Time and Space as Special Cases of the State Domain

1. The Question Is Not How Time Flows, but What Gives Time Determinate Meaning

People ordinarily use time long before they reflect on what time is. A glance at a clock tells us what time it is; when waiting for a family member to return home, we estimate how much longer it will take; when recalling a life, we may say that something happened ten years ago. Space has a similar immediacy. We say that the table is here, the door is over there, and two places are separated by a certain distance, usually without asking what relational structure makes those judgements possible.

From such experiences one can easily form an approximate intuitive picture: time flows uniformly outside things, while space is a fixed container within which things are located. In this paper, I call this picture an “approximately Newtonian everyday intuition”. The expression is used only to enable conceptual comparison. It does not imply that everyone's everyday understanding is identical, still less that ordinary experience already contains Newton's full theory.

Newton himself, in the Scholium to the Definitions in the Principia, explicitly distinguished absolute time from relative measures of time obtained through motion, and absolute space from relative space determined through the relations among bodies. He was not unaware that measurement depends on relations. Rather, after acknowledging that dependence, he still posited absolute time and absolute space as existing independently of external things.[1]

This historical distinction is important for the present argument. Merely pointing out that “human beings know time through clocks and motion” does not refute Newton, because Newton's own distinction already accommodates that fact. Sustenesis therefore asks a further question: once state transitions and their relations of comparison have been explained, is it still necessary to posit an additional entity of time that flows independently?

Relativity gives this question a new physical setting. Special relativity rejects a universal absolute simultaneity shared by all inertial frames, while retaining the fixed geometry of Minkowski spacetime. General relativity goes further by making the spacetime metric part of the dynamical description, constrained together with matter, energy, and other necessary conditions by the field equations. It would therefore be inaccurate to summarise either theory as saying that “spacetime has no objective structure” or that “spacetime is merely an observer's reading”.[2][3]

The present paper begins from this distinction. It preserves the measurability of experiential spacetime while reconsidering its conceptual structure. What needs to be connected are not three separate worlds, but several levels of description: everyday experience, the Newtonian approximation, and relativistic physics. The central question is whether a relational philosophical account can make the continuity among them clearer.

2. The Explanatory Level and Conceptual Boundaries of the State Domain

Sustenesis takes difference, constraint, and sustained coherence as its basic concepts. Throughout this paper, “sustained coherence” refers neither to all states being identical nor to every reading remaining equal. It means that relevant relations retain an identifiable connection and an overall capacity to hold across admissible differences of state.

The State Domain is the structural presentation of possible states and their relations under relevant constraints when difference, constraint, and sustained coherence jointly hold.

This definition does not treat the State Domain as a pre-existing container into which the three elements enter, nor does it arrange the three elements as a temporal production sequence. To say that the State Domain is more general at the explanatory level than specific forms of time and space does not mean that it appeared earlier in cosmic history. To explain the emergence of time by saying that something existed “earlier” would already presuppose time.

At this abstract level, states may be described by different parameters and combinations of parameters, while relations may take the form of comparability, transformability, compatibility, or other constrained connections. A collection of parameters does not by itself constitute physical spacetime. Describing a system by temperature, pressure, and composition may define a state description, but those variables do not become the three directions of physical space merely because they can serve as coordinates in a state space.

Likewise, “sustained coherence” must not be defined in advance as persistence for a certain number of seconds. What matters at this level is how a relevant structure remains connected across admissible states. Only after a concrete temporal reference has been established does it become meaningful to ask how many seconds that relation lasts. This avoids smuggling clock time back into the three elements while claiming to use those elements to explain time.

Calling time and space special cases of the State Domain also requires a precise sense of “special case”. The paper does not identify a State Domain, a coordinate variable, and physical spacetime as one and the same object. More precisely, the State Domain provides a general description of state relations; when those relations satisfy specific conditions of ordering, comparison, and physical measurement, temporality or spatiality can be instantiated as more concrete forms.

The State Domain therefore indicates a direction of explanation, but does not complete every construction by itself. To identify a state relation as physical time, one must specify transition order and a timekeeping reference. To identify a relation as spatial, one must specify positional organisation, distance, and the relevant geometric conditions. Difference is a necessary condition for such structures to be distinguishable, but it is not by itself a sufficient condition for any specific spatiotemporal structure.

3. A Relational Definition of Time and the Role of Clocks

Within the scope of this application, time can be defined as the comparable ordering of state transitions, together with the sustainable measurement of intervals formed under constraints.

