The space of a measurement device may be called “measurement space” or “property space”. There all other objects are specified relative to the measurement device, mostly in form of measured values of a characteristic property of that device.
At each point of this space the measuring instrument takes a specific form when interacting with the object to be measured; normally it displays a certain value.
By that value, by that form, this point of this space is defined. The entirety of all these points make up the space of that measuring instrument, the corresponding measurement- or property-space.
In this sense, our common three-dimensional space is a special measurement space. The associated measurement device is traditionally a measuring rod, a ruler or so.
Every thing has more than one property. It is specified in multiple ways, interacting with many other things.
In the sciences this multitude is often considered disturbing. It makes the things incalculable, unpredictable in their behavior.
Scientific theory always covers only a — partial — aspect of the real things. These therefore appear as idealized things in theory, reduced to what is essential — in that context.
But also on their practical side, sciences normally need to preclude disturbing influences. This is done by spaces which are closed exactly in this sense, thus providing a context that fits the theory.
Things appear again and again. That’s it. We cannot give a deeper reason for that. Things simply could not be called things, there would not even be anything, if there were no such constancy and continuance in their appearances. Only so they can be identified in any way, as something. Thus repetitive appearance is a logical need.
We can also take it the other way round, just as well, and say that because we have repeating experiences we conclude that there must be something, some things we interact with.
Without a certain constancy in our perceptions and thoughts we would not perceive or know anything. There would be neither perception nor knowledge. There would be nothing — if ever…
To understand that repetition and propagation are fundamental moments of all being is decisively important. They mark the ground state, so to speak, from which all others can be deduced somehow, as special cases appearing under particular circumstances.
This is fairly opposite to the common approach, which generally presumes isolated static entities — without being concerned about how, for example, those objects might be subject to our perception and knowledge if they really were so inactive and closed.
The idealizations, so essential for physics and other sciences, are often seen as reflecting the original conditions, before any pollution, so to speak: the things how they really are.
But actually these things show their supposed “true colors” not before they appear in a very special environment. In a space that often needs lots of efforts to be produced. Only there they can multiply and so come into appearance.
But then, in this environment, under these arranged (laboratory) conditions, only those phenomena can flourish and be observed that fit into it.
Anything else is then regarded as scientifically not verifiable.
The ideal of mechanics is the empty space where few objects interact whose behavior is determined only by their masses. Pretty close to that ideal comes the space between the large heavenly bodies of our solar system. And in fact, the laws of gravitation and inertia and so on were first derived from observations of the stars, especially of the planets’ motions.
On earth it was essential that situations could be found or arranged, where disturbing factors, such as friction, did not carry too much weight and thus could be ignored. (Billiard) balls rolling on slick surfaces or hanging on strings while colliding are suitable here, as well as free falling bodies. Comparisions of their movements with those of the celestial bodies gave rise to the discoveries of impressively universal new laws.
How much our world is formed by this ideal of mechanics is reflected not only by the slick surfaces to be found everywhere, for example, but above all by our brains, our deep mental (mis)concepts: True reality must be hard and slick and as hostile as the empty outer space.
The common dominant logic is crucially based on the presumption that a thing’s space is limited. Limits are set to its extension and propagation, namely by the existence of others.
Things abut one another, they collide, they displace one another.
That is the logic of solid bodies, of mechanics. It is the logic of delimited territories, of possessing, of conquering and defending, of fighting and making war — as well as, on the other hand, of meeting friendly and touching gently.
It is the logic of borderlines and separation. Either this or that; or nothing at all; but never both, in no case. The logic of NAND, of not-and. — Or of NOR, of not-or: we must decide, we have to take sides.