> On Dec 5, 3:01 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> Time is thought to exist whether we are conscious or not. That is,
>> time is supposed to exist by its own efforts. It pulls itself up by
>> its own bootstraps. Time for us is a thing in itself, it is as at the
>> very least as it seems to be. We have another thought: we think that
>> once time was kicked into play, time 'endured' absolutely and
>> accompanied all things. The existence of time seems beyond reasonable
>> doubt, indisputable. My position is that there is no species we call
>> time.

>

>> But I have a difficulty. I cannot describe time as something which is
>> 'not existing absolutely', without constructing out of this something
>> an object that takes the place of time, an 'it' that goes proxy for
>> time. This something or 'it' which arises from the expression 'time ...

>
> 1,2,3,4,5, etc is not an order but a memorable array.