Kyle,
I agree with space as being absolute. Whether it be 1, 2, or 3 dimensions, when we measure space, we are measuring space. Lacking any physical attributes to be affected, it has two properties, in that it is both absolute and infinite. There is nothing to move, bend, bound, etc. so it isn't warping, growing, finitely bounded etc. One of the clearest examples is centrifugal force. It is due to an object spinning relative to inertia. Not any outside frame of reference. The space station in 2001; A Space Odyssey isn't creating that gravitational effect by spinning relative to some outside object, but relative to the inertia of space.
As for time, though, we always measure some physical action, so the question is whether it is an effect of that activity, or is it some underlaying manifestation? The point I make is that when we view the actions as the denominator, with the present as the numerator, we end up with this four dimensional geometry and the present is simply some quality of every particular event, thus the transition of time is an "illusion" and duration is an actual real vector along which these events exist, like marks on the road. But if we look at it the other way, with the present as the denominator, then the events are the transitory forms that come and go.
Is duration a real vector, or is it simply the state of the present between the occurrence of events and doesn't physically exist external to the present?
Logical thought is a function of the cause and effect, narrative vector of time, but then we still see the sun as moving across the sky from east to west. Would it be "lacking predictive value" to consider it might be the earth rotating west to east, that creates this effect?
It would simply mean there are no giant cosmic gearwheels to discover, or wormholes and expanding universes.
Is it a prediction, or is it an observation?