In other words, the absoluteness of natural substance can only be defined and represented by existential conditioning of these natural forms: if one of them is negated in the variants of a theoretical model or interpretation transferred to the objective world, then the others would not be possible in the absolute ontological sense. According to the relativists and contemporary quantum physicists, a time module of nature is directly conditioned by the quantity of ponderable, visible matter; a space structure in our perceptive domain of three-dimensional view is a result of the two other natural domains.

Spatial three-dimensionality is a product of a material quantitative entity, which in further analytical procedure gives the following results: a one-dimensional frame of the time dimension is given in the exclusiveness of the quantitative existence of the matter in nature, i.e. the quantity and distribution of the matter structure in nature directly intends uniformity or, in other variant, non-linearity of the time flow, which represents the cornerstone of the relativist school. A three-dimensional space structure is an exclusive representation of the ‘introvert’ Cosmos, closedness within itself in the form which presents itself to our perception and comprehension in the simplest variant. Analogously, the following question can be raised: if we assume that the three-dimensional space structure is absolutely conditioned by the quantitative matter distribution, is sub-summing of the problem of subjective exclusiveness of three-dimensional nature deduced in the variant of subjective idealism, i.e. is the three-dimensional structure exclusive for the comprehending subject or should we speak of space curving as ontologically, objectively given?

For the time being, it would be imprudent to give a conclusive answer to this question, although we should rely on the dual manifestation of this problem.  A poetic view of the introvert space is in fact a more complex problem: space closedness or Universe closedness in a four-dimensional interpretation variant in fact implements analogy with the problem of the relationship between the memory complex and self-identity – an entity without extension. Closednes within oneself presupposes identity negation of one’s own wholeness. In other words, a curved Universe or curved three-dimensional space would not be able to set its own curvedness as a whole of existential specification; i.e. if we speak of the absolute form of Universe existence, like an absolute whole of the existing and possible existences and material objects, in that case the curvedness presupposes a non-extensive form of specification. In further consideration we come to the theoretical possibility of reaching the absolute whole in the form of setting towards itself outside the possibility of reaching its own closedness. Accordingly, a four-dimensional Universe frame, as a certain form of manifestation, is therefore possible exclusively through the context of denying the possibility of its extending towards the single items it includes.

The paradox lies in the fact that the absoluteness of the Universe demands the all-inclusiveness of individual material objects as its ‘constituents’. In this case, the Universe should put the individuality of its constituents before its absolute self-setting, i.e. the wholeness of the material forms in nature does not presuppose the absoluteness of nature; on the contrary, it negates its own wholeness of which it is the part. The basis of the presented problem lies in the a priori supposition of the uniform absolute time and space; the complex of this interpretation represents the core of the near-relativist school. Space is interpreted as a continuity of its own elements, most commonly defined as ‘non-extensive points’. Genealogy of this model leads to the basis of establishing the ether as the basic entity of spatial complex – the contemporary philosophy of physics. Theoretical model of the time issue interpretation presupposes a one-dimensional continuity. A basic corpuscle nature is usually left out, although the possibility of setting corpuscle nature of time through various attempts at synthesising contemporary physics and oriental mythologies still exists. A time dimension comes before the spatial unity in the domain of perception subjective primacy; i.e. mutual identity of philosophical analytical models in this case presupposes that the perception of time dimension is absolutely primary in the domain of evolution of our subjective perception in relation to the spatial complex perception. As will be revealed later, the matter is in a historical review of a major mistake.