It would infer the likelihood that time is more arbitrary than not, no?

So many ways to look at one single question when each word can have so many different meanings, it looks different from different perspectives, pulls different conclusions depending on different goals or worldviews. Language is our enemy if we are not specific and do not use the same dictionary.

Therefore, every argument should have an example to go along, to specify the context and make clear what is the angle, what kind of answer is being expected, what kind of question is being asked.

I can both agree and disagree, but now I will agree with the following example. The patient has an open skull and is reading a book. Doctor sends a stream of magnetic pulses to a certain area and the patient freezes. After several seconds magnetic stimulation is turned off and the patient continues to read from the middle of a sentence as if nothing happened.

Conveniently, Peirce specifically addressed the Achilles paradox:

... we should have to admit that Achilles could never overtake the tortoise if he had to resolve to run to where the tortoise then was, and having arrived there, to form a new resolution to run to the point at which the tortoise had then attained. This would involve the assumption that Achilles could not run unless he saw the tortoise ahead of him. — Peirce, 1902

Put another way, Zeno's assumption is that Achilles must complete an infinite series of discrete steps, each of which consists of traversing a smaller and smaller distance in a smaller and smaller interval of time, in order to overtake the tortoise--which is obviously false. Recognizing continuous motion as the fundamental reality, rather than discrete and sequential positions and instants, dissolves the paradox because Achilles merely has to achieve an average speed that is greater than the tortoise's average speed.

Did you see the example, how does that not prove that discrete positions in space are not a reality? — christian2017

Sorry, I do not see how it does prove this. As I said, we artificially mark discrete positions for a particular purpose, such as measurement.

You were saying on the one hand change is subordinate to time, yet on the other hand you are saying time is an arbitrary construct. — 3017amen

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I said that time seems more fundamental than change, and how we mark and measure time is an arbitrary construct--not time itself. Do you see the difference? Likewise, how we mark and measure space is an arbitrary construct--not space itself--which is why we can use different systems of units (e.g., inch/foot/mile vs. mm/m/km).

And I'm saying time is subordinate to change. Meaning, change occurs naturally in the phenomenal world we just arbitrarily project the human construct of time measurement to it. — 3017amen

I find it impossible to conceive of real change without real time. It would require contradictory states of things to be realized simultaneously.

Put another way, Zeno's assumption is that Achilles must complete an infinite series of discrete steps, each of which consists of traversing a smaller and smaller distance in a smaller and smaller interval of time, in order to overtake the tortoise--which is obviously false.

It's not assumption as if used to conclude something else, it's the subject of the paradox, hypothesis being tested. You agree it’s false, produces paradox, therefore you agree time is not infinitely divisible, you agree time is not continuous, and instead you are convinced that time advances at certain discrete intervals, or refresh rate, just like the universe of Pacman and Donkey Kong, or any video game.

Recognizing continuous motion as the fundamental reality, rather than discrete and sequential positions and instants, dissolves the paradox because Achilles merely has to achieve an average speed that is greater than the tortoise's average speed.

Infinitely divisible does not actually imply “infinite parts”, it’s only the most essential aspect of continuity, the most specific definition. One second of time is either infinitely divisible or not, there is no third option, so whatever you are trying to say must be just an awkward way to say one of those two things.

Continuity is the subject of the paradox, it can not be the solution to its own paradoxicality just like a question is not an answer to itself. You are talking about square-circles, self-refuting gibberish, may robot gods have mercy on your memory circuits.

Do you see the difference? — aletheist

Unfortunately I don't. That's okay we'll just agree to disagree.

I find it impossible to conceive of real change without real time. It would require contradictory states of things to be realized simultaneously. — aletheist

I think that's a bit absurd. That's like saying mathematic's came before the Giza pyramids. Or music theory came before the sounds of music.

If you're unable to see that the phenomenon of change relates to why we figured out how to measure it, then it would make any arguments about the concept of time irrelevant. Time relates to change in nature.

We didn't invent change we invented time.

You agree it’s false, produces paradox, therefore you agree time is not infinitely divisible, you agree time is not continuous, and instead you are convinced that time advances at certain discrete intervals, or refresh rate, just like the universe of Pacman and Donkey Kong, or any video game. — Zelebg

No, that is exactly backwards. Zeno's false assumption is that continuous motion requires an infinite series of discrete steps, which is precisely what I deny--there is no need to divide space or time infinitely in order to traverse a finite distance during a finite lapse.

