Thread: If matter cant be created or destroyed, where did all this stuff come from?

Oh damn Sage, just when I was going to call you a stubborn old goat and say I was done playing irresistable force to your immovable object!

And suddenly you shifted! Ever so minutely, but you did shift.

And now you're making my brain hurt.

Trying to get my bearings back a bit - no, time is not a thing, a material or a force. It's simply the progression of events. Is it real? Well, is acceleration real? It's neither material nor energy.

I suspect the real problem is that we're mixing up Relativity and Newtonian ideas. The 3 axes of Newtonian space, and the added dimension of Time, might be irrelevant in the Spacetime continuum. Can anybody who knows some things about physiscs say anything relevant here?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Trying to get my bearings back a bit - no, time is not a thing, a material or a force. It's simply the progression of events. Is it real? Well, is acceleration real? It's neither material nor energy.

Nope, acceleration is just as real as time, for the same reasons; indeed, isn't it just a corollary of the Arrow of Time anyway?

I suspect the real problem is that we're mixing up Relativity and Newtonian ideas. The 3 axes of Newtonian space, and the added dimension of Time, might be irrelevant in the Spacetime continuum.

Agreed.

Can anybody who knows some things about physiscs say anything relevant here?

That would be very cool!

Ok, I gots something - are width, height and depth real? They're not material or energy. And while we did have to invent the symbolic language of drawing to represent these qualities so we can work with them, the qualities themselves actually do exist as inherent properties of the objects.

What they are is qualities of physical objects. I suppose that's what time is too - a quality of movement or somesuch. I think maybe you're taking the word exist too literally, thinking something must be material or energy in order to exist. Qualia exist without being physical or energy.

** Edit - decent video on theories about time:



It strikes me that they're all nearly the same, just observed from different viewpoints. Aside from the Presentist theory, they all involve a dot that represents the present sliding along a timeline with events posted along it, and the observer is either in a fixed position with the dot seeming to move, or stationed on the dot itself, watching events move. Presentism seems to be one of those theories modified to ignore the idea that even the present moment is in constant flux.

At least it's good to know we're not the only ones who can't seem to think with great clarity about the nature of time.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ok, I gots something - are width, height and depth real? They're not material or energy. And while we did have to invent the symbolic language of drawing to represent these qualities so we can work with them, the qualities themselves actually do exist as inherent properties of the objects.

Uh oh, you're starting to channel Hume...

Yes, though the words width, height, etc, are just words and have no reality in and of themselves, in their case they tend to represent actual objects that by every definition exist (i.e., they're still "there" whether we're in the room or not, as it were).

What they are is qualities of physical objects. I suppose that's what time is too - a quality of movement or somesuch. I think maybe you're taking the word exist too literally, thinking something must be material or energy in order to exist. Qualia exist without being physical or energy.

Ah, but the qualities of actual objects describe things that are there no matter what -- things that exist. Movement is merely the result of forces placed upon those actual objects. The objects and their motion are still the existent parts of the observation, and are there whether we observe them or not. Time is not a quality of motion, it is a method by which we insert ourselves into the picture and measure that motion...there is a difference, I think. Also, do qualia really exist without being matter or energy, or are they then just concepts (like time)?

** Edit - decent video on theories about time:...It strikes me that they're all nearly the same, just observed from different viewpoints. Aside from the Presentist theory, they all involve a dot that represents the present sliding along a timeline with events posted along it, and the observer is either in a fixed position with the dot seeming to move, or stationed on the dot itself, watching events move. Presentism seems to be one of those theories modified to ignore the idea that even the present moment is in constant flux.

Interesting video; but you do realize that it is specifically about various philosophical methods for perceiving time, and seems to ignore, avoid, or forget any mention of time as real, right? Sort of makes my point for me, I think... or else I misunderstood, which could be the case because it's way late and I am way tired. Also, I think we should leave a presentist view of time to the ferrets; seems a bit regressive if you ask me.

Okay, that's it for me tonight; If I was making no sense before, I don't even want to imagine what it's like for you now!

Originally Posted by Sageous

Uh oh, you're starting to channel Hume...