This definition expands the shorter formulation that “time is the sustainable measurement of state change under constraints”. The expansion is necessary because order and duration are not the same thing. Knowing how two states are ordered in a transition does not by itself tell us that they are separated by a certain number of seconds. Determining an interval requires a repeatable timekeeping reference. Here “sustainable” means that the relevant rule of comparison continues to hold under the conditions in question. It does not require all processes to proceed at the same rate, nor does it require clocks under different physical conditions always to display identical readings.

State transition is first treated here as a constrained relation between states, rather than by assigning every state an absolute time label in advance. Concrete ordering relations and reference processes then make temporal description possible. This is an order of explanation, not a claim that any two different states generate time merely by being placed side by side. Where no determinate transition relation exists among a set of states, the present definition does not directly apply.

The role of a clock can be understood in this way. Oscillation, periodic motion, movement of a hand, or another timekeeping process provides distinguishable state differences that can be compared. A single position of a clock hand is not sufficient to determine elapsed time, because the same position can recur. Timekeeping also depends on counting cycles, choosing an origin, and controlling the operating conditions of the clock. Measurement of time therefore concerns the record and comparison of a sequence of transitions rather than the property of a single frozen image.

Consider a child waiting at home for their parents to return from work. As the household clock approaches five o'clock, the child knows that the working day is nearly over; by half past five, the sound of the door opening may be expected. What the child uses here is not the direct appearance of an entity called “time”, but a correspondence among clock readings, work schedules, the journey home, and the child's own waiting.

The parents' watches and the clock at home are calibrated to shared standards. Institutional arrangements specify the end of the working day, while ordinary commuting conditions make the time of arrival roughly predictable. Together these factors form a relatively stable relational structure that gives the phrase “another half hour” an intelligible practical meaning.

The relations involved are nevertheless not all of the same kind. Calibration between clocks is a metrological relation; the official end of a working day is an institutional arrangement; travel time depends on contingent physical conditions. If the parents arrive late, physical time has not thereby changed. What has changed may simply be the expected relation between scheduled behaviour and actual events. A common constraint does not turn different processes into one process; it makes usable correspondences among them possible.

A radio time signal works similarly. If a programme is transmitted at specified times, and if transmission and reception delays are below the precision relevant to the task, a household clock can be compared with the signal. If high-precision synchronisation is required, signal propagation and reception must themselves be included in the analysis. Public time therefore depends not only on a reference, but also on how that reference is transmitted, compared, and corrected.

These examples help explain how time enters ordinary life, but they do not by themselves establish all the physical properties of time, nor do they constitute a complete psychological theory of how children acquire temporal concepts. Their function is to reveal relational conditions that ordinary acts of timekeeping tend to leave implicit.

4. The Objectivity of Time Is Neither Mere Clock Agreement nor Observer Agreement

When discussing the comparison of clocks, two propositions must be kept distinct. One proposition is that without an independent reference we cannot determine whether a particular clock is drifting relative to some standard. The other proposition is that, without such a reference, physical time does not exist. The first does not entail the second.

Imagine a person isolated from the outside world who can inspect only one clock. If there is no independent timing reference, the person cannot determine from that clock alone whether it is drifting relative to an external standard. Yet the clock can still register the ordering of its own states and can serve as a local timekeeper for nearby events. Einstein's 1905 discussion already distinguishes such local timekeeping from the establishment of common time for distant events.[2]

Moreover, loss of external communication does not mean that every relational reference has disappeared. The internal process of the clock, surrounding physical conditions, and other distinguishable local changes can still form a local relational structure. Physical processes do not lose the temporal relations described by a theory merely because nobody is present to compare readings. In relativity, proper time is defined along a given timelike worldline and does not depend on continuous communication with another clock.[3]

The paper therefore does not infer the disappearance of physical time from limits on our knowledge of timekeeping. Its relational interpretation is instead that the determination and comparison of time depend on concrete physical structures; they do not have to be created by human agreement.

The SI definition of the second provides a precise example. The second is defined by fixing the numerical value of the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of caesium-133 at 9,192,631,770 hertz.[4] The choice of unit and numerical convention is metrological, but whether an atomic system under specified conditions exhibits a repeatable frequency relation is not decided by a vote. Convention selects a common expression and standard of realisation; it does not arbitrarily manufacture the physical regularity.