One second of time is either infinitely divisible or not, there is no third option, so whatever you are trying to say must be just an awkward way to say one of those two things. — Zelebg

I addressed this already:

Is one second of time infinitely divisible or not? — Zelebg

Sure, but when you mark an instant to divide one second, you get two half-second lapses; and when you mark two more instants to divide those, you get four quarter-second lapses; and so on ad infinitum. In other words, we artificially insert discrete instants to create the parts, which are always continuous lapses. — aletheist

Continuity is the subject of the paradox, it can not be the solution to its own paradoxicality just like a question is not an answer to itself. — Zelebg

Again, the paradox is based on an incorrect concept of continuity as merely infinite divisibility. Time is not isomorphic to the rational numbers, or even the real numbers in my view.

I find it impossible to conceive of real change without real time. It would require contradictory states of things to be realized simultaneously. — aletheist

I think that's a bit absurd. That's like saying mathematic's came before the Giza pyramids. Or music theory came before the sounds of music. — 3017amen

No, your examples are more like saying that the philosophy of time came before anyone's experience of time, which would indeed be absurd. But that is not what I am saying. Please explain how there could be any change in a timeless reality without violating the principle of contradiction.

If you're unable to see that the phenomenon of change relates to why we figured out how to measure it, then it would make any arguments about the concept of time irrelevant. Time relates to change in nature. — 3017amen

You seem to be suggesting that we invented time in order to mark and measure change. I obviously disagree; in my view, we invented calendars and clocks in order to mark and measure time, which is real independently of them. Maybe we should indeed just recognize the impasse and move on.

Sure, but when you mark an instant to divide one second, you get two half-second lapses; and when you mark two more instants to divide those, you get four quarter-second lapses; and so on ad infinitum. In other words, we artificially insert discrete instants to create the parts, which are always continuous lapses.

Yes, that is what "infinitely divisible" means. And you say one second of time is infinitely divisible. That is all we need, everything else follows.

Again, the paradox is based on an incorrect concept of continuity as merely infinite divisibility. Time is not isomorphic to the rational numbers, or even the real numbers in my view.

Numbers have nothing to do with this, especially not the way you look at them. There is a line from point A to point B representing either segment in space or time interval. And this line is then either continuous or discrete, i.e. it is either not composed of any parts and thus potentially infinitely divisible, or it is composed of unit parts and thus is further indivisible. Got it?

Numbers have nothing to do with this, especially not the way you look at them. — Zelebg

The rational numbers are infinitely divisible--e.g., 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc.--yet obviously not continuous. Therefore, continuity is not reducible to infinite divisibility. Got it?

There is a line from point A to point B representing either segment in space or time interval. And this line is then either continuous or discrete, i.e. it is either not composed of any parts and thus potentially infinitely divisible, or it is composed of unit parts and thus is further indivisible.

What part is confusing you?

The line is not composed of parts and thus potentially infinitely divisible, but that by itself is not sufficient to make something truly continuous. What part is confusing you?

The line is not composed of parts and thus potentially infinitely divisible, but that by itself is not sufficient to make something truly continuous. What part is confusing you?

The part where you forgot to explain your point. True continuity!? It's really confusing why would you fabricate nonsense out of thin air, and how you disagree but forget to explain your assertion. Will you ever tell us about that special one true continuity and the secret of the missing ingredient?

Will you ever tell us about that special one true continuity and the secret of the missing ingredient? — Zelebg

I guess you forgot that I defined five properties that are jointly necessary and sufficient here.

I guess you forgot that I defined five properties that are jointly necessary and sufficient here.

You are still not explaining how any of that has anything to do with infinite divisibility or Zeno's paradox.

You are still not explaining how any of that has anything to do with infinite divisibility or Zeno's paradox. — Zelebg

I already did, but I guess you forgot that, too. May we please get back to the thread topic now?

Zeno said “by the time Achilles reaches the tortoise it would have crawled to a new place, again and again”, where do you see an assumption? And how is the question of infinite divisibility of time different from the thread topic?

