Time measures duration, periods and intervals, doesn’t it?

But duration (or period or interval) references a specific reference-frame; whereas the general word Time is used (in this context, i.e. ‘Time passing’) to reference a universal Time. But we know there is no such thing, it’s an illusion. There is no general, universal ‘time passing’, there is only reference-frame specific change.
In the above example, my jog is the reference frame. It has a duration of, say 30 minutes. But as there is no universal Time, the 30 minutes references the duration of my jog. I’ve measured this with my stop-watch, which is universally calibrated. That doesn’t mean there is a universal ‘Time passing’, but that all reference-frames that have duration of 30 minutes and that coincide with my jog, will all be aligned because they are all measured with a universal calibration framework (e.g. my stop-watch).
This is a slippery idea. The notion of universal Time seems hard to let go of, yet we know there is no evidence of such a thing. But we do have a universally used and agreed standard framework of Time units, used to calibrate duration. But the duration is specific to the referenced object.
If I left a static object (say my car which I’ve parked) at the start of my jog, it has remained unmoved throughout the duration of my jog. For my car, no change has occurred, it is the same at the beginning of my jog as it was at the end, unmoved…no change has occurred to it.
In other words, for a discrete reference frame (the set to whom the beginning event and the end event belong), duration or period is irrelevant – when this set is viewed in isolation (e.g. our static object above). There is nothing between the beginning of the period and the end, by definition. Time is therefore meaningless.
It’s only when you calibrate this gap between the two events by reference to an external event-series that it is given a ‘quantity’ definition; and even then this quantity definition confers no impact or intrinsic quality on the discrete set itself. ‘Time’ only matters to the external event-series – it’s just a relative calibration exercise.
It’s accepting the idea that duration (or period) does not have a universal application, that it refers only to a discrete set, and is hence isolated from external “time” until this is referenced which is the hard part to grasp here.

Persistence and existence

I have used the word ‘duration’ to express the period between two change events for a specific object.

There is also a term used to supposedly express the sense of times universality which is persistence. It essentially refers to the same idea as my use of interval – but refers to an intrinsic property of the object – that of existence.
The argument in a nutshell is that an object exists (between change events). It hence exists in a ‘time period’, i.e. it has ‘persistence’ – its existence beyond an instant requires time for that existence to occur in; hence ‘time periods’ has validity as a dimension of a concrete phenomenon; hence time is universal and necessary. This is an easy place to arrive at – we all think it – we see time ‘happening’.
But it is a fundamentally flawed perception and conclusion. Persistence is a meaningless condition. A static, non-changing object simply exists. Time has NO intrinsic effect on, impact on or relevance to it. But people can’t shake the idea that ‘time passing’ is some universal ‘flow’, which effects all things equally. The idea that to exist an object must exist ‘in time’ is the universal misunderstanding.
Persistence is related to a single object or reference frame; if this single object is unchanging, persistence is meaningless until and unless external calibration is introduced to quantify it. But the quantification is the external events series (a clock ticking, the earth spinning) calibration. It has NO intrinsic relationship with our static, single object, which just sits, unchanging, unaffected. Time does NOT exist for that object. Only an external relativity imposes an external structure of time calibration on it. A static, unchanging object simply is…time is irrelevant to it (you could say ‘it’s timeless’).
This is the crux of understanding time. If you understand that time doesn’t ‘pass’, only events happen; and that to a static, unchanging object, time is irrelevant (until you use external events to calibrate) then time as a universal ‘thing’ ceases to have any necessity or meaning.
In other words, persistence (existence, if you like, i.e. needing time in which to be) is wholly meaningless. Unhelpfully it infers the ‘dimension/tunnel/flow/universality’ notion of time that is the illusory confidence trickster stymying most people’s ability to understand the simple, subtle reality of time’s abstractness, its non-existence.
This is difficult for people to grasp. Something that is static and unchanging is wholly unaffected by time. People want there to be this universal ‘flow’ that is constantly passing by – they can’t get past the idea that a static object is somehow enduring time ceaselessly. Time passes, surely? No, just change events happening.

next