3D Space is what?

[Essay]

Since 2005, I've thought 3-D space was an artifact....

I ran across this recently, and the more I look at it, the more I think 'wow, maybe my idea is right; that we need to understand "space" in a completely different way (in order to achieve a theory of everything (TOE)) ;' and that this 3-D material universe is an illusion, an artifact derived from some 'other-dimensional' reality. More recently, I intuited that fractals needed to be integrated into our mathematical conceptions (expressions) of horizons, fields, linearity, and even whole numbers.

"Dimensionality and Fractals" ( doi:10.1016/S0960-0779(02)00028-0 )
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 14, Issue 6, October 2002, Pages 831-838
B. G. Sidharth
Abstract
In this paper we first show that the usual three dimensionality of space, which is taken for granted, results from the spinorial behaviour of Fermions, which constitute the material content of the universe. It is shown that the resulting three dimensionality rests on two factors which have been hitherto ignored, viz., a Machian or holistic property and the stochastic underpinning of the universe itself.
However the dimensionality is scale dependent in the sense that at very large scales, or at very small scales, we encounter a different dimensionality, as indeed is borne out by observation and experiment. For example the large scale structures in the universe are cellular in nature on the one hand, and we encounter fractional charges and handedness at very small scales.
Finally it is shown how fractal dimensions can emerge and as an illustrative example it is shown how this could explain the magnetism of objects like Planets on the one hand and White Dwarf stars and Pulsars on the other.

Wow:
Fractal Dimensions.

c = "speed" at which space manifests itself (in response to a change in the conformation of space elsewhere (the source or location of the change, ...and all else)).

Many different kind of space can overlay themselves.... [this meaningless phrase sure helps my brain 'see' these ideas]

Suddenly, particles and even atoms, cease to exist and can be understood as highly convoluted quantized conformations of space.
or....
Suddenly, particles and even atoms, cease to exist and can be understood as highly convoluted quantized conformations of other dimensionality (generating 3D-space?)
===

...well, maybe not....

But what about all these different kinds of space?
If nothing more, can we make a list?
I'm familiar with (or at least heard of):
Minkowski
Riemann
Hausdorff
Euler
de Sitter
anti-de Sitter
Kahler
hyperKahler
Weyl-Kahler

p.s. apologies if this repeats another thread....

[HydrogenBond]

The 3-D space or (x,y,z) is mostly there to help determine location relative to a reference or origin. If position was not important, 1-D space is all we need for most forces. In other words, two masses separated by d interact by the gravitational equations. Regardless of their location in 3-D space, as long as d is the same we get the same result. When we do practical science it is good to know where the moon is relative to the earth. But regardless of where the moon is, only the d is important to calculate the force. Practical science has more need for position than nature. Nature doesn't mind if the galaxy is here or there as long as the gravity adds up.

We could have used spherical or polar coordinates to define position where we have one distance and two angles from an origin. This version of 3-D space may appear odd, is more complicated, but also would work. But this convention would not necessarily imply we have angular space time. But then again, maybe angular space-time is conceptually closer to curved space-time, who knows. There seems to be trend toward more complex position systems that are more than just position but also include matter states. This could have some practical science use.

I used to like the idea of tetrahedron space. It is still 3-D, except we use four axis equally spaced in 3-D. This is used for some crystals because this is how the atoms align. One advantage is there is no need for negative numbers since any position could be explained in terms of positive values. No more square roots of negative numbers. What is weird is, if we had decided to us the tetrahedron convention 400 years ago before we knew about negative and positive charge, both charges would now be defined positive. They would have reflected (a,b,c,d) parameters. We would then be looking for the four parameters of the two different positive charges. The odd thing is we would have these parameters defined by now. This would have led the human mind down totally unique directions.