Sustained coherence should likewise not be reduced to “everyone gives the same answer”. Two clocks showing the same reading may be correctly calibrated, or they may share a common error. Two clocks showing different readings may indicate a fault, or may have accumulated different amounts of proper time under different physical conditions. The relevant question is whether, once the conditions are specified, the measurements can be related by a common set of rules in a repeatable and testable manner.[3][4]

Within a Sustenesis interpretation, the objectivity of time can therefore be carried by physical relations that do not change with personal preference and can survive cross-comparison. Social synchronisation is one organisation of such relations in public life; it is not the universal origin of physical time. Understood in this way, temporal objectivity does not need to be called an “illusion”, nor does a relational account make it arbitrary.

5. How Long Has a Person Lived? Lifespan, Ageing, and Temporal Experience

The life of a long-lived person can illustrate different levels of temporal description, but the example must first be carefully limited.

Suppose a ninety-year-old person has spent many years in a relatively stable environment with repetitive routines and comparatively few major transitions that remain sharply differentiated in memory. This is an analytical scenario, not a general claim about people who live in remote places or about long-lived people as a group. Living remotely does not imply a poor range of experience, and low levels of outward activity do not imply little thought, emotion, or internal change. The relevant condition for the example is that a period of life is retrospectively organised with relatively few salient differentiating cues, not the person's social identity or place of residence.

When others say that this person “has lived a long time”, they normally compare the date of birth with the present date in a public calendar. The person may also know perfectly well that they are ninety years old. Knowing one's chronological age and experiencing those ninety years as long or short are two different questions. It is therefore inaccurate to say that longevity exists only from the perspective of outsiders, and equally inaccurate to interpret the feeling that “the years flew by” as evidence that less physical time was actually experienced.

At least three objects must be distinguished. Chronological age records how much time has elapsed in a public timekeeping system. Biological ageing concerns concrete state changes in a living system. Temporal experience concerns both immediate feelings of passage and retrospective organisation of the past. These domains are related, but none can simply define the others. The paper does not infer a change in one directly from a change in another.

Within temporal experience itself, one should also distinguish the feeling that “time is passing quickly right now”, estimation of how long an interval lasted, and retrospective judgement of how long a period of life seems. In an experience-sampling study, Droit-Volet and Wearden found that judgements of the passage of time were not significantly related to the duration judgements they measured; the study also found no significant age difference between its younger and older samples in passage-of-time judgements.[5] This is a useful warning against collapsing all subjective time into the metaphor of a single “internal clock” running faster or slower.

Age alone does not determine a uniform experiential result. Wittmann and Lehnhoff studied 499 participants aged 14 to 94 and observed age effects on several temporal judgements, but the proportion of variance explained was limited, reaching at most about ten per cent.[6] Their questions, sample, and methods differ from those of the study just mentioned, so the two should not be treated as identical tests. Taken together, however, they show that “the older one becomes, the faster time necessarily feels” is not a law that can be used without qualification.

For retrospective duration, the number and organisation of distinguishable changes in memory are relevant. Lositsky and colleagues found in a narrative study that changes in neural activity patterns during encoding were related to subsequent retrospective estimates of duration, providing evidence that contextual change can influence retrospective temporal judgement.[7] The study, however, concerned intervals on the order of minutes. It cannot directly establish that the felt length of decades is determined by the number of events in a person's life.

The elderly-person example can therefore be retained only as a conditional interpretation. If many years are retrospectively compressed into a small number of similar memory segments, the person may have fewer cues by which to differentiate those years, and may consequently feel that “they went by quickly”. “Compression” here describes the organisation of retrospective experience. It is not a compression of physical time, nor is it a claim about a single established neural mechanism.

The same person might find a quiet afternoon painfully long and yet look back on the previous ten years as having passed very quickly. These judgements concern different objects under different conditions and are not logically inconsistent. The example shows one possible combination rather than a universal law relating boredom, repetition, and temporal experience.

In Sustenesis terms, personal memory and the organisation of a life are embedded within broader structures of social timekeeping and physical relations. Public timekeeping compares calibratable physical intervals; retrospective experience organises life events that can be remembered and differentiated. Their divergence can be understood as the same subject participating in Sustenesis structures at different levels, but this does not erase the distinction between the kinds of measurement involved.

Nor should the distinction be confused with relativity. A change in psychological time experience does not mean that a person has entered another inertial reference frame, and there is no reason to assume that psychological time and physical time are related by a Lorentz transformation. The general language of State Domains allows relational comparison across these phenomena without making them instances of the same physical mechanism.