Zeno said “by the time Achilles reaches the tortoise it would have crawled to a new place, again and again”, where do you see an assumption? — Zelebg

The false assumption is that Achilles must make an infinite series of discrete moves, in each case advancing only to the tortoise's position at the beginning of that move, rather than simply running faster than the tortoise and overtaking it accordingly. Again:

... we should have to admit that Achilles could never overtake the tortoise if he had to resolve to run to where the tortoise then was, and having arrived there, to form a new resolution to run to the point at which the tortoise had then attained. This would involve the assumption that Achilles could not run unless he saw the tortoise ahead of him. — Peirce, 1902

Suppose instead that Achilles and the tortoise are riding in trains on parallel tracks. The tortoise is initially 100 feet ahead and proceeding at 20 feet per second, while Achilles is going 40 feet per second. After 2.5 seconds, Achilles is where the tortoise started, while the tortoise is now 50 feet farther along. Nevertheless, after another 2.5 seconds, Achilles overtakes the tortoise.

And how is the question of infinite divisibility of time different from the thread topic? — Zelebg

The thread topic is not the infinite divisibility of time, or even the continuity of time, but the reality of time.

Zeno's false assumption is that continuous motion requires an infinite series of discrete steps, which is precisely what I deny--there is no need to divide space or time infinitely in order to traverse a finite distance during a finite lapse.

That it is not assumption, that is the conclusion, you already agreed with, by the way.

Suppose instead that Achilles and the tortoise are riding in trains on parallel tracks. The tortoise is initially 100 feet ahead and proceeding at 20 feet per second, while Achilles is going 40 feet per second. After 2.5 seconds, Achilles is where the tortoise started, while the tortoise is now 50 feet farther along. Nevertheless, after another 2.5 seconds, Achilles overtakes the tortoise.

You are reinterpreting the situation so to obfuscate the problem and then conclude there is no problem. I think that view is too naive to even be considered as a possible solution. Are you the only person alive who believes that is a reasonable answer to the paradox?

The thread topic is not the infinite divisibility of time, or even the continuity of time, but the reality of time

Then you should care how real is virtual time, because discrete simulated time explains Zeno and Planck scale limits, while continuous time only makes no sense and is self-contradicting paradox.

Did you see the example, how does that not prove that discrete positions in space are not a reality?
— christian2017
Sorry, I do not see how it does prove this. As I said, we artificially mark discrete positions for a particular purpose, such as measurement. — aletheist

If two objects with velocities both move away from a given position that proves there are discrete positions. No where in the book a "brief history of time" nor in Newtonian Physics is the idea of discrete positions refuted. If a galaxy moves away from where it was a million years ago and then two million years later is even further away, all that can be measured.

Imagine a single photograph represents your conscious instant of visual perception. You put your finger in front and left of your nose and move it to the right. Say, during that motion you were conscious 5 times, so there are 5 of those photographs or frames, but you are only ever aware of a single one at any of those conscious instants, so how do you perceive motion / time?

First frame shows the finger on the left. Time passes until the next frame and this first picture fades, say 50%. Second frame then shows the finger a bit to the right, but “underneath” is still visible that first frame. Time passes, picture fades, third frame shows three fingers, and so on... — Zelebg

Your description is not really consistent. If the first instant only fades to 50% by the time the conscious person is aware of the second instant, then you can't really say that "a single photograph represents your conscious instant", because the person is conscious of part of the first, and the second, at one conscious instant.

No, the principle of contradiction is that they cannot both be true at the same determination of time. However, each can be true at different determinations of time, as long as there is a determination of time in between--what I have been calling an event-lapse--at which neither is true. — aletheist

The point is that if a moment of time is composed of an event, then within that event there is both S is P, and S is not-P because change occurs within the event. So, if "the moment" as an event-lapse, takes the place of "the instant", as the real "now", then "at the present time", "now", refers to a moment in which contradictory propositions are true. And since "now", or "at the present time" is the only valid or sound determination of time, the law of non-contradiction is violated.

If you proceed, as you do, by saying that there is a time period in which neither is true, then we have a time period, what you call an "event-lapse", which cannot be related to S is P. That duration of time cannot be described in these terms, because neither is applicable. Furthermore, since all time would consist of such event-lapses, S is P would not refer to anything real. This is evident also from the fact that S is P refers to a static state, so it requires an instant in time, when nothing is changing, to be true.

