it took a lot of years, and that’s not to say it’s correct, but I’ve begrudgingly had to accept an “ontological pluralism”: that is, there are different modes of being that can’t always reconcile cleanly into each other easily.
They may ultimately in some ultimate sense be able to do so, but we couldn’t have access to it as it would encompass more than we’re capable of conceiving, impossible modes of thought that can’t be analogized to something familiar we can fit in our brains or technologies.
This is distinct from the notion of relativism; quite distinct as it’s saying “you can’t always get there from here”, whereas a relativism says “there are many equally valid paths”.
With that caveat, I believe there are a LOT of things that can, with some cleverness, _can_ work as nearly equivalents – with proper Rosetta Stones translating. (such as the lossy space/time flip used when going from analog to digital/digital to analog, Fourier transforms and similar methods) You can treat space as time and time as space but not perfectly so.
Here, though, what I think I am seeing is an issue of finding the appropriate analogies to describe what’s happening and the dangers of coming across the limits of current analogies.