6. From Everyday Timekeeping to Special Relativity

In everyday life, public timekeeping usually does not require recalculating relativistic effects for every ordinary motion. When relative velocities are much smaller than the speed of light, relevant gravitational-potential differences are small compared with the square of the speed of light, and the required measurement precision allows corresponding corrections to be neglected, it is effective to use an approximately uniform time and an approximately fixed spatial scale.[2][3]

Newtonian mechanics can therefore function as an effective approximation under appropriate conditions. Its computational usefulness, however, must be distinguished from the ontological claim of Newtonian absolute time. The fact that relativity reproduces Newtonian calculations to good approximation in certain regimes does not mean that physics thereby establishes, on small scales, the existence of an entity of absolute time independent of all relations.

One aspect of special relativity that is especially relevant here is the relativity of simultaneity for distant events. Einstein's 1905 paper begins with relations between clocks and events, using the relation between a train's arrival and a clock hand to illustrate a judgement of time, before examining how clocks at separated locations can establish a common time.[2] Entering the spacetime problem through concrete practices of timekeeping is therefore not an alien vocabulary imposed on physics from outside.

Distant events themselves must nevertheless be distinguished from the arrival of signals from those events at an observer. Two flashes may be seen at different times simply because light has travelled different distances. The relativistic question of simultaneity concerns the time coordinates assigned to the events themselves after signal propagation has been treated according to a specified synchronisation convention within an inertial frame; it is not the simple identification of order of reception with order of occurrence.

Let two events A and B, in an inertial frame S, be separated along the x direction. Let Δt = t_B − t_A and Δx = x_B − x_A. Suppose another inertial frame S′ moves with velocity v relative to S along x. Under standard Einstein synchronisation, the temporal separation transforms according to the Lorentz transformation:[2][3]

Δt′ = γ(Δt − vΔx/c²), where γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²).

Here c is the speed of light in vacuum and |v| < c. If A and B are simultaneous in S, so that Δt = 0 while Δx ≠ 0, then in a relatively moving frame S′ they are generally not simultaneous. If B lies in the positive x direction from A and v is positive, then Δt′ is negative; for a frame moving in the opposite direction, the sign is reversed. This follows directly from the transformation law.

The conclusion does not apply to every pair of events. What can have its time order reversed by an inertial-frame change is a spacelike-separated pair, for which the spatial separation exceeds the distance light could travel during the corresponding time separation. For timelike- or lightlike-separated events, causal order cannot be reversed by physical inertial transformations that preserve time orientation. It is therefore not enough merely to say that two events “did not in fact influence each other” and infer that their order can be reversed.[3]

Relativity also preserves important invariants. The spacetime interval is invariant in special relativity; for a given timelike worldline, the proper time between two events is likewise unchanged by describing that same worldline in another coordinate system. Different worldlines can accumulate different amounts of proper time, but merely changing the description of one worldline cannot arbitrarily alter the elapsed time recorded by an ideal clock travelling along it.[3]

The correspondence with Sustenesis is therefore not that “everyone has an arbitrary personal time”. A more accurate formulation is that different reference descriptions can decompose time and space differently while remaining strictly constrained by transformation laws, causal structure, and invariants. Sustained coherence in this application lies in the compatibility of descriptions, not in a requirement that all clocks display identical readings.

A further distinction is essential. Changing reference frame does not mean changing the physical laws or creating a new spacetime. The different inertial frames of special relativity describe the same physical situation through different coordinates and different decompositions into temporal and spatial components. An inertial reference frame should not simply be identified with a State Domain, nor should a difference of coordinate representation be described as a change in Minkowski geometry itself.

The bridge established here is therefore explicitly explanatory. Everyday timekeeping already requires reference and correspondence; special relativity specifies with mathematical precision how descriptions are related when reference frames move relative to one another. Sustenesis may make this relationality conceptually easier to analyse, but the physical results come from the postulates and mathematical structure of relativity, not from the three elements alone.

7. A Relational Definition of Space and the Meaning of “Stretched Open by Difference”

Corresponding to the definition of time, this paper defines space as the organisation of relational positional differences that can be brought within a common framework of comparison, together with the sustainable measurement of distance under constraints.

