@HexHammer,
Flatland is a short story (also a classic) about the concept of 2 dimensional space.
Shape of Space is a good intro to general topology, what it's all about, etc. There's hardly any math, and it's actually intuitive.
Relativity is a book Einstein wrote which really acts as a philosophical ride through Einstein's though process, what the theory is really about, etc. It's a great example of topology in physics.
Alright, so that out of the way.
There may not be any proven shape of space, assuming what you mean by space is the whole shebang. But there doesn't need to be a proven shape of 'space' for the same reason there need not be proof of extra dimensions. When we talk philosophically about subjects involving theories it's almost more useful to talk about the theories simply as perspectives. Yes, provide them the respect that someone had to think it up and then of course pay respect to that person. But there's something about talking about a scientific topic philosophically which leaves the value judgments of 'theories' off the table. Philosophers are concerned about the value of the perspective, that is, its usefulness, its aesthetic appeal, its intoxicant appeal, its taste, its humor even, etc. In science there is a progression of theories, some which disprove others as the years go on. But to talk philosophically about them is to let that valuation go, sort-to-speak. There is progress in the certainty of theories to describe our realities over time. But it is not good to talk about them in an all or none manner, where for example, this theory is true, this one was wrong, etc. A philosophical conversation demands that an ingrained sense of why theories are right or wrong has found a place in the convictions and intuitions of those who come to the table. For this reason, what better than to read about the theories and convictions of the greatest minds to have lived on the planet.
