Technically your definition of 'space a' (using this as a convenient place-holder word) is only that it does contains a being. There is no other stated property.
You can argue that 'space a' that does not contain a being is not 'space a' (by definition). Thus it is indeed nothing, per that point of view, but because there are no other known properties, you do not know for example that it has any kind of distance. Having a notion of distance implies that a way to measure it exists, because there must be a difference between 'near' and 'far'.
Since it does not have a distance (I assume by implication no means of communication/transmission), there is by definition no other way for beings to know anything about each other than to touch each other.
However since, again, there is no 'near' or 'far', there is no difference between close neighbours and distant ships in the night. Hence the only way would be to overlap, occupy at least in part the same 'space a'. However you exclude this possibility in your early paragraphs, so we are now all doomed to deeply complete loneliness. Cheers.
Having said that, the assumption that 'no distance = no communication' is flimsy. For one it ignores the case of adjacent beings, where "where you end is where I begin". In this scenario the beings might be able to differentiate between 'non-space a' and 'not-self space a' next to their own boundaries. On the other hand you can say that perception is solely a property of the being instead of its 'space a'. Even adjacent beings would be unaware of each other because they would have no 'space a in common', and would be only aware of what is strictly in their 'space a'. Since neither being would know of its neighbour, you could argue that there is a piece of the world which is unknown, information that no-one picked up on. This could be a type of 'non-space', and thus beings would be strictly unable to touch each other. *hugs pillow ;_;*
Going by Aylen's suggestion of quantum entanglement and taking that notion to mean that two 'objects' (place-holder word) which do not share a 'space b' (where a 'space b' is w/e contains that type of object) will still have a common reaction. This implies that either these objects have a means of transmission (so they can update each other's state) or that they have no need for a transmission because their relevant beingness is in common, either partly or in whole.
Again, from your early paragraphs, 'space a' does not allow for more than one being at a time.
Assuming space a and b are different kinds of spaces, we would need more information to compare the two kinds of spaces before drawing (logical) conclusions about inter-relations between beings or objects because I have a headache. Humans get to live in existential crisis for a little longer until a shaman returns.
If space a and b are the same kind of space, but two objects are observed to co-exist nonetheless, then space a's property that two beings cannot co-exist in the same space is a property of the beings, instead of the space. Hence the beings' isolation can be argued to be self-imposed or an innate property of those beings. Humans are scaredy-cats, or structurally incapable of truly touching each other (see paragraph 5). Yay. :|
Assuming space a and b are the same kind of space, and that the prohibition against co-existing is a property of this space, two objects would of necessity have two different spaces, and thus not be allowed to overlap. Assuming no other way to overlap (could get dimensional here~), then two objects cannot share a beingness and thus must have a means of information transmission. This information will need to travel from one space to another.
In the case of adjacent spaces ('where I end is where you begin'), let your imagination take you to the marvellous land of single-celled amoebae and picture: little nodes of information gathering at the frontier of the known world and being changed, welcoming new ways of being and new lands in their dreams. More seriously, if the objects can tell then why not the beings too? idk
In all other cases, there is at least an infinitesimal 'non-space' in between these. Because this non-space can be crossed -- and this does not specify that it has a distance or "takes time" to be crossed -- we can conclude that beings do potentially have a way to transmit information. Cue some kind of argument that if the objects can why not the beings.
Unfortunately it could simply be that the objects remain the same because there is a lack of time in which they can be different, which could in turn be a lack of time in which they can change at all. However the beings are said to move... (selective time availability? re-writing the whole of history such that you end up in a different place?)
tl;dr: Drink your tears kiddo, there won't be a spring for a while.
[/flexes small Ti muscles in mirror and blows kiss to self]
Evidently @
Aylen and I parse the world differently.
It's really interesting to read your perspective, even if I'm not sure I could grok it (whether that's by nature or training, idk).