very beginning of this post, and read the 'actual words' that I have written, and do not change my words, nor format, in absolutely any way. Also, do this 'reading' from a Truly OPEN perspective and not from your own already obtained prejudices, assumptions, nor beliefs perspective. By doing this you will not be so far afield from 'me' and 'my words'. And then start asking me clarifying questions, if needed.

[Age]

I have already given my answer. You are still conflating "space" with "distance". If you ceased from doing that, the answer should become apparent to you. There is no "anomaly" or "inconsistency" or "contradiction" once the realisation of the truth that - even that everything THING is physical, (this includes what is in the space between things) and that distance is a measurement and thus not counted as "something physical".

According to spatial relationalism, space is a nonsubstantial structure, i.e. a web of spatial (distance) relations between material substances rather than a substance itself.
Charles Peirce speaks of "the fallacy of treating the measure of a quantity as if it were the quantity itself"; and the mathematical (numerical) measure of a spatial distance is actually not to be equated with the spatial distance itself, which may hence be called a physical relation. Of course, physical relations aren't physical like physical objects, in the sense of consisting of physical stuff (matter). Physical relations aren't thin long material objects like wires. They are physical only in the sense of being part of the ontology of physics.

Thanks for that information.

I think that just because some objects (space being the primary object which other objects move in) are not easily observed as being physical themselves (itself) does not mean it is not physical (in nature) as a consequence.

Can you, still, really not yet see how Truly absurd, ridiculous, illogical, irrational, contradictory, and totally nonsensical this thought and claim is here?

Either way, if you want to believe that the above thought is true, and thus not open to being showing how and why it is not, then I will leave you with this Truly distorted and False belief of yours. If, however, you want to be shown how and why the thought could be or is Wrong and Incorrect, then by all means let 'us' know so 'we' can inform you.

[VVilliam]

To me, the word 'space' just refers to nothing more than the distance, or the area of distance, between and around physical matter.

Why do you have that view/definition of "Space"?

Because that view fits in, perfectly, with a GUTOE.

No it doesn't. Perhaps if you can show how that is the case, one might agree with you.

I have shown in principle, how the theory based on the premise that there is no such thing as immaterial, fits perfectly with GUTOE.

Are you trying to deceive and be deceptive here, or are you really missing or misunderstanding what I actually said and wrote above here?

Why not cease with the personal comments and just answer the question put to you? (Often those who do resort to such tactics, do so because they are unable to critique another's theory.) I thought you were better than that, but perhaps you just had a moment of weakness so I will extend you a moment of grace.

you, obviously, are not understanding the actual words I said and wrote here, are misinterpreting them as well as taking them out of context.

I suggest then that if you really do want to be understood that you examine the possibility that you have not been as clear as you may think that you have.

If you don't want to be understood, then carry on the way you have been doing, and I will leave you to it.

The objects themselves are moving within an object itself.

So what?

So why would anyone believe that this is not the case for the whole universe is so what. What answer do you have?

Also, why do you refer to matter as "physical matter"? what other type of matter is there, that you refer to matter in this particular way?

To me, there is no other.

Then I suggest that you use language more appropriately and those who read your words will have a better chance of understanding what it is you are attempting to say.

By using the phrase "physical matter" there is an implication that you think there is some other kind of matter which perhaps isn't physical.

Are you some kind of absolute idiot or imbecile?

I see your resorting to personal insult yet again and this shows me that you are a waste of my time. You have nothing to offer and are simply seeking attention.

(The impasse I mentioned earlier.)

I am sad for you.

Do not attempt to interact with me any further until you can humble yourself and treat others accordingly.

[Age]

Why do you have that view/definition of "Space"?

Because that view fits in, perfectly, with a GUTOE.

No it doesn't.

Why not, to you?

What is 'GUTOE' and why, to you, does that view/definition, supposedly not fit in, perfectly with a GUTOE?

Perhaps if you can show how that is the case, one might agree with you.

I have already partly 'shown'. you, however, have not, yet, 'seen'.

I have shown in principle, how the theory based on the premise that there is no such thing as immaterial, fits perfectly with GUTOE.

All you have done is just said that there is no such thing as 'immaterial'. you certainly have not shown, in principle, nor at all. Also, you have not even been able to explain how there is only 'the material'.

Whereas, I am showing, through clarifying questioning, and your non answering/clarifying, that there only being 'the material' is a Truly illogical, irrational, and nonsensical claim.

