Time does not exist.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, I am aware of what I am saying:

Okay, so then you need to explain why the fact that we directly observe or experience x is justification for not considering some F to be x.

For at least some Fs, their definition, or correlate, x, should be required to be something we do not directly observe or experience because . . . ?

[bahman]

Yes, I am aware of what I am saying:

Okay, so then you need to explain why the fact that we directly observe or experience x is justification for not considering some F to be x.

For at least some Fs, their definition, or correlate, x, should be required to be something we do not directly observe or experience because . . . ?

I don't understand. Could you please elaborate?

[Terrapin Station]

I asked you why we wouldn't simply consider time to be motion or processual change. In other words, I was asking you to give a reason or justification for not making that move, so to speak.

Your response was that we wouldnt simply consider time to be motion or processual change because we can directly observe or experience motion.

Well, why would being able to directly observe or experience motion be a good reason for not considering time to simply be motion or processual change? That suggests that time should be defined as something we can't directly observe or experience. Why should that be the case?

[bahman]

I asked you why we wouldn't simply consider time to be motion or processual change. In other words, I was asking you to give a reason or justification for not making that move, so to speak.

Your response was that we wouldn't simply consider time to be motion or processual change because we can directly observe or experience motion.

Well, why would being able to directly observe or experience motion be a good reason for not considering time to simply be motion or processual change? That suggests that time should be defined as something we can't directly observe or experience. Why should that be the case?

Because motion of something itself is an ambiguous thing since we need an observer in a given framework. The problem is that the framework can have any motion itself so the only meaningful measurement is relative motion. This is true because we don't have an absolute framework.

[Terrapin Station]

I asked you why we wouldn't simply consider time to be motion or processual change. In other words, I was asking you to give a reason or justification for not making that move, so to speak.

Your response was that we wouldn't simply consider time to be motion or processual change because we can directly observe or experience motion.

Well, why would being able to directly observe or experience motion be a good reason for not considering time to simply be motion or processual change? That suggests that time should be defined as something we can't directly observe or experience. Why should that be the case?

Because motion of something itself is an ambiguous thing since we need an observer in a given framework. The problem is that the framework can have any motion itself so the only meaningful measurement is relative motion. This is true because we don't have an absolute framework.

You write "because" as if what follows "because" has something to do with what you're quoting above it. What does "motion of something itself in an ambiguous thing" have to do with you giving "because we can directly observe or experience motion" as a response to why we wouldn't just consider motion to be what time is?

[Hobbes' Choice]

He means freeze in the Sydney Shoemaker sense.

See http://erraticwisdom.com/files/time_without_change.pdf

I was having a laff.

You need to use a smiley face with that stuff or something.

That would have given the game away!

But thanks for the link.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I asked you why we wouldn't simply consider time to be motion or processual change. In other words, I was asking you to give a reason or justification for not making that move, so to speak.

Your response was that we wouldn't simply consider time to be motion or processual change because we can directly observe or experience motion.

Well, why would being able to directly observe or experience motion be a good reason for not considering time to simply be motion or processual change? That suggests that time should be defined as something we can't directly observe or experience. Why should that be the case?

Because motion of something itself is an ambiguous thing since we need an observer in a given framework. The problem is that the framework can have any motion itself so the only meaningful measurement is relative motion. This is true because we don't have an absolute framework.

This is not relevant. Unless you are a solipsist you ought to accept that the entire universe is in motion regardless of anyone observing it.
Even yourself when standing still, even when sleeping you are in constant motion.
There is no 'freeze'.

[bahman]

I asked you why we wouldn't simply consider time to be motion or processual change. In other words, I was asking you to give a reason or justification for not making that move, so to speak.
Your response was that we wouldn't simply consider time to be motion or processual change because we can directly observe or experience motion.
Well, why would being able to directly observe or experience motion be a good reason for not considering time to simply be motion or processual change? That suggests that time should be defined as something we can't directly observe or experience. Why should that be the case?