Who - me? (sorry - little play on wordage there)

Originally Posted by Sageous

Yes, though the words width, height, etc, are just words and have no reality in and of themselves, in their case they tend to represent actual objects that by every definition exist

I call foul! You're applying different standards to the physical dimensions than to time. Width (for instance) does not represent an actual object, only a particular characteristic of that object. In exactly the same way movement represents a characteristic of it.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Interesting video; but you do realize that it is specifically about various philosophical methods for perceiving time, and seems to ignore, avoid, or forget any mention of time as real, right? Sort of makes my point for me, I think... or else I misunderstood

Hahaha no, you're right! I haven't been able yet to find anything referencing 'real' time, I meant that video just as part of the research into modern thought about time - I was hoping to discover something else, but it ain't in that vid. Maybe I need to go back and re-read my book about the special and general theories of relativity.

But I'm starting to feel pretty stupid - like we're wrestling with some pretty basic concepts that seem really difficult to us just because we haven't studied the relevant science, and some of the people on the board are facepalming pretty hard at us.


** Edit
I googled Reality of Time and have been running into some pretty interesting pages. Some of them are pretty bizarre and patently absurd, but this one so far seems like it might get to the heart of 'real time' as we've been discussing: http://www.idiocentrism.com/time3.htm

Click from there to part 1 of the article - that page seems to be the only place where I can find links to all 3 parts together. I've only read partway through part 1 so far, but it seems promising. One intriguing idea - he says that in physics time is believed to be an illusion because it breaks down at the subatomic scale and in extreme relativistic conditions. So it seems he's leading up to something similar to our subject. At the very least it should give us language and ideas to become more conversant.

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ Okay; one last shot, then I promise to give up

Observing gravity bending light is different because, frankly, you're observing gravity bending the light, due to its own natural force, while the changes that occur to an object over time have nothing whatsoever to do with time itself -- other forces are causing the changes; time is just the tool used to measure that change. That is the difference.

As you approach the speed of light, your passage of time does indeed slow down, relative to people not moving at that speed... However, time appears to be passing at the same rate to you. Also, this experience comes not from changing time,but from changing other actual forces resulting in high speed.

One thing you keep mentioning is that time is relative, based on the perspective of the observer. Gravity and the electromagnetic forces are always the same, no matter who is observing, anywhere in the universe. Why is there a difference, if time is an actual force?

And for what it's worth, I don't see how gravity can be influenced, but I'm not a theoretical mathematician, either.

Now I never said time was a force. I said watching something change over time is somewhat like seeing something be affected by an invisible force.

As I understand it, time is more like a dimension (though not exactly like a dimension), and perhaps arguing from that viewpoint will get us closer to agreement (or perhaps show that Xei was right after all).

Would you say space exists? As in the normal three dimensions around us. Because you could argue that space isn't really anything. You could say that it's just something we need to make the physics come out, just the tool we use to measure distance. You could say that it's just the framework within which we can calculate how objects affect each other.
But I'd say that space exists. At least as long as there is something within it.

Also gravity and electromagnetic forces can't be the same same regardless of the reference. When you move at a high speed the length of items moving at a slower speed actually shrinks (from your viewpoint). Since the forces are affected by distance, they should change too. Though to be honest I've never actually heard anyone explain exactly what happens with forces due to this effect, so I could be way off.

(Also I think it's a theoretical physician that would have something to say about that. Math doesn't really have anything to do with the real world, it's all just a logically coherent system we use to describe it)

I'm getting tired of this, but you deserve a couple of responses, Khh:

Originally Posted by khh

Would you say space exists? As in the normal three dimensions around us. Because you could argue that space isn't really anything. You could say that it's just something we need to make the physics come out, just the tool we use to measure distance. You could say that it's just the framework within which we can calculate how objects affect each other. But I'd say that space exists. At least as long as there is something within it.

Honestly? No, I would say that space does not exist, for exactly the same reasons as time, and for all the reasons you list. Just because there's stuff in it doesn't mean there is a substance there. Indeed, space literally means the absence of substance. I was going to mention that earlier, but I didn't want to get myself into more trouble.

So no, space doesn't exist either... however the discovery of the Higgs particle, and corresponding Higgs field, will likely change my mind on that.

Also gravity and electromagnetic forces can't be the same same regardless of the reference. When you move at a high speed the length of items moving at a slower speed actually shrinks (from your viewpoint). Since the forces are affected by distance, they should change too. Though to be honest I've never actually heard anyone explain exactly what happens with forces due to this effect, so I could be way off.

