The argument does not perhaps apply especially felicitously to this particular analogy, but translated into more general terms it means that three space change, although expressible in terms of four space, and perhaps for the very reason that it is thus expressible, is susceptible to modification under the influence of factors which have no three-dimensionality. As stated at the outset, absolute prevision necessitates _every_ factor being accounted for, and these factors may appear, not merely in three space or four space, but in N-space too. In fact, the more accurate prevision is to be, the wider survey must the percipient take. In order to attain absolute prevision the precipient must be able to function consciously in maximally-dimensional space. But this ability I take to be the exclusive prerogative of the Divine Consciousness. The purely speculatory character of the foregoing will be evident and I do not wish it to be taken as more than an attempt to convey a general impression of ideas which seem somewhat suggestive. It seems appropriate to end a chapter frankly given over to inchoate and somewhat formless speculations, with some remarks on the objectivity or otherwise of space in general. These remarks have been more especially prompted by Mr. E.L. Gardner's article on "The Fourth Dimension" which appeared in the _Theosophist_ for October 1916, by a pamphlet for private circulation written by Mr. T. Olman Todd, 1915, and by Mr. Klein's remarks on Space in his book "Science and the Infinite." Throughout this work I have treated four-dimensional space as an objective reality and, as will appear, I consider that this is perfectly justifiable. The general tendency of the above-mentioned writers seems to be to suggest that this attitude is fallacious and that all space, of whatever dimensionality, is rather to be regarded as a phenomenon of consciousness. In saying this I do not pretend to be reflecting with precision the views expressed by the writers in question. I am merely giving the general effect produced on my mind by their ideas. I may say at once that I think that they are probably perfectly right and that no space of any kind is really objective. I am, for instance, disposed to agree with Mr. Gardner when he says that "However willingly we may grant that behind the description 'Fourth Dimension' there stands something that is real, it is of importance that that reality should be described in terms of Life and Consciousness and not be regarded as a further extension of Matter or Form." Mr. Klein concludes that "our very conception of space is one of the modes only under which motion or physical phenomena are presented to our consciousness."