Did you read the post? It is clear and logical from pre-universe to big bang; it connects immaterial space in the-pre-universe to space in the current universe. It may not be true, but it a clear and logical exposition of how the universe began.

No, I didn’t. As I said, doesn’t interest me.

How can we measure (keep time) something (Chronos) that doesn't exist? Isn't measurement N/A (mu) to nonexistent things? What would you say if someone came up to you and said "Santa Claus is 6 feet tall"? Is the present King of France bald?

Ok, that's fair, but I am curious as to why you believe space is immaterial.

as space is the measure of the lack of material change. — apokrisis

But space also changes, doesn't it? I mean, I understand it is supposed to be expanding, although this is not the kind of change I am referring to, since it is supposed to be caused by dark matter, and Im not considering it (dark matter) to be material; again, this is not the kind of change I am interested in discussing. Now, at any time t, a body occupies a given place in space; same for every body there exists (not going into QM - let's keep it simple), but not all space is occupied by bodies (assumption - a huge one); meaning that at any time t, there is some free space. If one could create a 3d map of the distribution of free space and see its evolution through time, I think one would see its distribution change, and this change would be due to the movement of material things. (Mapping of the universe suggests its matter to be distributed in space in the form of a reticular network - and I am assuming that as the network changes its architecture with time, the distribution of free space must also change !!! the distribution of free space would be the inverse of the distribution of matter, nah?) Anyways, I don't really understand the quote, and I wanted to ask you if you could talk a little bit more about it.

But space also changes, doesn't it? — Daniel

I was talking about the basic Newtonian conception of space as the context that gives location to objects.

Of course relativity then shows space ain’t an inert and immaterial backdrop. But then that is why it has to be treated in terms of 3+1 dimensional spacetime.

And it is dark energy that would be driving the current metric expansion of the universe under Einstein’s equations. Dark matter is the source of gravitational potential that is instead trying to put the brakes on and collapse the distance between things.

For a photon, so says a Neil deGrasse Tyson, time doesn't exist. Sunlight takes 8 minutes to reach us, but that's onoy from our frame of reference. From the photon's point of view, it travelled the roughly 1.5 million km sun-earth gap in an instant.

One has to keep in mind that Kant was a Newtonian. The notions of space and time Kant had in mind, no longer apply. Which does not mean that his general framework is obsolete, far from it.

But using modern notions to classical ideas can bring about problems, if one isn't careful with the details. As for space and time being immaterial, that's terminological, not substantial. One needs to provide an adequate definition of the physical, and say what the immaterial has, that the physical does not.

It can be consciousness, as it depends on the brain. Unless you would say that the brain isn't physical, then we simply say, everything is immaterial. What we can say is that the brain is what we categorize and recognize as this thing behind our skulls which plays a crucial role in experience.

Space is the only immaterial, in my view. As for the brain, it is physical. Eyerything else is physical, but I do wonder about ideas. I never got the impression that Kant was a Newtonian because space depended on intuition; in other words, it was not real.

The combination of a non-existent (time) and space with a fabric (theorized) produced space-time, the curving of which creates gravity, is doubtful — val p miranda

If time is not material, then what's the meaning of talking about "curving", which refers to material things?
My knowledge in Physics is slim, but the notion of a curved time and space (spacetime) has never passed the threshold of my gates of logic. So there's not even room for me for doubting the theory.
So, I wonder how did Einstein define time. I only know that he told that time is relative, which makes sense, of course. But it looks to me like he took "time" as something granted. And, since he talked about its curving, he most probably thought that it was material. But, is this so?

but I am curious as to why you believe space is immaterial. — val p miranda

The satisfaction of your curiosity resides in my non-scientific satisfaction with The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, Ch1, Remark 2, 1786. Which has the added bonus of logically proving the relativity of space, both contra Newton’s absolute space, 1687, and as precursor to Einstein, 1905.

Thank you. I don't have the book, so I have it on line.

You must be a Kantian scholar, so can you give me a summary of what is relevant that caused your view that space is immaterial. Mine is as follows: immaterial space as the first existent in the pre-universe caused actual space in the current universe.

You must be a Kantian scholar — val p miranda

Hardly; I never even went to college.

My view of immaterial space is certainly less exotic than yours. All I need for space to be understood as immaterial, is the fact that I’ve never experienced bumping into it, and I’m pretty sure no one else has either.

I brought up Remark 2 on the internet; it is not easy reading. College didn't dim y our wit. Well, Mww, I wish you well, and you have impressed me.