Because motion of something itself is an ambiguous thing since we need an observer in a given framework. The problem is that the framework can have any motion itself so the only meaningful measurement is relative motion. This is true because we don't have an absolute framework.

You write "because" as if what follows "because" has something to do with what you're quoting above it. What does "motion of something itself in an ambiguous thing" have to do with you giving "because we can directly observe or experience motion" as a response to why we wouldn't just consider motion to be what time is?

I simply say we can only measure relative motions because we need an observer which is bounded to a framework.

[bahman]

This is not relevant. Unless you are a solipsist you ought to accept that the entire universe is in motion regardless of anyone observing it.
Even yourself when standing still, even when sleeping you are in constant motion.

This has noting to do with solipsist. I just mentioned that you need an observer in order to experience motion and that observer could have motion since only relative motion is meaningful thing.

There is no 'freeze'.

Assume that everything freezes. What would happen for time?

[ken]

No, space exists.

That is true. It was very difficult for me too to find out a line of reasoning to show that time does not exist. I don't think if I could do better than that since my argument is very simple and short.

It is also very difficult for me too to find a line of reasoning to show that space does not exist. I do not think if I could do better than that since my argument is very simple and short.

Would you, could you, accept that as a reasonable excuse for the reason as to why I can not yet get you also to see that space actually does not exist?

If not, then you are just the exact same as the "others". In that you continually want to believe in that what you already believe to be true.

You, and some others, have a problem of how do I find the way to get people, who continually want to believe that 'time' does exist, to understand what I am saying?

Other people have the same problem, (but different topic), of how do I find the way to get people, who continually want to believe that 'space' does exist, to understand what I am saying?

I, on the other hand, have the problem of how do I find the way to get ALL people, who continually want to believe that both 'time' and/or 'space' does exist, to understand what I am actually saying?

Could you please provide your argument on space?

As others have explained and like what they were saying; objects are only a "time" distance away. An actual object in its shape and form being observed, no matter how seemingly "close" or "far away" it is, actually does not exist anymore in that shape and form. That observed object appearing the way it is could not be a distance away spatially because it does not exist anymore. The observed appearance was suggested as being only a distance away temporally. Sadly the best one to better explain this has passed away. However, there was a problem with the way this person was trying to explain this. Leo was trying to explain a universe without 3 dimensional space, the problem was, 'How does a person with a 3 dimension body explain a space less non 3 dimensional Universe? I was trying to help leo explain his idea, but he was not interested in further discovery of the self. The Self, i think, is what is needed to be discovered first in order to learn how to fully see, understand and explain the rest. Leo just insisted that a human body was the self and that it did not matter anyway. I wanted to and was trying to show how to find a deeper truer Self, in order to then be able to properly explain his idea that 'space', itself, does not exist. The idea that 'time', itself, also does not exist, but he was not readily willing to look at this latter prospect.

The Universe works, at Its most basic fundamental level, with only two things, i.e., physical objects and a non-physicality. (The non-physical between objects is sometimes referred to as "space".) All physical objects are in a constant state of motion, which I call constant-change. It is the 'space', around and between all physical objects, from the smallest sub-atomic particles/objects up to the largest stars/planet/objects, that is what allows ALL physical objects to move about always, and freely in all ways.

Now, just like "time" does not exist, as you are already well aware of, in the context that it was generally accepted, this context is slowly decreasing so it is not as generally accepted now, the idea that "space" also does not exist, in the context that is generally accepted now, this context will also slowly decrease, until what is true, right, and corrected is seen for what it really is. But I digress, to Me, space and time both work in the same way in that they are just a usable frame of reference so that human beings know what i't' is that 'it' is being talked about when describing 'distances'. "Space" and "time", in of their own rights, do not exist. They are just references to the distance between objects and events.

All objects are a 'distance' apart from each other, and, all objects are in motion relative to at least one other thing. With every motion, of the constantly-changing in shape and form of all objects, a new event occurs.