This preserves the central meaning of the shorter statement that “space is the sustainable measurement of positional difference under constraints”, while making two conditions explicit. First, the differences in question must be comparable as relational positions rather than merely being arbitrary differences of property. Second, the comparison must form a mutually compatible organisation. Merely attaching different labels to two objects does not establish a space.

“Position” here means a position that can be determined in relation to other objects or reference processes, not an address acquired within an already given absolute container. Even this relational definition, however, does not amount to a derivation of physical space from wholly non-spatial concepts. The paper is reinterpreting the relational basis of experiential space; it is not claiming to have proved the dimensionality, continuity, or full geometry of physical space from abstract difference alone.

The phrase “space is stretched open by difference” can therefore remain as an intuitive summary, but the metaphor must be grounded in comparative structure. If a description contains only one completely undifferentiated point, then a non-zero inter-point distance cannot be obtained from that point alone. One needs at least distinguishable relational positions and conditions that organise their comparison before extension between “here” and “there” can be meaningfully discussed.

This does not mean that mathematics cannot define a one-point space, that a physical universe containing only one body would necessarily lack all spatial structure, or that vacuum has no spacetime structure. It means only that a description with no internal differentiation and no other comparable relation does not by itself yield a non-zero distance relation.

Nor are any two different states sufficient to constitute space. A difference in temperature is not a difference in distance. A person may be both a father and a son without thereby occupying two physical positions. Spatial difference requires specific geometric and measurement relations; the mere existence of difference is insufficient.

To remain compatible with relativity, “being brought within a common framework of comparison” must also not be smuggled into the theory as an absolute simultaneity shared by all frames. In ordinary room-scale measurement, we often treat objects as coexisting in a common space at one time. In relativity, such a spatial description must be tied to a specified family of observers and a simultaneity convention. It can be well defined in appropriate contexts, but it does not amount to one unconditional spatial slicing of the entire universe.[3]

Time and space are therefore similar in explanatory form but are not interchangeable concepts. Temporal description concerns transition order and interval; spatial description concerns organisation of relational position and distance. Once relativity is introduced, they must also be treated as distinct but interrelated aspects of spacetime structure.

8. Why Is One Metre One Metre? Measurement, Observation, and Length Contraction

When a ruler is used to measure a table, the endpoints of the table, the ruler's markings, and the operation of comparison all enter the measurement. Repeatability of the result depends not simply on the existence of marked divisions, but on whether the object, the ruler, and the conditions of the operation can be stably specified. This parallels the case of clock timekeeping, but it does not imply that distance is created at will by an observer.

In the SI, the metre is defined by fixing the numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum at 299,792,458 metres per second, with the second defined through the caesium frequency. Equivalently, one metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during 1/299,792,458 of a second.[8] This standard links the realisation of the unit of length to the unit of time and to light propagation. It establishes a common system for expressing and implementing measurements; by itself it proves neither that space is ontologically produced by time nor that time is produced by space.

The convention used for units, the physical length of an object, and its apparent visual size must be kept distinct. Changing units changes the numerical value assigned to a given length without changing the object. Moving closer to a table changes its visual appearance but does not thereby make the table physically longer. Differences in measured result can be analysed only after the object of comparison and the measurement procedure have been specified.

Length contraction in special relativity makes the role of simultaneity in spatial measurement especially clear. Consider a rod oriented along the direction of relative motion. Let L₀ be its length measured in the rod's own rest frame. In another inertial frame in which the rod is moving, its length must be obtained by determining the positions of its two endpoints at the same time according to that frame's definition of simultaneity. Along the direction of motion, the standard result is L = L₀/γ, where γ is the same Lorentz factor introduced above.[2][9]

The crucial point is not that the rod is physically squeezed merely because someone looks at it. The two frames employ different simultaneity arrangements in defining the pair of endpoint events to be compared. Their length measurements therefore refer to different pairs of spacetime events while remaining compatible with the same underlying spacetime structure.

Length contraction is also not merely a visual effect caused by the finite travel time of light. It follows from the definition of length within a specified inertial frame using that frame's synchronisation convention. The rod's proper length in its own rest frame does not automatically change because another observer changes state of motion.[2][9]

From the perspective of Sustenesis, this gives concrete content to the phrase “positional difference acquires measurement under constraint”. A distance measurement requires more than two positions: it must also specify how they are brought into a common comparison. The constraints here are not merely social conventions. They include the strict physical relations among motion, synchronisation, and measurement established by special relativity.