Just maybe you start trying to justify your claim by just starting to answer the clarifying questions I posed, and asked you here, then just maybe you will back up and support your notion and belief that the whole Universe is just one infinite sized singularity.

Until then, your continued refusal to 'look at' and 'discuss' this is showing refutation for 'your claim' here.

Are you trying to deceive and be deceptive here, or are you really missing or misunderstanding what I actually said and wrote above here?

Why not cease with the personal comments and just answer the question put to you?

What was 'the question', supposedly, 'put to me', exactly?

If it was any of the ones that I already have answered, then it must be some other one. So, which one are you referring to, exactly?

Also, I never made a 'personal comment'. I, instead, asked you a question, for clarity sake.

Obviously, I never ever wrote nor meant absolutely any thing at all in regards to what you said and claimed here. So, what you are saying and claim here has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'me' and 'my words' here. And, if you cannot fathom and understand this, then you have just become lost and confused here.

(Often those who do resort to such tactics, do so because they are unable to critique another's theory.)

you "vvilliam" claim that the whole Universe is one material thing. During my critique of 'your claim' I have asked how this could possibly be the case. you have failed, absolutely, to provide absolutely any thing at all, which could back up and support this theory, belief, and claim of yours here.

I thought you were better than that,

Why would you have even 'presumed' such a thing?

Also, are comments here, like the 'personal comments', which you 'assumed' I was making, and which you were asking 'me' why do I not cease making them?

but perhaps you just had a moment of weakness so I will extend you a moment of grace.

These sound like more personal comments 'about me', 'from you'.

These could also be another form of distraction from never clarifying how 'its theory/belief' could ever be logically possible, let alone actually possible and even actuality, itself.

you, obviously, are not understanding the actual words I said and wrote here, are misinterpreting them as well as taking them out of context.

I suggest then that if you really do want to be understood that you examine the possibility that you have not been as clear as you may think that you have.

But I never ever thought I had been clear here.

Why would you even begin to presume such a thing?

If you don't want to be understood, then carry on the way you have been doing, and I will leave you to it.

Why do you repeat 'my words' often.

Are you not able to back up and stand behind 'your own words'?

The objects themselves are moving within an object itself.

So what?

So why would anyone believe that this is not the case for the whole universe is so what. What answer do you have?

Because the whole Universe is not an ocean nor gold fish bowl of 'water'.

That is the answer I have.

Also, why do you refer to matter as "physical matter"? what other type of matter is there, that you refer to matter in this particular way?

To me, there is no other.

Then I suggest that you use language more appropriately and those who read your words will have a better chance of understanding what it is you are attempting to say.

By using the phrase "physical matter" there is an implication that you think there is some other kind of matter which perhaps isn't physical.

Why did you not just seek out and obtain 'actual clarification first', then you would not have, once again, assumed some completely and utterly False and Wrong thing, which then led to completely unnecessary writings?

Also, and because you will not provide a link to where I, supposedly, said such a thing, so that 'we' could 'look at' for the reason/s why, and in what context, I might have said that because of the words and writings you have said about how the whole Universe is just 'matter', itself, alone, and only.

Are you some kind of absolute idiot or imbecile?

I see your resorting to personal insult

I see you that are making assumption, once again, without seeking out and obtaining 'actual clarification first'.

Which, by the way, your assumption here is also False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, as well.

yet again and this shows me that you are a waste of my time. You have nothing to offer and are simply seeking attention.

(The impasse I mentioned earlier.)

I am sad for you.

Do not attempt to interact with me any further until you can humble yourself and treat others accordingly.

What 'we' have here is another great example of one trying their hardest to detract and deflect away from its complete and utter lack of ability to stand behind and back up and support what it believes and claims is true.

There is, obviously, not one singular infinite sized piece of 'matter' as this one believes and is trying to claim is true, and so this one will try absolutely anything to deflect away from this, and thus from having to even try to begin to justify this belief and claim.

Now, back to what I have said and written here.

The word 'space', to me, is just referring to the distance between and around matter. The Universe is, fundamentally, made up of 'space', and, 'matter'.

This one, obviously, cannot refute this. And, it could not even refute its own complete and utterly Wrong and False misinterpretations of what I have actually said and been meaning. This one did not even begin to try to 'justify' its own beliefs and claims, which says a great deal here.

[Consul]

According to spatial relationalism, absolutely nothing is literally between spatially related material objects, not even the spatial relations "between" them. But how can there be a nonzero spatial distance between two material objects when there is absolutely nothing between them that separates them spatially from one another, and prevents them from touching one another?