So what you are saying is that S is P, and S is not-P, along with terms like true and false, are not sound ways of describing the world, because the world consists of passing time, and it has no instants when such propositions could be true or false. The issue of course, is that we use such propositions, and they are very useful, so now we need to determine how such statements might relate to the real, changing world. To give soundness to S is P, we need to assume a duration, time-lapse, in which something is not changing, that something which remains the same over a period of time, constitutes S is P. This forms the basis of Aristotelian dualism, there are two aspects of reality. One aspect (form) is actively changing as time is passing, and the other (matter) is passive and does not change as time passes.

No, before the event-lapse one is true, and after the event-lapse the other is true. Again, during the event-lapse neither is true. — aletheist

These expressions, "before" and "after" the event-lapse, are not valid in this model. They require an instant, a boundary, to separate the event-lapse from the rest of time. But no such instant is allowed. Therefore the time period which is designated as the event-lapse is completely arbitrary. If you impose, and inject, such an arbitrary division into time, it has no real meaning as signifying anything true. So if you say "S is P" was true before a particular event-lapse this has no real meaning, because the designation of that event-lapse is completely arbitrary. Notice, that in reality we identify a particular time period by referring to S is P. We talk about the time when such and such is the case. If we can only identify a particular event-lapse period by referring to when S is P becomes false, then there is no need for the time lapse. And if we identify the time-lapse period by referring to when we are unsure as to whether S is P is true or false, then the beginning and end of the event-lapse is an arbitrary designation.

Yes, but all empirical observation is ultimately phenomenological observation that is always and only happening at the present. — aletheist

This is the false premise, which you propose, and I've gone through great effort to demonstrate to you that it is false. So I'll provide to you another indication that it is false. The human body has senses and a brain. Observations are made by the brain. Empirical information is received by the senses. It requires time for the brain to process empirical information. Therefore empirical observation is always of things in the past, not of things happening at the present. By the time the information is received by the brain, to make the observation, the thing being observed is in the past. So to say observation is "only happening at the present" is false and misleading, because a critical aspect of the observation, the thing being observed, is always in the past.

As I explained earlier, you need to dismiss this faulty representation of "the present" which you employ. doing such would greatly increase your capacity to understand the nature of time.

No, I hold that the "real objective boundary between future and past" is a continuous portion of time (lapse), rather than a discrete limit in time (instant). — aletheist

Do you not understand, that a "portion" requires that the piece which is portioned be separated from the rest of the thing which is portioned? Therefore to say that time is continuous, and also that there is a "portion" of time which represents "the present" is blatant contradiction.

So, I say that the present consists of one boundary which separates future from past. You say that the present consists of two boundaries, which separate out a "portion of time". You have introduced a complication by demanding two boundaries instead of one, to create a "portion" which is the present. The only reason I can see, for you to request two boundaries, is to create the illusion of a continuous time. But this is surely wrong, because you still need boundaries to support the claim of "a portion" and therefore time is not continuous.

Yes, but I never claimed that reality consists of individual events; that is essentially McTaggart's view, contributing to his assessment that time is unreal. Instead, reality consists of states of things--both facts and events realized at continuous lapses of time--which we abstract from it when we signify them with propositions: — aletheist

This is why I am trying to get you to recognize the contradiction inherent within what you say. Look, in the first sentence you claim to have never said that reality consists of events, and in the second sentence you say instead, reality consists of events and other things. See the contradiction? Either an individual event is real, (which would require boundaries to separate it from other events, meaning time is not continuous), or it is not, (which would mean that it is false to speak of reality consisting of events in any way).

No, your examples are more like saying that the philosophy of time came before anyone's experience of time, which would indeed be absurd. But that is not what I am saying. Please explain how there could be any change in a timeless reality without violating the principle of contradiction. — aletheist

No. that's what you are saying. Just to clear this up once and for all, you tell me where you stand on the following question:

1. Change in nature came first, then human's figured out how to measure it using sun dials, analog clocks, digital clocks, Planck time, etc.
2. Clocks and said measuring devices came first, then change in nature.

Now if I'm mistaken please provide correction. You have been arguing #2, is that correct?

As far as your last question, I'm not arguing 'change in a timeless reality' as you say. I'm suggesting that time and change are mutually exclusive . And you seem to be saying that change and time are not mutually exclusive, hence:

I find it impossible to conceive of real change without real time. It would require contradictory states of things to be realized simultaneously. — aletheist

Just to one-o-one it, here are the common definitions for your convenience:

1. Time: the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
2. Change: the act or instance of making or becoming different.

