For example, the sun at a certain instant on Jan. 1st, 1900 had a definite position in the instantaneous space constituted by the mutual relations between the sun and the other stars at a definite instant on Jan. 1st, 1800. Such a statement is only understandable (assuming the traditional concept) by recurring to absolute space and thus abandoning relativity; for otherwise it denies the completeness of the instantaneous fact which is the essence of the concept. Another way out of the difficulty is to deny that space is constituted by the relations of P, P′, P″, etc., at an instant, and to assert that it results from their relations throughout a duration of time, which as thus prolonged in time are observable.
As a matter of fact it is obvious that our knowledge of space does result from such observations. But we are asking the theory to provide us with actual relations to be observed. This last emendation is either only a muddled way of admitting that ‘nature at an instant’ is not the ultimate scientific fact, or else it is a yet more muddled plea that, although there is no possibility of correlations between distinct instantaneous spaces, yet within durations which are short enough such non-existent correlations enter into experience.
2.4 The persistence of the material lacks any observational guarantee when the relativity of space is admitted into the traditional concept. For at one instant there is instantaneous material in its instantaneous space as constituted by its instantaneous relations, and at another instant there is instantaneous material in its instantaneous space. How do we know that the two cargoes of material which load the two instants are identical? The answer is that we do not perceive isolated instantaneous facts, but a continuity of existence,
