Isn't 'change' one definition of 'time'? Time would stop if nothing changed (truly nothing changed).

The same goes for light-speed. From the perspective of light, many argue that time stands still. Making the concept void and meaningless - which is why I don't think 'time ticking' necessarily is a great answer to the whole 'when time ticks, something happens. But not necessarily somewhere' answer to my question.

That isn't quite true. functional MRI (fMRI) scans show that when we perform mental tasks specific areas of the brain become active. fMRI scans are not so granular that we can point to a particular neuron, but we can sort of localize how thoughts are put together in different parts of the brain. In other brain research involving lab animals, researchers can narrow down mental activity very granularly.

You are correct of course! Bad example from my part.

I realized that I should perhaps provide some context. I was walking around one day and thinking about what I can say for sure. I concluded that I can say for sure that 'something is happening'. Not anything, not something in the defined sense, but rather in the undefined sense. 'Something is going on.' Be that a computer program where we all live, or anything else.

A friend suggested that I could narrow it down to "something is going on, somewhere" and it would still be true. That is what I'm thinking about. It might sound like mere semantics I realize