Thank you to all who responded. I will summarize the answers and my thoughts on the answers. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Space and time are a consequence of the interaction of a person and the surrounding matter for the purpose of its research and cognition. Man invented the coordinates of “space-time” for the convenience of describing his ideas about matter. Time is a speculative binding of some events chosen by a person to others. An event is a change in matter recorded by a person's consciousness. Space is a speculative binding of some “points” of matter chosen by a person to others. A dot is a speculative model of an infinitesimal part of an infinitesimal volume of matter. Without the act of choosing a reference point or reference event, time and space do not exist.

Space is a property of matter, an informational concept – with this approach, the question is reduced to a simple consideration of the difference – different properties of matter.

The question is rather incorrect, because it is not at all clear what the author at least assumes by these concepts (space and non-space). For example, non-space can be assumed to be matter. But that's not the point. Therefore, we will start from another question : What is space?

In everyday life, space is a place between objects. More precisely, inside the object or in its surroundings. I.e., space is clearly connected with a material object. So it was with Aristotle, who connected space with the Earth. Descartes thought of it as the sum of the places occupied by bodies. It was metaphysics.

Physics is more difficult. Its founders were the first to abstract from the material body and try to imagine space not as a property of bodies, but as something existing in itself. Either as a set of geometric trajectories of potentially possible movements of bodies (Galileo), or as a set of distances between bodies (Newton). The latter is connected with the Newtonian theory of gravity, where Newton divided the nature of the motion of bodies into two elements – a “flat” space and a force field. Thus, space began to be thought of as a collection of abstract geometric points. In part, this is a consequence of the fact that physics owes its birth to mathematics.

In mathematics, a space is a set whose elements are connected by certain relations. In this case, it is a set of points connected by metric relations. Thanks to Einstein, the cause of the motion of bodies was again connected with space. But now it has completely lost its corporeal and acquired a purely mathematical character, since bodies in general relativity move not under the influence of forces, but by inertia along geodesic lines. It's a bit like Galileo.

But the story didn't end there. Next, the quantum field theory had its say about space, which again gave space a material (energy) character in the form of a physical vacuum. But so far in theoretical physics this question has not been solved either in favor of pure geometry or in favor of the materiality of space. So far, physicists have not been able to combine these two concepts presented in the form of general relativity and quantum mechanics. For 40 years, everyone has been pulling in their own direction, and the WHO is still there. There are all sorts of exotic theories like string theory, but they are far from reality, and their spaces are like a knot in the brain.

One thing we can say with certainty is that physics has taken the path of abstracting space from physical bodies (matter), assuming its existence in itself. In classical physics (GR), this is the existence of geometric points. In quantum theory, this is the existence of energy fields. Perhaps the problem is in this very abstractness of space and its separation from bodies?

In summary, we can say that in physics there is no clear and unambiguous understanding of what space is. At the moment, this is just an abstract mathematical term that is convenient for modern physical models. It turns out that the question ” What is space?” also incorrect. It is necessary to ask: “What is meant by space in a particular field of physics, philosophy and other sciences, as well as in various cultural communities? 🙂

Personally, my idea of space is this. This is a speculative image that appears in the mind as a result of identifying complete systems with different dynamics in the surrounding world. I.e., some systems are more dynamic against the background of other less dynamic systems. So these less dynamic systems are defined as the space for more dynamic systems. In this view, space is always local and finite, as well as inhomogeneous, which contradicts the principle of relativity. But on the other hand, such a space is “alive”, not abstract, and retains an inseparable connection with the objects themselves, which generate it in relations with each other.

Starting from Protagoras 'argument” Man is the measure of all things…”, we can assume that the measure of space is what a particular person is able to do within the limits of what his body feels, and “non – space” should be called that which is not given to people in their sensory experience…

For example: people can distinguish between movements and changes in objects that occur slower than the “speed of light”, and they have no data about what is happening faster, but this is not a reason to deny that it is possible, so to speak, “outside the space of their sensory experience”…

The concept of space appears only where there are relations (relativity). With the help of space, the existence of something is measured by its dimensions, for example, position, which, nevertheless, are not related to space in itself, but to the set of phenomena that are in relationship with it.