I never said gravity and the electromagnetic forces are the same; sorry if it sounded that way. What I did say is that gravity has been established theoretically and experimentally as a force (called "gravity," and not electromagnetic), and that there is plenty of empirical data supporting its existence.

Also I think it's a theoretical physician that would have something to say about that. Math doesn't really have anything to do with the real world, it's all just a logically coherent system we use to describe it

Math has everything to do with the real world; indeed, math is the language of the real world. In fact, the more advanced theoretical physics gets with its math, the more mystical it gets (ie, quantum entanglement). So it might not be a good idea to dismiss the math, and it might be an excellent life-choice to embrace it.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I call foul! You're applying different standards to the physical dimensions than to time. Width (for instance) does not represent an actual object, only a particular characteristic of that object. In exactly the same way movement represents a characteristic of it.

No foul at all, I think, as the measurement of width does indeed represent an aspect of an actual, existing object. As I said, width is not an object unto itself, but what it represents, or measures, is part of an existing, touchable, part of reality object. Not so with time.

And yes, as I mentioned (finally) above, if you're just laying out a set of dimensions in space, measuring nothing but themselves, then no, they do not exist. In that case they're just like time.

More later, I hope...I want to see your link, but no time now.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Honestly? No, I would say that space does not exist, for exactly the same reasons as time, and for all the reasons you list. Just because there's stuff in it doesn't mean there is a substance there. Indeed, space literally means the absence of substance. I was going to mention that earlier, but I didn't want to get myself into more trouble.

So no, space doesn't exist either... however the discovery of the Higgs particle, and corresponding Higgs field, will likely change my mind on that.

I would agree that our way of thinking of space, say an xyz coordinate system or whatever, isn't real but just a concept. However the fact that there is distance between objects, and that objects themselves have volume indicates that space is a real phenomenon. Otherwise they couldn't have volume. Or shape.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I never said gravity and the electromagnetic forces are the same; sorry if it sounded that way. What I did say is that gravity has been established theoretically and experimentally as a force (called "gravity," and not electromagnetic), and that there is plenty of empirical data supporting its existence.

You misunderstand me. I mean to say that both gravity and electromagnetic forces will be affected by high-speed travel, not to equate the two. The reasons are laid out above, but in a nutshell, it's this: Length contraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Sageous

Math has everything to do with the real world; indeed, math is the language of the real world. In fact, the more advanced theoretical physics gets with its math, the more mystical it gets (ie, quantum entanglement). So it might not be a good idea to dismiss the math, and it might be an excellent life-choice to embrace it.

No, math is but a tool. By itself it doesn't tell us anything about the world. We just use math to describe the world, but then once we've related the two it allows us to see the implications in ways we couldn't without.
I'm not dismissing math. Math is a fantastic tool. I love math. I'm just saying it's not directly related to the real world, and that it's perfectly conceivable that there are other ways of describing it.

Originally Posted by Sageous

No foul at all, I think, as the measurement of width does indeed represent an aspect of an actual, existing object. As I said, width is not an object unto itself, but what it represents, or measures, is part of an existing, touchable, part of reality object. Not so with time.

And yes, as I mentioned (finally) above, if you're just laying out a set of dimensions in space, measuring nothing but themselves, then no, they do not exist. In that case they're just like time.

More later, I hope...I want to see your link, but no time now.

I'm tempted to say that instead of time being an illusion of perception for humans, perhaps your lack of belief in time is due to an illusion caused by the inability to see it the same way you see that dimensions exist in space.
Also, I don't get how you can think that position is real (or exists), motion is real, math is real, but still claim that acceleration and time isn't real. Motion is just the first order derivative of position with regards to time, like acceleration is the second.

I think that it is often overlooked, and even scoffed at, the possibility of a holographic universe scenario in which time, space, dimension, direction, and/or movement is completely different from our perceptions of it. On a computer screen we see (2D representations of) 3D objects. These objects do, in a sense, exist, as impulses of electricity. We have no absolute standard for how we should view the universe and our place in it. For all we know we could, ourselves, be energy pulses. We could be 2 dimensional. We could be 1 dimensional. We could be 4 dimensional. We could actually exist in many different ways that is perceived, by us, as a 3D space.
I really think that people have the tendancy to limit themselves by overlooking this fact.

Again, you need to define your terms.

