@johnprytz I suggest using some other word than 'thing', since the word does not really have a universally accepted meaning. Your first two 'proofs' appear to echo the thinking of the 1st century BC philosopher Lucretius, but I think we might have moved on a bit from there. I am of the opinion that gravitational waves strongly indicate that space-time, at least, is a Thing.

@johnprytz My main issue is with the meaning of "thing".

Consider these two statements, the first of which is yours;

1. Space is not a thing.

2. There is no such thing as space.

Are these statements equivalent? If not, does the word "thing" mean something different in each of them?

My other question is: what do you make of the vacuum zero-point energy? Is it possible for that which is not a thing to have energy?

@johnprytz Thank you. I don't think your definition of "thing" is widely accepted, but now at least I know what you're getting at.

@johnprytz I suppose I just wonder why you are so anxious to prove that space is not a thing. You have defined "thing" in such a way as to exclude space from the class of things (at least to your own satisfaction, although I still think there are questions regarding the energy of the vacuum). But where does this lead? Does it help us to understand anything (or even any-not-thing)? Does it enable you to refute anything? Does it lead to any predictions? What is your reason for offering these "proofs"?

@johnprytz You see, I don't really understand what difference it makes whether space is a thing or not. How does it affect things one way or the other?

I also fail to understand your phrase "actual nature of reality". Are you seeking a description or explanation in terms of something else?

The Standard Model is great, and for now it seems to be the best we've got, but we also know that it's incomplete.

The Big Bang will, I think, turn out to be an oversimplification.

@johnprytz Whether or not the Sun goes around the Earth doesn't matter a great deal to me, but it would matter to me if I were an engineer working on a probe going to Mercury, say. It is not so much a matter of which is true as which is the best model to work with.

I try never to rule out anything, but of your four options I would definitely say that supernatural is the least likely, and natural the most likely. I do not believe reality to be either mental or simulated, but I can't disprove either, and I doubt they can be disproved.

Jon Cartwright wrote a very interesting article on the Big Bang in New Scientist of 14 March this year, entitled Why the big bang was not the beginning. I'll send the link, but I think you might need to be a subscriber to read it. Or perhaps you can access it in a library.
[newscientist.com]

@johnprytz As I said, I believe the Big Bang to be an oversimplification.

The god particle? I read a Neil deGrasse Tyson joke:

"Higgs boson walks into a church, and the priest says, 'I'm sorry we don't allow Higgs bosons to come to churches.'And [the Higgs] says, 'But without me, you can't have mass.'"

@johnprytz "space" is wall-to-wall (So to speak) Full of the rhings...there is no 'space'

@johnprytz Higg's bosons, wall-to-wall, so to speak, fill "space"...so there is no actual space! It is Not "empty"

@johnprytz nope....

@johnprytz unlike you, I do not bury a total lack of knowledge of the subject (which you do, a lot) under a thousand pretentious words. 2 minutes on Google reading about the Proven existence of The Boson would tell you that your woeful lack of knowledge, and unwillingness to learn, is embarrassing you. I love to debate someone who actually knows something about their subject! You, not so much.

@johnprytz 1. you would not be babbling on about "space" if you had Any knowledge of The Boson & the way it works. Which would take 3 minutes to research on Google, at best.
2. When I call you on it, you continue to Insist upon "space", clearly indicating you are Chosing to remain ignorant.
3. When I call you on That, you stoop to personal attack because I refuse to engage in a "debate" over false assumptions.
Really? I mean, Really?

@johnprytz my dear, dear man...since the Boson was actually only Proven to exist in the last 5 years or so, I doubt any of your books are very accurate in their theories.......the Boson has changed the Basics of how science looks at Everything (source: Stephen Hawking)!
I was lucky enough to participate in a teaching seminar about 2 years ago exploring the fundamental shift in thought caused by the discovery of an actual Boson. One example: of how things have changed from your obsolete books; the Boson has quite a large (relatively speaking) mass compared to many particles,..........science does have a way of moving on, ya know?