9. From Spatial Relations to Spacetime Curvature in General Relativity

Length contraction in special relativity must not be confused with spacetime curvature in general relativity. Length contraction can occur in flat Minkowski spacetime and does not require spacetime to be curved. Curvature concerns the intrinsic geometry of spacetime itself.[3]

In general relativity, the metric determines spacetime intervals between neighbouring events and thereby determines proper time along a given timelike path, as well as spatial distance relations under an appropriate spatial decomposition. Time and space are not treated here as two unrelated systems of measurement. The Einstein field equations relate spacetime geometry to energy, momentum, stress, and other physical quantities; particular solutions also require suitable initial conditions, boundary conditions, or other physical specifications.[3]

General relativity therefore cannot be reduced to the statement that “where there is more matter, space is deformed by a corresponding amount”. Vacuum regions may have non-zero spacetime curvature, as in the Schwarzschild exterior solution outside a spherically symmetric source. The relation among matter, geometry, and relevant physical conditions is more complex than the claim that local matter density directly determines the entirety of local geometry.[3]

Ordinary language often says that “space bends”, which easily suggests the picture of a sheet bent within a larger surrounding space. Intrinsic curvature, however, does not require such an external container. Consider an ideal sphere. Observers confined to its surface can identify a geometry different from the Euclidean plane by making measurements internal to the surface. For example, starting at the north pole, following two meridians to two points on the equator separated by a quarter of the circumference, and then joining those points along the equator yields a spherical triangle whose three interior angles are all right angles. The purpose of this mathematical example is to show that geometric difference can be established through intrinsic measurement relations; it is not a claim that physical spacetime literally is a sphere.[9]

Yet one must not jump from this point to another overstatement: a metric whose components vary with position does not necessarily imply curvature. Ordinary Euclidean space expressed in polar coordinates has the line element

dl² = dr² + r²dθ².

The factor r² varies with position, but the plane remains flat. This is a different coordinate representation of the same flat geometry, not a bending of the plane. Genuine intrinsic curvature cannot be removed merely by a coordinate change; in relativity it is characterised by the corresponding curvature tensors.[3]

The statement that “changed constraints produce changed metrics” must therefore be used with care. At least two cases need to be distinguished. One is a change of representation or a change in an observer's measurement arrangement, in which the same geometry is described through different coordinates or decomposed differently into temporal and spatial components. The other is a difference in the physical geometry of the situation under consideration, in which clocks, light paths, or freely falling trajectories exhibit corresponding physical differences. Without this distinction, relational language risks mistaking a change in description for a change in physics.

Clocks again provide an accessible bridge to everyday experience. In 2010, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology reported an optical-clock experiment in which changing the height difference between two clocks by about one-third of a metre produced a measurable frequency difference consistent with relativistic prediction, with the higher clock running faster relative to the lower one.[10] The result shows that relativistic differences in clock rates are not confined to extreme astrophysical environments; sufficiently precise instruments can detect them over very small height differences near the Earth's surface.

The experiment tests a physical frequency comparison under specified conditions. It is neither a measurement of subjective time nor a case of social clocks falling out of agreement. It supports the relevant relativistic prediction but cannot therefore be treated as an empirical verification of the whole philosophical framework of Sustenesis. Nor should the height-dependent rate difference be identified simplistically with the full concept of spacetime curvature; the latter requires analysis of the geometry and its relations more generally.[3][10]

Returning to the relational definition of space, its value is to change the conceptual entry point. Rather than first positing an absolute container and then asking why it somehow deforms, we can begin by asking what physical relations among positions, clocks, and light signals can be established, and then analyse the geometry expressed by those relations. This route can connect naturally with general relativity, but the concrete physical properties must still be determined by physical theory and experiment.

10. Continuity Between Experiential and Relativistic Spacetime

The preceding discussion allows the relation between ordinary experience and relativity to be described in layers, rather than as a conflict between two incompatible realities.

At the level of everyday experience, people use clocks, action, memory, and positional comparison to navigate time and space. Correspondences among processes are normally stable enough, and their discrepancies small enough, for ordinary practical purposes. A child can predict roughly when their parents will return home; adults can arrive at appointments on time; a ruler can repeatedly give nearly the same length for a tabletop. These are signs of practically reliable relational structure.