The distance from one 'event to another' is measured in what is called "time". 'Time' just being the term we use to describe the distance between events. A 'clock or calendar' being just some of the tools human beings have invented and created to measure the distance between events. Human beings measure the distance between these events in devised and agreed upon increments, which some have labelled and call planks, seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, and light years, etc.

'Time', the measured distance between events, is just based on or set to light, itself. That 'light' comes from a sun. For example human beings, it could be said, change the "time", by readjusting their clocks. They do this to suit the light that comes from the sun. Human beings adjust the "time", on a clock for example, to suit the motion of earth relative to the sun, in lets say a few years or so they may have to change their clocks by a second or so. Human beings regularly change the "time" to fit in with and to suit the earth's rotation of the sun, or more precisely the speed of light. They certainly do not change the speed of light nor the earth's rotation of the sun to suit their clocks. So, "time", itself, does not exist, in the context that it is/was generally accepted to mean.

"Space", also, does not exist.
The distance from one 'object to another' is measured in what is called "space". 'Space' just being the term we use to describe the distance between (physical) objects. A 'ruler or speedometer' being just some of the tools human beings have invented and created to measure the distance between these objects. Human beings measure the distance between these objects in devised and agreed upon increments, which some have labelled and call inches, feet, yard, miles, centimeters, meters, kilometers, light years, etc.

Whereas "time" is set in accordance with light.

'Space', the measured distance between objects, is just based on or set to length, itself. That 'length' comes from any thing. For example, if feet were of a different length, then a 'foot' would most likely be a different length now. Although human beings, it could be said, could change the "space" by readjusting the increments on the tools they use to measure. They do not necessarily have to keep changing "space" like they have to with "time". Human beings have already agreed upon and accepted a set of lengths, which could have come from any thing, for example the distance between finger tip and elbow, which they now do not change now. Human beings have already adjusted the "space", the increments on a ruler for example, to suit what has become an agreed upon value. Although objects are allegedly moving away from each other, human beings do not change "space" to suit in with any other thing. Although this may be harder to argue for, "space", itself, like "time" does not exist. Both "time" and "space" are just terms used for reference when measuring.

Obvious leo's writings would probably explain non-existence space better. He was the first person I have seen to come up with this idea.

To be able to see and understand better how both "space" and "time" do not exist, i think, this needs to be looked at from the Observer's perspective, the One from within a body. Just like the observed star/planet object that is very far away, in "space/time" distance, from the body, which an Observer is within, it is obvious, after learning it that is, that that star/planet is not the exact same as it is appearing to the Observer NOW, at that exact same moment of NOW. Obviously that star/planet has completely changed. It could have, in fact, exploded and be completely obliterated. This phenomena also happens with objects much closer, to the Observers body, for example a tree or a house or a human body or any other physical thing. The exact same phenomena happens in the exact same way. Depending on how far away an object is and thus the event has also occurred, from the furthest galaxy objects billions of light years away down to say the eye ball object planck lengths away, will mean how much change has actually happened from what is observed and appearing to be happening.

What appears to be happening has actually already happened. But, where did it happen, and where did it go to? And, when did it happen, and where did that go to? The minute changes that are occurring constantly may not be noticed in the objects planck lengths or millions of millimeters away from the observer may not be noticeable but absolutely every thing is in a state of constant-change.

Every thing that happens, occurs right HERE and right NOW. The One True Observer, at the center, sees and understands It ALL.

The likes of stephen hawking and such are slowly starting to realize this also. They are now making documentaries concluding that the center of the Universe is right "under our noses", as they say, although this is NOT entirely true nor truly correct, at least they are somewhat getting closer to seeing and understanding the Truth.

[bahman]

It is also very difficult for me too to find a line of reasoning to show that space does not exist. I do not think if I could do better than that since my argument is very simple and short.

Would you, could you, accept that as a reasonable excuse for the reason as to why I can not yet get you also to see that space actually does not exist?

If not, then you are just the exact same as the "others". In that you continually want to believe in that what you already believe to be true.

