Is Space a Concept?

[Syne]

I'm lead to the idea that gravity can be put in the matter category

I'm inclined to speculate that space (in the sense of what physicists call vacuum) is a physical... something.

That would make it a substance, like the long-discredited aether.

[Zinjanthropos]

Let's see... I can't see the future, the past is all I can see and the present is in the past by the time I get to see it. Funny how I can only see a past present, it's how we normally see things, events. etc. anyways.

Am I travelling through the present at every moment? Is the future a concept? The past is all I observe, so does that make time a real thing? Funny that the only way I can determine if an object is real is to sense its past from its future.

[Ostronomos]

We know some aspects of time, but it isn't something perceptible by touch. Maybe we can sense it some other way but for all intents we combine what we think is known about time and treat it as a concept. Space as far as I can tell is nothingness, a void. Yep I know matter currently resides in this emptiness. Although referring to outer space as emptiness seems oxymoronic . 

Then there's space-time.

 My dictionary describes space-time this way: 

the concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum.

Bad wording as it's hard to tell whether the conceptual description only deals with time or for 3D space as well. So my questions would be: Like time, is space a concept also? Anything that has no physical properties(can't be sensed), i.e. thoughts, are they also only concepts? Combining concepts to form an idea seems logical but can you do the same if one part of the mix is in actuality real in the same context as matter. Not saying space is tangible but I know some people who think it is. 

Don't want to go to my grave not knowing if there is a true difference between space and time or if they're both concepts. I need this explained to me. Feel like I'm interpreting something wrong here. Any takers? 

With regard to space-time being a concept, I would have to disagree. Although it lacks in substance, it is said to be a fluid. According to what I know, General Relativity regards space-time as a material object. I think it can be likened to a fluid.

[Zinjanthropos]

We know some aspects of time, but it isn't something perceptible by touch. Maybe we can sense it some other way but for all intents we combine what we think is known about time and treat it as a concept. Space as far as I can tell is nothingness, a void. Yep I know matter currently resides in this emptiness. Although referring to outer space as emptiness seems oxymoronic . 

Then there's space-time.

 My dictionary describes space-time this way: 

the concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum.

Bad wording as it's hard to tell whether the conceptual description only deals with time or for 3D space as well. So my questions would be: Like time, is space a concept also? Anything that has no physical properties(can't be sensed), i.e. thoughts, are they also only concepts? Combining concepts to form an idea seems logical but can you do the same if one part of the mix is in actuality real in the same context as matter. Not saying space is tangible but I know some people who think it is. 

Don't want to go to my grave not knowing if there is a true difference between space and time or if they're both concepts. I need this explained to me. Feel like I'm interpreting something wrong here. Any takers? 

With regard to space-time being a concept, I would have to disagree. Although it lacks in substance, it is said to be a fluid. According to what I know, General Relativity regards space-time as a material object. I think it can be likened to a fluid.

My question had more to do with space being something and time a concept then combining the two to create a new something aka space-time. When/how did time leap from concept to a something?

[Syne]

You'll notice that the wiki for spacetime (wikipedia.org) doesn't mention words like "substance", "material", "fluid", "fabric", etc..

[Zinjanthropos]

You'll notice that the wiki for spacetime (wikipedia.org) doesn't mention words like "substance", "material", "fluid", "fabric", etc..

Now we have a mathematical model that can be warped, dragged, etc . in the presence of a mass. I'm back to where I started but not.surprised

[Syne]

The only thing "dragged" or "warped" is the influence of gravity as it propagates over time.

[Zinjanthropos]

The only thing "dragged" or "warped" is the influence of gravity as it propagates over time.

Is influence a concept?  

Are concepts and reality the only two things we've got to go on? There always seems to be more.conceptual descriptions for things we dont really know enough about . It's like we re lacking some extra  senses/skiĺls/grey matter that would make it easier.

[C C]

Are concepts and reality the only two things we've got to go on? There always seems to be more.conceptual descriptions for things we dont really know enough about . It's like we re lacking some extra senses/skiĺls/grey matter that would make it easier.

There are "usually" observable particulars, discrete acts and discernable differences and similarities resting at the bottom analysis of or genealogy/origins of concepts.

(1) Ideation as generalization: A concept is a way of representing a common property that some specific things share or a principle they conform to; a way of representing what a sequence of specific actions / changes or instead separate / scattered events share, belong to, or can be united by; a way of representing a conclusion, interpretation, expectation drawn from data; etc.

(2) Ideation as management and systemization: A concept is a prescription, scheme, contract, or formula for how to arrange, practice, proceed, respond, accomplish, predict, govern, etc; the inventing of such can rest in being mandated by or in accommodating empirical or concrete affairs slash concerns which can't be ignored.

(3) Ideation as symbolic modeling: When a concept is an abstract construct built from potentially many prior concepts (often with axiomatic roles), and thus may have no non-labyrinthian route to contact with objects and circumstances of immediate experience.

Is influence a concept?

The idea of "influence" in general certainly is. Even reference to a specific instance of affecting a person still has a resonance of being an interpretative meaning (mental representation) superimposed on a communication exchange or whatever manner of mechanistic transactions transpired which once had immediate status.

But at least the events which the word "influence" designates were observed (or had the capacity to be observable). A legitimate claim of (non-generic) "influence" could be traced to historical, concrete interactions between _X_ things/people involving _Y_ interests/activities.

The deeper past is not directly observable in the cognitive isolation of a particular interval of consciousness (despite the latter at least supervening on or correlating to a "nearer" chunk-sequence of co-existing electrochemical brain changes). Thus shared personal memories, environmental records, and resulting effects of bygone incidents are aggregated together to form a concept of the "past", treated as if it is almost a tangible object still available in or contributing to the "here and now".

"Influence" not taking place "right now" can thereby acquire an abstract taint from just having the status of being and belonging to the concept of "past", albeit it deals with specifics rather than the idea of "influence" at large.

- - -

[Syne]

The only thing "dragged" or "warped" is the influence of gravity as it propagates over time.

Is influence a concept?  

Are concepts and reality the only two things we've got to go on? There always seems to be more.conceptual descriptions for things we dont really know enough about . It's like we re lacking some extra  senses/skiĺls/grey matter that would make it easier.

Depends on if we ever find a force carrier (graviton) for gravity. If we did, gravity would be just as experimentally tangible as energy. If not, we may never know for sure. But generally in physics, gravity is not considered only a concept, since it does have measurable effects.