It is difference, otherness, that generates space as its own property, and everything else as interaction, since any manifestation, any action is relative to something (interaction). Becoming.

let's start at the end .. some philosophies adhere to the following picture of the world —

the universe and the cosmos are all space, space is everywhere where there are things (atoms, light, planets …), any thing is in space, because it consists of it. things are material, and space is not material in the sense that once it manifests materiality, it becomes a thing.

the connection between space and things is about the same as between a sheet and the folds on it .. creases (things) cannot be made outside the sheet (space). .. in modern language, one could say that the manifestation of materiality is like a way out of the two-dimensionality of the sheet into the three-dimensionality of the fold . .by acquiring an additional dimension, things materialize.

such a picture of the world is typical for those worldviews where space consists of some kind of protomatter, such as ether, or guna .. which, in turn, thicken and intertwine (forming folds) manifest material things.

….

более близкое к нашему представление, это представление о том, что пространство это характеристика взаимного расположения вещей (предметов, условных точек геометрических и т.п. – всего что может иметь расположение).

начиная со школьной скамьи мы постоянно встречаем задачи “из пункта А в пункт Б …”, что определяет некое пространство А-Б, в котором происходит действие задачи .. тоже происходит и в бытовом смысле , когда кто то кого то посылает “сходить в магазин”, в нашем сознании определяется пространство между домом и магазином (точнее между двумя точками некого пространства).

науки разнообразные определяют модельное пространство, например математическое (геометрическое, евклидово), в котором функция принимает те или иные значения в зависимости от аргумента .. это понимается как пространство взаимного расположения точек на координатных осях и значений функции на плоскости осей (или в пространстве любой мерности).

тоже самое с моделированием физических процессов и т.д.

пространства моделируются и изучаются для представления об уровне взаимодействия вещей друг с другом, для представления о воздействии одной вещи на другую, или о их пространственной связанности. (пример: гравитационное воздействие)

…

время – это тоже пространство, в котором взаимно располагаются события (а не вещи).

время обладает тем же самими характеристиками что и пространство, которые применяются к другим примитивам (событиям а не вещам) ..

пространство ВРЕМЕНИ моделируется и изучаются для представления об уровне взаимодействия СОБЫТИЯ друг с другом, для представления о воздействии одного СОБЫТИЯ на другое, или о их ВРЕМЕННОЙ связанности.

из этого происходят специфичные суждения о “причинах и следствиях” по отношению к событиям, аналоги которым трудно найти в первичном пространстве из за того, что примитив “вещь” проще чем примитив “событие”. из чего следует очевидный вывод – пространство само по себе способно к эволюции в более сложные формы “существования”, для чего как минимум необходимо брать более сложные примитивы.

Thank you to all who responded.

I will summarize the answers and my thoughts on the answers. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Space and time are a consequence of the interaction of a person and the surrounding matter for the purpose of its research and cognition. Man invented the coordinates of “space-time” for the convenience of describing his ideas about matter.

Time is a speculative binding of some events chosen by a person to others.

An event is a change in matter recorded by a person's consciousness.

Space is a speculative binding of some “points” of matter chosen by a person to others.

A dot is a speculative model of an infinitesimal part of an infinitesimal volume of matter.

Without the act of choosing a reference point or reference event, time and space do not exist.

Space is a property of matter, an informational concept – with this approach, the question is reduced to a simple consideration of the difference – different properties of matter.

The question is rather incorrect, because it is not at all clear what the author at least assumes by these concepts (space and non-space). For example, non-space can be assumed to be matter. But that's not the point. Therefore, we will start from another question : What is space?

In everyday life, space is a place between objects. More precisely, inside the object or in its surroundings. I.e., space is clearly connected with a material object. So it was with Aristotle, who connected space with the Earth. Descartes thought of it as the sum of the places occupied by bodies. It was metaphysics.

Physics is more difficult. Its founders were the first to abstract from the material body and try to imagine space not as a property of bodies, but as something existing in itself. Either as a set of geometric trajectories of potentially possible movements of bodies (Galileo), or as a set of distances between bodies (Newton). The latter is connected with the Newtonian theory of gravity, where Newton divided the nature of the motion of bodies into two elements – a “flat” space and a force field. Thus, space began to be thought of as a collection of abstract geometric points. In part, this is a consequence of the fact that physics owes its birth to mathematics.

In mathematics, a space is a set whose elements are connected by certain relations. In this case, it is a set of points connected by metric relations. Thanks to Einstein, the cause of the motion of bodies was again connected with space. But now it has completely lost its corporeal and acquired a purely mathematical character, since bodies in general relativity move not under the influence of forces, but by inertia along geodesic lines. It's a bit like Galileo.

But the story didn't end there. Next, the quantum field theory had its say about space, which again gave space a material (energy) character in the form of a physical vacuum. But so far in theoretical physics this question has not been solved either in favor of pure geometry or in favor of the materiality of space. So far, physicists have not been able to combine these two concepts presented in the form of general relativity and quantum mechanics. For 40 years, everyone has been pulling in their own direction, and the WHO is still there. There are all sorts of exotic theories like string theory, but they are far from reality, and their spaces are like a knot in the brain.

