Then I understood correctly that you try to refute what I’ve said in my first statement. That was the very reason why I brought it up. You assume that I’m talking about “Newtonian concept of “space”” (as a fixed spacial grid), when in reality I’m talking not only about spacetime (Minkowski space, which is however still “fixed” and used as a frame of reference), but also any (multi)dimensional extent where length (that is, a local distance comparison) is a meaningful unit.

Now, leave that “space” and you will know Absolute. That Absolute which can be put exhaustively neither into words nor equations or any form of art. Sure, you may say that Absolute is “explanatorily and semantically empty”, yet at the same time Absolute is verifiably self-explanatory and semantics are at that point simply rather arbitrary (so yes, qualia are sort of an illusion built upon raw input, hormonal responses, etc — but let’s not go there).

As for the rest, I, too, don’t see how would anything “make a world as vacuous as a transcendent absolute like the philosopher’s God”, because I don’t remember suggesting anything of the sort (then again, I’m not even sure what are you trying to say with that sentence).

Ah, and yes, I read your article on prehistory.