I don't really understand what one could refer to by 'dimension' other than things within your experience. If something has no consequences for your subjective experience, what does it mean to say that it's true, and how could you ever demonstrate it?

When I say 'I live somewhere 3 dimensional', I mean exactly that, in my experience, I need a minimum of three independent directions, if I am to be able to reach every other point I can see, by moving only in those directions. If there is any ambiguity about the terms they can be further defined. 'Living somewhere 3 dimensional' is an easily tested predicate which takes my experience as an argument. If the predicate always agrees with my experience, it is by definition impossible for it to be wrong.

Yes, you may be able to represent all of the information in my space with only a 1 dimensional object, but that does not have any bearing on my terms as I've defined them; it's a separate question.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I googled Reality of Time and have been running into some pretty interesting pages. Some of them are pretty bizarre and patently absurd, but this one so far seems like it might get to the heart of 'real time' as we've been discussing: The Reality of Time: III

Click from there to part 1 of the article - that page seems to be the only place where I can find links to all 3 parts together. I've only read partway through part 1 so far, but it seems promising. One intriguing idea - he says that in physics time is believed to be an illusion because it breaks down at the subatomic scale and in extreme relativistic conditions. So it seems he's leading up to something similar to our subject. At the very least it should give us language and ideas to become more conversant.

So I read -- okay, skimmed, for lack of time (there it goes existing again!) -- the articles you linked to, and I must say the author seems to be upholding what I've been trying to say... Only his words make much more sense than mine, I'm afraid. Thanks for sharing -- I think it means a lot.

Khh & Xei: You might check out this link and read the articles, as they seem to support -- or explain on both sides, my suggestion that time does not exist. Then, if you still disagree, then argue with that guy and not me, because I'm done.

You haven't skimmed deep enough - he cites articles and books with deep scientific arguments for the nonexistence of time, and even of space - but he brings them up only to argue against them. I recommend (when that non-existent time allows) reading lots of the links too - some great stuff.

Heh - one of the scientists (or philosophers or whatever) that he cites is named Zeh. I loled.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

You haven't skimmed deep enough - he cites articles and books with deep scientific arguments for the nonexistence of time, and even of space - but he brings them up only to argue against them. I recommend (when that non-existent time allows) reading lots of the links too - some great stuff.

That figures; and curse me for judging on just a skim. I've printed it and stuck it in the bathroom where it will be thoroughly perused...thanks again for sharing!

Originally Posted by sloth

...holographic universe...

Oh man, and now it gets complicated hahaha!! I know very little about this theory, but I understand scientists theorize that if an object were to enter a black hole, as it becomes crushed down it would also somehow smear itself as a layer of information around the perimeter of the black hole (not sure how they could even surmise this) and from that info a duplicate of the object could be created. And from this they then postulated the holographic universe theory. Or at least that's something like what I heard on some science show, I might have it all screwed up.

Fascinating but head starting to hurt.

I can't begin to grasp what kind of mechanism would assemble and 'project' that information to maintain the universe. But I think I need to get a book or start researching - I want to learn a bit more about it. Hard to understand what time would mean in this scenario.

It also makes my brain melt down to think of this in conjunction with the expanding cosmos of the Big Bang theory.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Oh man, and now it gets complicated hahaha!! I know very little about this theory, but I understand scientists theorize that if an object were to enter a black hole, as it becomes crushed down it would also somehow smear itself as a layer of information around the perimeter of the black hole (not sure how they could even surmise this) and from that info a duplicate of the object could be created. And from this they then postulated the holographic universe theory. Or at least that's something like what I heard on some science show, I might have it all screwed up.

I can't begin to grasp what kind of mechanism would assemble and 'project' that information to maintain the universe. But I think I need to get a book or start researching - I want to learn a bit more about it. Hard to understand what time would mean in this scenario.

If you haven't read it already, you might try The Hidden reality, by Brian Greene. Though you described the holographic universe very well, he does an excellent job describing it and other cool astrophysical stuff. He did the same for time & space in The Fabric of the Cosmos, And, if you're mathematically challenged like me, These books are most helpful.

Originally Posted by Xei

Again, you need to define your terms.

I don't really understand what one could refer to by 'dimension' other than things within your experience. If something has no consequences for your subjective experience, what does it mean to say that it's true, and how could you ever demonstrate it?