Your description is not really consistent. If the first instant only fades to 50% by the time the conscious person is aware of the second instant, then you can't really say that "a single photograph represents your conscious instant", because the person is conscious of part of the first, and the second, at one conscious instant.

That a single image can hold multiple scenes using transparency does not contradict the claim we are only ever visually aware of a single image. It’s not inconsistency, it’s a genius insight to explain what you thought before was impossible.

That a single image can hold multiple scenes using transparency... — Zelebg

I think I know what you mean, but if this is the case, then it is false to call it a "conscious instant". There are numerous instants within what appears to be a "conscious instant". Therefore it only appears to be an instant, and that it is an instant is really an illusion. What you have called the "conscious instant" is really being conscious of numerous instants at the same (in that qualified sense of "at the same time"), and should not be called an "instant" at all.

The point is that if a moment of time is composed of an event, then within that event there is both S is P, and S is not-P because change occurs within the event ... the law of non-contradiction is violated. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, a moment of time is not composed of an event, an event is realized at a lapse of time. During that lapse, neither "S is P" nor "S is not-P" is true, so the principle of excluded middle is false; but there is never a moment at which both "S is P" and "S is not-P" are true, so the principle of contradiction is preserved. Please stop claiming otherwise.

If you proceed, as you do, by saying that there is a time period in which neither is true, then we have a time period, what you call an "event-lapse", which cannot be related to S is P. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but only from the standpoint that neither P nor its negation not-P can be truly predicated of the existential subject S during that lapse of time. S continues to exist, it just has a lower mode of being in the sense that it is not determinately P or not-P when it is in the real and continuous process of changing from one to the other.

Furthermore, since all time would consist of such event-lapses, S is P would not refer to anything real. This is evident also from the fact that S is P refers to a static state, so it requires an instant in time, when nothing is changing, to be true. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, this indicates a misunderstanding. Recall that a fact as signified by a true proposition is only an abstract constituent part of reality; the existential subject S is always changing with respect to some of its qualities and relations, but not all of them. When "S is P" is true, it signifies a real prolonged state of things with respect to that individual existential subject and that general character or relation; likewise for "S is not-P."

So what you are saying is that S is P, and S is not-P, along with terms like true and false, are not sound ways of describing the world, because the world consists of passing time, and it has no instants when such propositions could be true or false. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, that is not what I am saying.

To give soundness to S is P, we need to assume a duration, time-lapse, in which something is not changing, that something which remains the same over a period of time, constitutes S is P. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, "S is P" or "S is not-P" is indeed a sound way of describing the world in most cases, because they signify prolonged states of things that are realized at any instant that we arbitrarily designate within a lapse of time during which the existential subject S is not in an indefinitely gradual state of change from P to not-P, or vice-versa. In other words, it is only during certain events that the principle of excluded middle is false of the relevant proposition; between those events, it remains true. Again, any existential subject is always changing in some respects, but unchanging in others.

These expressions, "before" and "after" the event-lapse, are not valid in this model. They require an instant, a boundary, to separate the event-lapse from the rest of time. But no such instant is allowed. Therefore the time period which is designated as the event-lapse is completely arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it is not completely arbitrary. You make a valid point about the need for an instant to serve as the limit between any two adjacent lapses, but it is not the case that "no such instant is allowed"; just that no such instant is a determination of time at which any state of things is realized to the exclusion of all other instants. Instead, for any instant whatsoever that we actualize by designating it, there are potential instants beyond all multitude within its immediate neighborhood--the surrounding indefinite moment--at which the same state of things is realized. With that in mind, there is some leeway for marking two particular instants as the commencement and completion of an event-lapse. Again, the main idea is that the earlier prolonged state of things is realized at one and the later (incompatible) prolonged state of things is realized at the other, so that the principle of contradiction is not violated; and there is an indefinitely gradual (i.e., continuous) state of change between those two instants.