At the level of physical description, such stability has to be characterised by more explicit conditions. Newtonian calculations provide an effective approximation in an appropriate regime; relativity specifies the spacetime relations outside that approximation and preserves invariants that remain valid across admissible frame descriptions.[2][3] Moving from the former to the latter does not declare lived experience false. It specifies the precision within which ordinary judgements remain valid and the corrections required outside that range.

At the explanatory level of Sustenesis, the question is further reframed in terms of difference, constraint, and sustained coherence. Distinguishable clock processes provide differences relevant to timekeeping; comparison procedures and physical conditions constrain which readings can meaningfully correspond; sustained coherence requires those relations not to be arbitrary juxtapositions but to remain identifiable and mutually compatible under the conditions in question. Spatial measurement similarly depends on positional difference, specified conditions of comparison, and an organisation of relations that can continue to hold.

These three modes of explanation have different objects and must not absorb one another. A spacetime-interval equation cannot by itself explain how an elderly person retrospectively experiences a lifetime; psychological time perception cannot explain a relativistic frequency shift in optical clocks. The role of Sustenesis is not to erase those distinctions, but to show how descriptions at different levels can remain open to relational analysis while retaining their differences.

What must be revised in ordinary intuition is therefore not the proposition that clocks measure time or that objects stand at distances from one another. It is the leap from the practical success of such judgements to the unconditional claim that time and space must be absolute backgrounds independent of every relation. Relations can have objective force without requiring the background that carries them to be a separately existing absolute container.

This also clarifies what the proposed bridge is intended to connect. It begins from ordinary acts of comparison and gradually introduces distinctions between local and distant events, synchronisation and propagation, readings and invariants, coordinate representation and geometric structure. Relativity can then be approached not merely as a collection of counter-intuitive conclusions, but as an increasingly precise account of the conditions governing relational measurement. Whether this method is in fact more effective pedagogically than competing explanations remains an empirical question for teaching and reader studies; it cannot be established solely by the author's judgement of conceptual clarity.

11. The Status and Limits of the Applied Argument

To treat time and space as special cases of the State Domain is to propose a conceptual explanatory scheme, not to claim that the physical origin of spacetime has already been derived. The argument of this paper contains three connected but non-equivalent steps.

First, experiential time and space can be described more explicitly through state transitions, relational positions, and the conditions under which they are compared. Second, these relational descriptions can be organised within the three-element framework of Sustenesis. Third, the already established physical structure of relativity can be used as a constraint on the philosophical interpretation: it can show whether the account confuses known distinctions or conflicts with testable physical relations.

The first step establishes an experiential entry point for relational analysis. The second shows how such analysis can be expressed in Sustenesis. The third imposes physical discipline on the application. Taken together, the three steps can support a conditional philosophical application, but they cannot be reversed into the inference that “because relativity is successful, Sustenesis has therefore been proved”. A successful physical theory may remain compatible with more than one philosophical interpretation. The present framework must therefore stand on the clarity and strength of its own concepts and arguments rather than borrow evidential status from physics without further justification.

The paper must likewise avoid treating “state”, “transition”, and “position” as terms that require no further analysis. In the present application they are used to organise relations already identifiable in experience and physical description. If one later claims to derive physical spacetime rigorously from a wholly non-temporal and non-spatial foundation, additional formal work will be necessary. One would need to specify which relations are sufficient to constitute temporal order, which conditions permit interval measurement, and what structure gives rise to spatial dimensionality and geometry. Without such work, changing vocabulary can merely hide the original spatiotemporal assumptions in new terms.

The application of the three elements therefore has clear limits. Difference supplies a condition of distinguishability but does not by itself determine spacetime. Constraint organises admissible relations but cannot substitute for concrete physical laws. Sustained coherence requires relations to be capable of holding together, but does not imply that all change ceases or that every stable structure automatically counts as physical spacetime.

The same caution applies to the direction of time. Discussing order and timekeeping does not by itself explain why memory is directed toward the past, why thermodynamic processes exhibit a temporal asymmetry, or why particular cosmological conditions hold. Distinguishing these issues from the present concept of time does not place them outside Sustenesis; it simply avoids presenting arguments that have not yet been completed as established conclusions.

The paper therefore remains an application paper. It neither adds the State Domain as a fourth element alongside difference, constraint, and sustained coherence, nor uses relativity to redefine those three elements. Its contribution is to apply the existing framework to questions of time and space, to specify what that application can explain, and to leave open the further theoretical construction and empirical work that would be required for stronger claims.