There cannot be. If there was not a 'space' separating two material objects, or two particles of matter, then there would, obviously, be just one material object, or just one particle of matter.

The spatial distance between two material objects is zero if they coincide or are in direct spatial contact through touching. Two spatially coinciding objects, which occupy the same place at the same time, are still two different objects. However, spatial coincidence is impossible if material objects are "solid" in Locke's sense, i.e. impenetrable. And two zero-dimensional material objects cannot be in direct spatial contact through touching, because they lack two-dimensional surfaces where the contact could take place. So spatial coincidence would be the only possible spatial contact for matter-points.

Spatial relationalists defend their position by arguing that distance relations between material objects are intrinsic to their relata and don't depend on any substantial space. So they would reply to my above question that there can be nonzero spatial distances between two material objects even if there is absolutely nothing, no substantial spatial medium between and around them. Spatial relations such as x and y being 100km apart are postulated by them as primitive, in the sense that they are not explainable in terms of anything else such as spatial paths in a substantial space.

Relationalists…

"…are working with what [Phillip] Bricker calls the intrinsic conception of distance: the distance between P and Q (and any other two points) depends solely on the properties of the points in question. For P and Q to remain 20m apart despite the removal of parts of the intervening space entails that the distance between these points depends on nothing but the points themselves and how they are directly related to one another. This direct intrinsic distance is independent of the space within which P and Q are embedded: all the points surrounding P and Q could be removed and they would still be 20m apart. Like its Gaussian counterpart, the intrinsic conception also lives on:
—
The mathematical embodiment of the intrinsic conception is the abstract structure of a metric space. A metric space consists of a non-empty universe of points together with a family of distance relations (or a single distance function – it matters not) satisfying the axioms of distance … The distance relations are taken as primitive, and other features of space – e.g. topological – are defined in terms of the distance relation.
(Bricker 1993 ["The Fabric of Space"]: 278)"

(Dainton, Barry. Time and Space. 2nd ed. Durham: Acumen, 2010. pp. 159-60)

[Age]

According to spatial relationalism, absolutely nothing is literally between spatially related material objects, not even the spatial relations "between" them. But how can there be a nonzero spatial distance between two material objects when there is absolutely nothing between them that separates them spatially from one another, and prevents them from touching one another?

There cannot be. If there was not a 'space' separating two material objects, or two particles of matter, then there would, obviously, be just one material object, or just one particle of matter.

The spatial distance between two material objects is zero if they coincide or are in direct spatial contact through touching.

So, if 'they' are touching, then what is 'it', exactly, which is 'separating' them, and thus 'making them' 'two', and not 'one'?

And, what does it matter if two separate things are occurring at the same time? How does this relate to there, supposedly, being a 'zero spatial distance'.

Also, you appear to only be looking at and from a very shallow perspective.

Furthermore, what you people here seem to have not yet comprehended, or just keep forgetting, here appears to be very clear, and obvious, well to me anyway.

Two spatially coinciding objects, which occupy the same place at the same time, are still two different objects.

Will you, please, explain to the readers here how there could be two different objects occupying the exact same 'place' at the exact same 'time' or 'moment'?

If no, then why not?

Also, just saying, 'Two spatially coinciding objects', does not mean that there actually are.

However, spatial coincidence is impossible if material objects are "solid" in Locke's sense, i.e. impenetrable.

So, to you, because the earth and mars, two objects, are said to be penetrable, then both the earth and mars, well to you anyway, can occupy the exact same 'place' in the exact same 'moment', right?

Also, will provide the actual, other, things here, which you want to claim are possible so-called 'spatial coincidence'?

If no, then why not?

And two zero-dimensional material objects cannot be in direct spatial contact through touching, because they lack two-dimensional surfaces where the contact could take place. So spatial coincidence would be the only possible spatial contact for matter-points.

What are all of these 'things', which you are talking about here, made up of, exactly?

Spatial relationalists defend their position by arguing that distance relations between material objects are intrinsic to their relata and don't depend on any substantial space. So they would reply to my above question that there can be nonzero spatial distances between two material objects even if there is absolutely nothing, no substantial spatial medium between and around them. Spatial relations such as x and y being 100km apart are postulated by them as primitive, in the sense that they are not explainable in terms of anything else such as spatial paths in a substantial space.

Who cares?

