Space is defined by saying it is were a thing is not; implying that it is where a thing may come to be or has been. It is the separator of objects. Time is a similar separator, of chronological events (when things have been or may come to be). But the separation of temporal and spatial qualities can be regarded as a physical impossibility (in other words, where there is time, there is always space, and where there is space, there is always time). If the space-time which is reality results in the qualities we can mentally abstract (the qualities we call space and time), then the space and time we perceive in everyday life come about from human interpretations, logical fictions, resulting in the separations we impose upon reality. These separations are between event-related objects (a thing at a certain place at a certain time). To fix such events, we use a context of human perception and impose number-based measurement systems to record a time and place. But the measurements we use have been constructed, in relation to a human context. The number system we apply is a logical fiction. In other words, the context of an artificial unit is applied to an "ideal" object, an Event, which we define in relation to other ideal objects. Any such attempt is bound to prompt a "snapshot" view of reality: a reality of frozen moments, each one discrete (although sequential).

From this argument, it would seem that dimension is an event-based abstraction we have formalised through number, which is a logical fiction (traditionally, we say that there are three dimensions in space). To demonstrate dimension practically, we can use movement. We can move backwards and forwards to demonstrate one dimension, we can jump up and down to demonstrate another, and move left and right to demonstrate a third. But this is a relative and arbitrary division of reality into discrete events, understandable only through the movement's relation to a human context. It is obvious that all the possible directions for movement between the ones we abstract are equally valid. Are we, then, to say that we are moving in an infinite number of dimensions? This would appear to take us back to Zeno's Stadium paradox and the logical impossibility of movement. But if the argument proposed in answer to this paradox (that reality is a continuum) is accepted, then this makes the thing in itself a focus in a continuum, which we perceive as an object due to our innate capacity to relate perception to the current spatial temporal position we occupy. This means that we have a "preferred" object (the one we perceive at a given moment) as being the most real. This bias is what fixes us into reality. It also enables us to mentally reproduce images of reality which mimic the dimensions of ideal objects, in the same way as we can apply the logical fiction of number to an occupied or unoccupied area of space, using the related logical fiction of separate dimensions.

More speculatively, could we say that event-objects make the time and space they occupy? Space is perceived only relatively, as is time. Both are definitions of where and when event-objects are or are not, and so both are defined in relation to event-objects. Does space and time come to be, because it is where and when event-objects will come to be, or have been? Do event-objects create space and time? If space-time is a continuum, then all the future and past event-objects may have created the qualities of time and space which we experience and occupy. This would mean that matter creates time and space, by its occupation of each part of space at some time.