One thing we can say with certainty is that physics has taken the path of abstracting space from physical bodies (matter), assuming its existence in itself. In classical physics (GR), this is the existence of geometric points. In quantum theory, this is the existence of energy fields. Perhaps the problem is in this very abstractness of space and its separation from bodies?

In summary, we can say that in physics there is no clear and unambiguous understanding of what space is. At the moment, this is just an abstract mathematical term that is convenient for modern physical models. It turns out that the question ” What is space?” also incorrect. It is necessary to ask: “What is meant by space in a particular field of physics, philosophy and other sciences, as well as in various cultural communities? 🙂

Personally, my idea of space is this. This is a speculative image that appears in the mind as a result of identifying complete systems with different dynamics in the surrounding world. I.e., some systems are more dynamic against the background of other less dynamic systems. So these less dynamic systems are defined as the space for more dynamic systems. In this view, space is always local and finite, as well as inhomogeneous, which contradicts the principle of relativity. But on the other hand, such a space is “alive”, not abstract, and retains an inseparable connection with the objects themselves, which generate it in relations with each other.

Starting from Protagoras 'argument” Man is the measure of all things…”, we can assume that the measure of space is what a particular person is able to do within the limits of what his body feels, and “non – space” should be called that which is not given to people in their sensory experience…

For example: people can distinguish between movements and changes in objects that occur slower than the “speed of light”, and they have no data about what is happening faster, but this is not a reason to deny that it is possible, so to speak, “outside the space of their sensory experience”…

The concept of space appears only where there are relations (relativity). With the help of space, the existence of something is measured by its dimensions, for example, position, which, nevertheless, are not related to space in itself, but to the set of phenomena that are in relationship with it.

It is difference, otherness, that generates space as its own property, and everything else as interaction, since any manifestation, any action is relative to something (interaction). Becoming.

let's start at the end .. some philosophies adhere to the following picture of the world —

the universe and the cosmos are all space, space is everywhere where there are things (atoms, light, planets …), any thing is in space, because it consists of it. things are material, and space is not material in the sense that once it manifests materiality, it becomes a thing.

the connection between space and things is about the same as between a sheet and the folds on it .. creases (things) cannot be made outside the sheet (space). .. in modern language, one could say that the manifestation of materiality is like a way out of the two-dimensionality of the sheet into the three-dimensionality of the fold . .by acquiring an additional dimension, things materialize.

such a picture of the world is typical for those worldviews where space consists of some kind of protomatter, such as ether, or guna .. which, in turn, thicken and intertwine (forming folds) manifest material things.

….

более близкое к нашему представление, это представление о том, что пространство это характеристика взаимного расположения вещей (предметов, условных точек геометрических и т.п. – всего что может иметь расположение).

начиная со школьной скамьи мы постоянно встречаем задачи “из пункта А в пункт Б …”, что определяет некое пространство А-Б, в котором происходит действие задачи .. тоже происходит и в бытовом смысле , когда кто то кого то посылает “сходить в магазин”, в нашем сознании определяется пространство между домом и магазином (точнее между двумя точками некого пространства).

науки разнообразные определяют модельное пространство, например математическое (геометрическое, евклидово), в котором функция принимает те или иные значения в зависимости от аргумента .. это понимается как пространство взаимного расположения точек на координатных осях и значений функции на плоскости осей (или в пространстве любой мерности).

тоже самое с моделированием физических процессов и т.д.

пространства моделируются и изучаются для представления об уровне взаимодействия вещей друг с другом, для представления о воздействии одной вещи на другую, или о их пространственной связанности.(пример: гравитационное воздействие)…

время – это тоже пространство, в котором взаимно располагаются события (а не вещи).

время обладает тем же самими характеристиками что и пространство, которые применяются к другим примитивам (событиям а не вещам) ..

пространство ВРЕМЕНИ моделируется и изучаются для представления об уровне взаимодействия СОБЫТИЯ друг с другом, для представления о воздействии одного СОБЫТИЯ на другое, или о их ВРЕМЕННОЙ связанности.из этого происходят специфичные суждения о “причинах и следствиях” по отношению к событиям, аналоги которым трудно найти в первичном пространстве из за того, что примитив “вещь” проще чем примитив “событие”. из чего следует очевидный вывод – пространство само по себе способно к эволюции в более сложные формы “существования”, для чего как минимум необходимо брать более сложные примитивы.