When I say 'I live somewhere 3 dimensional', I mean exactly that, in my experience, I need a minimum of three independent directions, if I am to be able to reach every other point I can see, by moving only in those directions. If there is any ambiguity about the terms they can be further defined. 'Living somewhere 3 dimensional' is an easily tested predicate which takes my experience as an argument. If the predicate always agrees with my experience, it is by definition impossible for it to be wrong.

I believe I know what you are saying, and I agree. What makes the 3D interpretation of reality that we see less "real" than a hologram or projection? Nothing. Who defines "real" besides us, as humans. I mean only to point out that these possibilities D

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes, you may be able to represent all of the information in my space with only a 1 dimensional object, but that does not have any bearing on my terms as I've defined them; it's a separate question.

[/quote]
I fully admit that I have opened a new question here.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Oh man, and now it gets complicated hahaha!! I know very little about this theory, but I understand scientists theorize that if an object were to enter a black hole, as it becomes crushed down it would also somehow smear itself as a layer of information around the perimeter of the black hole (not sure how they could even surmise this)

Because time becomes nonsensical, as I understand it, though I welcome criticism.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

and from that info a duplicate of the object could be created. And from this they then postulated the holographic universe theory. Or at least that's something like what I heard on some science show, I might have it all screwed up.

Fascinating but head starting to hurt.

I can't begin to grasp what kind of mechanism would assemble and 'project' that information to maintain the universe. But I think I need to get a book or start researching - I want to learn a bit more about it. Hard to understand what time would mean in this scenario.

It also makes my brain melt down to think of this in conjunction with the expanding cosmos of the Big Bang theory.

It's very much like imagining information stored on a disk. If you were to view that information as the totality of your experience, you may see a full 3D world (depending on the information held within). To help conceptualize, forget the idea that there are a bajillion atoms around you, and consider the idea that there is only one atom, and a bajillion different ways in which to view that atom. You are not at the center of your surroundings. You are surrounding them.
I am not stating any particular theory that I am willing to debate about, and it is not suggested in the mainstream holographic theories. It is only a thought experiment to help expand one's view.

Sure we could live in a hologram, or we could live in a sufficiently advanced computer simulation. But why would your assume that? And, perhaps more importantly, what difference would it make?

At this point I can't wrap my head around the concept enough to understand how time or anything else would be affected really. If I think of a computer showing a quicktime movie from info stored on its hard drive then that brings up the idea of pausing and chapter advancing - but since this would be a natural process I doubt it would include such options. As for what kind of mechanism might 'project' everything, the only thing drifting into my head right now is light passing through a prism or a water drop and projecting a spectrum. But I know that's a meaningless thought - I'm a complete noob with no understanding of the theory. After reading about it more thoroughly I might be able to comprehend it a bit better.

Originally Posted by khh

Sure we could live in a hologram, or we could live in a sufficiently advanced computer simulation. But why would your assume that? And, perhaps more importantly, what difference would it make?

I did not state that anyone should assume such a thing, or that I do.
To our perception, it would not change much, except to reiterate the idea that we don't truly know anything. Surely we shouldn't abandon our current understanding of the universe based on such a thing, after all, surely the model of reality and the universe that we have built has to describe SOMETHING about it. It must at least correlate in some way, and I don't believe that anyone could really say that one perspective of the universe is more REAL than another. However, I think we should not forget that anything is possible, and considering ideas LIKE the holographic universe paradigm helps to allow that.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

At this point I can't wrap my head around the concept enough to understand how time or anything else would be affected really. If I think of a computer showing a quicktime movie from info stored on its hard drive then that brings up the idea of pausing and chapter advancing - but since this would be a natural process I doubt it would include such options. As for what kind of mechanism might 'project' everything, the only thing drifting into my head right now is light passing through a prism or a water drop and projecting a spectrum. But I know that's a meaningless thought - I'm a complete noob with no understanding of the theory. After reading about it more thoroughly I might be able to comprehend it a bit better.