But this common-sense notion of time implies that every state of things that does not endure through a lapse of time is absolutely definite, that is, that two states, one the negation of the other, cannot exist at the same instant ... Accepting the common-sense notion, then, I say that it conflicts with that to suppose that there is ever any discontinuity in change. That is to say, between any two instantaneous states there must be a lapse of time during which the change is continuous, not merely in that false continuity which the calculus recognizes but in a much stricter sense. — Peirce, 1908

The human body has senses and a brain. Observations are made by the brain. Empirical information is received by the senses. It requires time for the brain to process empirical information. Therefore empirical observation is always of things in the past, not of things happening at the present. By the time the information is received by the brain, to make the observation, the thing being observed is in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, this is another point with some validity. However, I deny that phenomenological observations are made by the brain; instead, they are made by the mind, which is not reducible to the brain. That is why I define the present as not only the indefinite lapse of time between the past and the future, but also the indefinite lapse of time at which anything is present to the mind; again, in my view these are one and the same.

The past is that part of time with which memory is concerned ... The future is that part of time with which the will is concerned ... We immediately know only the present moment, which alone immediately exists. The future we only conjecture; the past we remember, or think we remember. What do we remember? Our own experienced thoughts and feelings ... Thus, all we know is memory. We cannot go behind it: Its dicta must be accepted, except where self-refuted. But one of the things memory most enjoins upon our faith is that it reports a direct and immediate knowledge which existed in the past. Our memory is that we remember nothing except such things as have been present to us ... Events past are recalled by memory supposing they acted on our sense; events to come are anticipated supposing they are subject to our will. — Peirce, 1895

Do you not understand, that a "portion" requires that the piece which is portioned be separated from the rest of the thing which is portioned? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I understand that this is required by your peculiar definitions; but as has happened before in other threads, I disagree with them. The portions of whatever is continuous are also continuous, both internally and with each other, including lapses of time.

So, I say that the present consists of one boundary which separates future from past. You say that the present consists of two boundaries, which separate out a "portion of time". You have introduced a complication by demanding two boundaries instead of one, to create a "portion" which is the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but two boundaries are necessary because events are constantly being realized at the present, which is why we directly perceive the flow of time and the motion of physical bodies. If the present were itself a single boundary--i.e., an instant--then whenever something changed, two incompatible states of things would be realized at that same instant, violating the principle of contradiction.

Look, in the first sentence you claim to have never said that reality consists of events, and in the second sentence you say instead, reality consists of events and other things. See the contradiction? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, in the first sentence I denied saying that reality consists of individual events, which would have to be realized at individual determinations of time; i.e., instants. I just explained why that is impossible, and I affirm instead that events are only realized at general determinations of time; i.e., lapses.

1. Change in nature came first, then human's figured out how to measure it using sun dials, analog clocks, digital clocks, etc.
2. Clocks and said measuring devices came first, then change in nature.
Now if I'm mistaken please provide correction. You have been arguing that #2 is that correct? — 3017amen

Good grief, of course not! As I said before:

You seem to be suggesting that we invented time in order to mark and measure change. I obviously disagree; in my view, we invented calendars and clocks in order to mark and measure time, which is real independently of them. — aletheist

Again, in my view time is more fundamental than change in nature; if there were no time, then there could be no change.

Just to one-o-one it, here are the common definitions for your convenience:
1. Time: the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
2. Change: the act or instance of making or becoming different. — 3017amen

I would not necessarily define time that way, but even if I did, it would be perfectly consistent with what I just said--if there were no progress of existence and events from past to present to future, then there could be no acts or instances of making or becoming different.

Ok great. Now let's come full circle to something we discussed earlier. I'm not understanding, so forgive my interpretations.

When I asked you about the paradox of time zones viz placing a phone call and/or simple time travel from west to east, you said that the measurement of time was arbitrary and a man-made invention.. This then would support the notion that there is an element of illusion (and of course paradox) there. And that is because we cannot relive the hours that we lost and vise versa.

This would suggest that change is more fundamental than time, no?

When I asked you about the paradox of time zones viz placing a phone call and/or simple time travel from west to east ... — 3017amen

There is no paradox here. The phone call does not really take place three hours later on the east coast than on the west coast. Traveling from west to east is not "time travel" any more that staying in one place; if it takes you five hours to make the trip, then five hours will also have elapsed back where you started.

And that is because we cannot relive the hours that we lost and vise versa. — 3017amen

How many times do I have to repeat that there are no "lost" or "relived" hours? No matter where you travel on earth, your age in hours is exactly the same as it would be if you stayed where you were born.