This we may freely admit, for what does one try to do when one makes the effort to imagine the nonexistence of space?
Does not one first clear space of objects, and then try to clear space of space in much the same way?
We try to "think space away," _i.e.to remove it from the place where it was and yet keep that place_.
What does it mean to imagine or represent to oneself the nonexistence of material objects?
Is it not to represent to oneself the objects as no longer in space, _i.e._ to imagine the space as empty, as cleared of the objects?
It means something in this case to speak of a _Vorstellung_, or representation.

We can call before our minds the empty space.

But if we are to think of space as nonexistent, what shall we call before our minds?
Our procedure must not be analogous to what it was before; we must not try to picture to our minds _the absence of space_, as though that were in itself a something that could be pictured; we must turn our attention to other relations, such as time relations, and ask whether it is not conceivable that such should be the only relations obtaining within a given system.
Those who insist upon the fact that we cannot but conceive space as infinite employ a very similar argument to prove their point.

They set us a self-contradictory task, and regard our failure to accomplish it as proof of their position.

Thus, Sir William Hamilton (1788-1856) argues: "We are altogether unable to conceive space as bounded--as finite; that is, as a whole beyond which there is no further space." And Herbert Spencer echoes approvingly: "We find ourselves totally unable to imagine bounds beyond which there is no space." Now, whatever one may be inclined to think about the infinity of space, it is clear that this argument is an absurd one.