At the most basic level, the theory does not actually suggest that the universe is made of light, or anything that specific. I admit that I am no expert. I only studied a bit on it, to see if anyone else had considered the same idea that I did.
Though I admit that it is not an easy concept to visualize, I am not quite sure what aspect of it confuses you. You state that that which occurs on a computer is a natural process, and it would still be a natural process be in a holographic universe situation. If we lived life within your real player, we may not even notice when you pause our reality, because time doesn't flow for those periods.
The theory, as far as I'm concerned, is by nature very unspecific, as it is possible that we could never be able to measure the specifics of it, somewhat in the same way that we can never truly know what the universe would look like if our brains translated signal input in a completely different manner. If we tasted colors, heard imagery, and tasted sound, this would seem overwhelmingly confusing to you or I, but if we developed this way, as an infant, it is very possible that we would still be highly efficient, and would not consider that anything is "different" at all. We would perceive the universe in a completely different way, but it would still work for us, just the same.

No.. "Time or anything else" would not truly be AFFECTED in any way. Our perception of it would be different.

I'm going to TRY to do a conceptualization, but I really can't think of a good way to do this, so I can guarantee this is going to be bad.
Consider a video game; A very boring video game, in which about once per hour the computer prompts the user for a keystroke. Pressing the A button prints the letter A on his screen. Pressing the B button prints the letter B, and so on (It's like typing). Unbeknownst to the player, this video game is attached to a big tank that is driving around the city. When the user presses button A, the tank fires at position A. When the user presses button B, the tank fires at position B. At the same time, messages are sent back. If position A blows up, it sends response character A. If house B blows up, it sends response character B.
In one reality, there is a tank driving around destroying houses and killing people, but to the player, it seems like some sort of boring typing game. The player never knows the full reality of the situation, or that there even was one, and in fact, that full reality wouldn't make any difference. When the player presses A, A appears on the screen. That's all that matters. The fact that the tank is shooting at things because of this is irrelevant. Not only is it irrelevant, but in a manner of speaking, the player's reality is just as "REAL" as the tank driving around. The player could create entire novels this way.
If we wanted to take it one step even further, we could say that there is this town. In this town there are about a hundred iron mines. The laborers work all day mining iron from these mines. When a site runs out of iron on the surface, they have have to blast mine. For this, they use a big tank. About once per hour the mayor hits a button, and the tank, in response, shoots randomly at one of the 100 mines, which preps that mine, so that mining can continue.

Yeah, that example was just awful, but I've already typed it, and I'm not deleting it now.

Ok, I understand the scenario - it's not that bad really. But what you're explaining isn't the part that confuses me - what I'm wondering about are the actual physical aspects of it: how information can be stored smeared out across the surface of the universe - information in what form? And what type of mechanism would decode that information? I'm also confused about how scientists could have determined any of this. Was it all done mathematically, or based on some type of observations? (Scratch that last one - of course it can't be based on observations of the inside of a black hole or the periphery of the universe - we haven't been able to observe these things and probably never will)

And just as a quick post-script - after thinking about the conundrums of time as Sageous and I have been discussing it, I now completely agree with Xei and others who have said it just depends on your deifinition of reality. Our measurement of time is simply an extension of our measures of the space between coordinate points in the 3 dimensional imaginary grid we use to describe form mathematically (as well as the space between forms). Example - by knowing the distance between my house and the nearest fast food joint and knowing how fast I can expect to drive on the roads between here and there I can extrapolate the time it would take me to drive there. Both the distance and the time are stated in terms of completely arbitraty and imaginary abstractions we invented as measuring tools, but they both also refer to realities that we need to navigate in order to get from here to there effectively. How long it takes for a solid object to move from point A to point B is just as real as the force needed to move it - at least from our material-bound perspective, so effectively every bit as real as a fist to the face. My saying the difference between my viewpoint and Sageous' is semantic is the same as Xei's allegation that it all depends on how you define reality or existence. So I withdraw my assertion that time is definitely real - it's just a word that isn't properly defined and who's apparent meaning suggests things that it really shouldn't.

^^ Well post-scripted, and I agree! Now I have one:

I just had another thought regarding the non-existence of time that seems suddenly relevant (okay, it seemed suddenly relevant at 4 this morning):

Time doesn't exit; change exists.

Everything is ultimately bound to change (that change being things like position in space, atomic condition), and how we understand that change is by attaching time to our observation. Same goes for space, for similar reasons. Objects move, events happen, things decay .... and then we attach meaning to what we observed. That meaning is time & space; which I suppose would make time & space pretty real, to us.

This might all again be semantics and perspective, but I thought it important to mention -- mostly because I should have done so a half-dozen posts ago, and failed to. That's it; I got no more.