Conclusion

To treat time and space as special cases of the State Domain means that, within Sustenesis, they no longer need to function only as absolute backgrounds that must be accepted without further analysis. They can themselves become objects of relational explanation.

This paper defines time as the comparable ordering of state transitions together with the sustainable measurement of intervals formed under constraints. It defines space as the organisation of relational positional differences that can be brought within a common framework of comparison, together with the sustainable measurement of distance under constraints. Both definitions incorporate difference, conditions of comparison, and the continued viability of relations, while preserving the distinction between transition order and positional organisation.

From this perspective, the clock before the waiting child, the parents' work schedule, and a radio time signal illustrate how public timekeeping links different processes. The retrospective experience of a long life shows that chronological age and personal temporal experience may be organised under different conditions. A ruler and light signals show how positional relations can acquire testable expressions of distance. Each example illuminates a different level of relation; they do not need to be forced into one mechanism.

Relativity then imposes more exact physical distinctions on the analysis. Simultaneity can depend on inertial frame, while causal structure and proper time remain subject to constraints that cannot be arbitrarily rewritten. Length contraction does not imply that spacetime is curved, and changes of coordinate representation cannot substitute for intrinsic curvature. Relationality does not weaken the objectivity of these results. On the contrary, it requires a more precise account of what changes and what remains invariant through change.[2][3]

Within these limits, Sustenesis does not offer a new object intended to replace physical spacetime. It offers a way of reconsidering spacetime's conceptual status. Time and space in experience can be real, stable, and measurable without having to be philosophically presupposed as containers wholly independent of relations. Connecting these two claims is the explanatory bridge this paper seeks to establish between experiential and relativistic spacetime.

References

1. [1] NEWTON I. Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica[M/OL]. London, 1687. Scholium following the Definitions. This paper checked the Latin text in Project Gutenberg electronic text 28233.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/files/28233/28233-h/28233-h.htm
2. [2] EINSTEIN A. Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper[J]. Annalen der Physik, 1905, 17: 891–921. English title: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. This paper refers to the English translation by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery as transcribed by Fourmilab, primarily Sections 1–4. The modern symbol c is used in the text for the speed of light.
   https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
3. [3] CARROLL S M. Lecture Notes on General Relativity[R/OL]. 1997. arXiv:gr-qc/9712019. This paper refers to the HTML version hosted by the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, especially Chapter 1, Special Relativity and Flat Spacetime; Chapter 3, Curvature; Chapter 4, Gravitation; and Chapter 7, The Schwarzschild Solution and Black Holes.
   https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll_contents.html
4. [4] BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES. SI base unit: second (s)[EB/OL]. Official SI base-unit information page.
   https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/second
5. [5] DROIT-VOLET S, WEARDEN J. Passage of Time Judgments Are Not Duration Judgments: Evidence from a Study Using Experience Sampling Methodology[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2016, 7: 176. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00176.
   https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00176/full
6. [6] WITTMANN M, LEHNHOFF S. Age effects in perception of time[J]. Psychological Reports, 2005, 97(3): 921–935. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.97.3.921-935. Statements in this paper concerning sample size and the magnitude of age effects are based on the PubMed abstract of the original study.
   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16512313/
7. [7] LOSITSKY O, CHEN J, TOKER D, et al. Neural pattern change during encoding of a narrative predicts retrospective duration estimates[J]. eLife, 2016, 5: e16070. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.16070.
   https://elifesciences.org/articles/16070
8. [8] BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES. SI base unit: metre (m)[EB/OL]. Official SI base-unit information page.
   https://www.bipm.org/en/si-base-units/metre
9. [9] EINSTEIN A. Relativity: The Special and General Theory[M/OL]. LAWSON R W, trans. Project Gutenberg electronic text 5001, first released electronically in 2004 and updated in 2022. This paper primarily refers to Sections 10–12 and Section 31. The spherical-triangle example in the body of this paper is an explanatory mathematical construction rather than a verbatim reproduction of a specific example in Einstein's text.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5001/5001-h/5001-h.htm
10. [10] NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY. NIST Pair of Aluminum Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein’s Relativity at a Personal Scale[EB/OL]. 2010-09-23. This paper cites the experimental institution's report of the optical-clock comparison over a height difference of approximately one-third of a metre.
    https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

Online sources checked on 22 September 2026. Citations in the body identify the relevant historical, physical, metrological, and psychological sources; they do not imply that the cited authors endorse the Sustenesis interpretation proposed in this paper.