Absolutely none of any of this 'relates to' what I have been saying and talking about here.

Relationalists…

"…are working with what [Phillip] Bricker calls the intrinsic conception of distance: the distance between P and Q (and any other two points) depends solely on the properties of the points in question. For P and Q to remain 20m apart despite the removal of parts of the intervening space

How are 'you', "philip bricker", and so-called "relationalists" defining the 'space' word here?

entails that the distance between these points depends on nothing but the points themselves and how they are directly related to one another. This direct intrinsic distance is independent of the space within which P and Q are embedded: all the points surrounding P and Q could be removed and they would still be 20m apart. Like its Gaussian counterpart, the intrinsic conception also lives on:
—
The mathematical embodiment of the intrinsic conception is the abstract structure of a metric space. A metric space consists of a non-empty universe of points together with a family of distance relations (or a single distance function – it matters not) satisfying the axioms of distance … The distance relations are taken as primitive, and other features of space – e.g. topological – are defined in terms of the distance relation.
(Bricker 1993 ["The Fabric of Space"]: 278)"

(Dainton, Barry. Time and Space. 2nd ed. Durham: Acumen, 2010. pp. 159-60)

How are all of 'you' here defining the word 'space' here?

Once this has been revealed, then 'we' can move along and proceed here. But, until then, what you said and written here appears to have absolutely nothing at all really to do with what I have said and written here.

[Consul]

The spatial distance between two material objects is zero if they coincide or are in direct spatial contact through touching.

So, if 'they' are touching, then what is 'it', exactly, which is 'separating' them, and thus 'making them' 'two', and not 'one'?

If two material objects occupy two distinct (non-overlapping) regions of (a substantial) space, it follows that they are numerically different.
If two material objects are qualitatively different, it follows that they are also numerically different. If they are qualitatively identical, then they can still be individuated and differentiated as numerically different objects in terms of each having a primitive "thisness" (haecceity) or both (together) having a primitive "twoness".

And, what does it matter if two separate things are occurring at the same time? How does this relate to there, supposedly, being a 'zero spatial distance'.

By "coincidence" I didn't mean temporal coincidence in the sense of "occurrence or existence at the same time; simultaneous occurrence or existence" (OED), but spatial coincidence in the sense of "occupation of the same place or part of space" (OED). The spatial coincidence of two (or more) objects takes place simultaneously; that is, it is an occupation of the same place at the same time by two (or more) objects, since an occupation of the same place at different times by two (or more) objects is not a case of spatial coincidence.

Two spatially coinciding objects, which occupy the same place at the same time, are still two different objects.

Will you, please, explain to the readers here how there could be two different objects occupying the exact same 'place' at the exact same 'time' or 'moment'?
If no, then why not?
Also, just saying, 'Two spatially coinciding objects', does not mean that there actually are.

I've just been describing the spatial coincidence of material objects without affirming its (physical) possibility.

However, what I do think is (physically) possible is that 0D, 1D, or 2D boundaries of (materially continuous, non-scattered) 3D objects coincide.

(Composite bodies such as human organisms are not materially continuous, non-scattered 3D objects with geometrically precise 0D, 1D, or 2D boundaries, because they are aggregates of discrete and distinct material elements.)

However, spatial coincidence is impossible if material objects are "solid" in Locke's sense, i.e. impenetrable.

So, to you, because the earth and mars, two objects, are said to be penetrable, then both the earth and mars, well to you anyway, can occupy the exact same 'place' in the exact same 'moment', right?
Also, will provide the actual, other, things here, which you want to claim are possible so-called 'spatial coincidence'?
If no, then why not?

Again, I didn't claim that the spatial coincidence of 3D objects (bodies) is (physically) possible. Actually, I doubt it is.

However, if the boundaries of materially continuous bodies are parts of them that can coincide, then a partial spatial coincidence of bodies is (physically) possible in the form of a coincidence of their lower-dimensional boundaries. But the possibility of such a partial spatial coincidence of bodies doesn't entail the possibility of their total spatial coincidence. For all 3D parts, i.e. all nonboundary parts, of bodies may still be impenetrable.

And two zero-dimensional material objects cannot be in direct spatial contact through touching, because they lack two-dimensional surfaces where the contact could take place. So spatial coincidence would be the only possible spatial contact for matter-points.

What are all of these 'things', which you are talking about here, made up of, exactly?

Obviously, matter-points (if such things exist) are elementary bits of matter, which aren't themselves made up of anything, since they are what composite material things are made up of.

