About the book: 2014 / Even if we find ourselves unable to accept the fictitious nature of objective reality, at least we can understand that our experience is ultimately must be a product of our perceptual apparatus. And if we understand this, we can also realize that the elements of three-dimensionality must also be a product of this apparatus. That is, the ability to reproduce phenomena in terms of length, width and height must be a functional aspect of our apparatus itself - for there is no conceivable way in which space "somewhere out there" somehow appears "somewhere here" only to to be filled with the objects of our perception. But since the existence of the apparatus itself depends on the fact that space is an independent thing, and not simply a derivative of itself, the whole idea collapses under its own weight when we realize the above. In other words, when we really think it through, we realize that the assumption of the existence of an objective reality entails the absurdity that the apparatus of perception exists within a product of its own production. “But,” you might object, “what if there is another space that also exists?” What if there is something “similar” to the space of our perception? The answer is simple. There can be no other "space" because "space" is simply the way things are seen in terms of length, width and height - and asking whether this can exist independently of our perceptual apparatus is as pointless as asking whether there should be something “similar” to this. Anyone who says that "space" can exist has simply misunderstood what it is: It is not something independent, but simply the way in which it all becomes apparent.