Bear with me. I was thinking of how to represent the empty space between particles in a dimensional sense. Empty space has no point of reference so it can not be represented 3D. But apply time to it and you can kind of time empty space because it only remains empty for certain amounts of times. So is our perception of time merely particles occupying nothing for a set amount of time therefore making empty space time physically represented? Best way to visualize is to think of empty space as a liquid and particles displacing that liquid.
There seem to be a series of very serious non-sequiturs here.
First of all, we easily represent empty space in three dimensions. Despite the lack of contents, or points of reference, we can visualize it easily, and we understand its geometry implicitly.
To the extent that we can imagine anything timelessly, we can imagine empty space timelessly more easily than we can imagine actual matter or energy, which is made up of 'waving' entities, timelessly. We have no idea what light or particles would actually look like if they were stopped. But we know we could never see it -- light travel is not instantaneous. So it may be that empty space is the only thing we can imagine properly without time involved.
Even if it any of that were ironed out, I am not sure how that leads to the conclusion. One of our basic intuitions of time may very well be best captured in the impossible image of seeing particles suspended in something (like a very thick fluid) and not moving. Since this is, in fact, an illusion of the impossible, it may itself be nothing.
But your path to there does not fit with common intuitions of space or time. And our pure intuitions of space have their own drawbacks, too, and we adapt them rather than discarding them.