Relationalists…

"…are working with what [Phillip] Bricker calls the intrinsic conception of distance: the distance between P and Q (and any other two points) depends solely on the properties of the points in question. For P and Q to remain 20m apart despite the removal of parts of the intervening space

How are 'you', "philip bricker", and so-called "relationalists" defining the 'space' word here?

As I already said, according to relationalism, space is not substance but a nonsubstantial relational structure, i.e. the totality of spatial (distance) relations between material substances.
Relationalist space can be dynamic, because the spatial relations can change over time through changes of the distances between bodies. Actually, motion in relationalist space is nothing but change of distance.

[Age]

The spatial distance between two material objects is zero if they coincide or are in direct spatial contact through touching.

So, if 'they' are touching, then what is 'it', exactly, which is 'separating' them, and thus 'making them' 'two', and not 'one'?

If two material objects occupy two distinct (non-overlapping) regions of (a substantial) space, it follows that they are numerically different.
If two material objects are qualitatively different, it follows that they are also numerically different. If they are qualitatively identical, then they can still be individuated and differentiated as numerically different objects in terms of each having a primitive "thisness" (haecceity) or both (together) having a primitive "twoness".

And, what does it matter if two separate things are occurring at the same time? How does this relate to there, supposedly, being a 'zero spatial distance'.

By "coincidence" I didn't mean temporal coincidence in the sense of "occurrence or existence at the same time; simultaneous occurrence or existence" (OED), but spatial coincidence in the sense of "occupation of the same place or part of space" (OED). The spatial coincidence of two (or more) objects takes place simultaneously; that is, it is an occupation of the same place at the same time by two (or more) objects, since an occupation of the same place at different times by two (or more) objects is not a case of spatial coincidence.

Two spatially coinciding objects, which occupy the same place at the same time, are still two different objects.

Will you, please, explain to the readers here how there could be two different objects occupying the exact same 'place' at the exact same 'time' or 'moment'?
If no, then why not?
Also, just saying, 'Two spatially coinciding objects', does not mean that there actually are.

I've just been describing the spatial coincidence of material objects without affirming its (physical) possibility.

However, what I do think is (physically) possible is that 0D, 1D, or 2D boundaries of (materially continuous, non-scattered) 3D objects coincide.

(Composite bodies such as human organisms are not materially continuous, non-scattered 3D objects with geometrically precise 0D, 1D, or 2D boundaries, because they are aggregates of discrete and distinct material elements.)

However, spatial coincidence is impossible if material objects are "solid" in Locke's sense, i.e. impenetrable.

So, to you, because the earth and mars, two objects, are said to be penetrable, then both the earth and mars, well to you anyway, can occupy the exact same 'place' in the exact same 'moment', right?
Also, will provide the actual, other, things here, which you want to claim are possible so-called 'spatial coincidence'?
If no, then why not?

Again, I didn't claim that the spatial coincidence of 3D objects (bodies) is (physically) possible. Actually, I doubt it is.

However, if the boundaries of materially continuous bodies are parts of them that can coincide, then a partial spatial coincidence of bodies is (physically) possible in the form of a coincidence of their lower-dimensional boundaries. But the possibility of such a partial spatial coincidence of bodies doesn't entail the possibility of their total spatial coincidence. For all 3D parts, i.e. all nonboundary parts, of bodies may still be impenetrable.

And two zero-dimensional material objects cannot be in direct spatial contact through touching, because they lack two-dimensional surfaces where the contact could take place. So spatial coincidence would be the only possible spatial contact for matter-points.

What are all of these 'things', which you are talking about here, made up of, exactly?

Obviously, matter-points (if such things exist) are elementary bits of matter, which aren't themselves made up of anything, since they are what composite material things are made up of.

Relationalists…

How are 'you', "philip bricker", and so-called "relationalists" defining the 'space' word here?

As I already said, according to relationalism, space is not substance but a nonsubstantial relational structure, i.e. the totality of spatial (distance) relations between material substances.
Relationalist space can be dynamic, because the spatial relations can change over time through changes of the distances between bodies. Actually, motion in relationalist space is nothing but change of distance.

Why are wanting to over-complicate and make hard to understand what is, essentially, pure simplicity, and extremely easy to understand? That is; what exists is 'matter', which is separated by a 'distance', and when the word 'space' is used to refer to 'the distance between and around matter, then this fits in perfectly with a Truly simple and easy to explain and comprehend GUTOE.