You, and some others, have a problem of how do I find the way to get people, who continually want to believe that 'time' does exist, to understand what I am saying?

Other people have the same problem, (but different topic), of how do I find the way to get people, who continually want to believe that 'space' does exist, to understand what I am saying?

I, on the other hand, have the problem of how do I find the way to get ALL people, who continually want to believe that both 'time' and/or 'space' does exist, to understand what I am actually saying?

Could you please provide your argument on space?

As others have explained and like what they were saying; objects are only a "time" distance away. An actual object in its shape and form being observed, no matter how seemingly "close" or "far away" it is, actually does not exist anymore in that shape and form. That observed object appearing the way it is could not be a distance away spatially because it does not exist anymore. The observed appearance was suggested as being only a distance away temporally. Sadly the best one to better explain this has passed away. However, there was a problem with the way this person was trying to explain this. Leo was trying to explain a universe without 3 dimensional space, the problem was, 'How does a person with a 3 dimension body explain a space less non 3 dimensional Universe? I was trying to help leo explain his idea, but he was not interested in further discovery of the self. The Self, i think, is what is needed to be discovered first in order to learn how to fully see, understand and explain the rest. Leo just insisted that a human body was the self and that it did not matter anyway. I wanted to and was trying to show how to find a deeper truer Self, in order to then be able to properly explain his idea that 'space', itself, does not exist. The idea that 'time', itself, also does not exist, but he was not readily willing to look at this latter prospect.

The Universe works, at Its most basic fundamental level, with only two things, i.e., physical objects and a non-physicality. (The non-physical between objects is sometimes referred to as "space".) All physical objects are in a constant state of motion, which I call constant-change. It is the 'space', around and between all physical objects, from the smallest sub-atomic particles/objects up to the largest stars/planet/objects, that is what allows ALL physical objects to move about always, and freely in all ways.

Now, just like "time" does not exist, as you are already well aware of, in the context that it was generally accepted, this context is slowly decreasing so it is not as generally accepted now, the idea that "space" also does not exist, in the context that is generally accepted now, this context will also slowly decrease, until what is true, right, and corrected is seen for what it really is. But I digress, to Me, space and time both work in the same way in that they are just a usable frame of reference so that human beings know what i't' is that 'it' is being talked about when describing 'distances'. "Space" and "time", in of their own rights, do not exist. They are just references to the distance between objects and events.

All objects are a 'distance' apart from each other, and, all objects are in motion relative to at least one other thing. With every motion, of the constantly-changing in shape and form of all objects, a new event occurs.

The distance from one 'event to another' is measured in what is called "time". 'Time' just being the term we use to describe the distance between events. A 'clock or calendar' being just some of the tools human beings have invented and created to measure the distance between events. Human beings measure the distance between these events in devised and agreed upon increments, which some have labelled and call planks, seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, and light years, etc.

'Time', the measured distance between events, is just based on or set to light, itself. That 'light' comes from a sun. For example human beings, it could be said, change the "time", by readjusting their clocks. They do this to suit the light that comes from the sun. Human beings adjust the "time", on a clock for example, to suit the motion of earth relative to the sun, in lets say a few years or so they may have to change their clocks by a second or so. Human beings regularly change the "time" to fit in with and to suit the earth's rotation of the sun, or more precisely the speed of light. They certainly do not change the speed of light nor the earth's rotation of the sun to suit their clocks. So, "time", itself, does not exist, in the context that it is/was generally accepted to mean.

"Space", also, does not exist.
The distance from one 'object to another' is measured in what is called "space". 'Space' just being the term we use to describe the distance between (physical) objects. A 'ruler or speedometer' being just some of the tools human beings have invented and created to measure the distance between these objects. Human beings measure the distance between these objects in devised and agreed upon increments, which some have labelled and call inches, feet, yard, miles, centimeters, meters, kilometers, light years, etc.

Whereas "time" is set in accordance with light.

'Space', the measured distance between objects, is just based on or set to length, itself. That 'length' comes from any thing. For example, if feet were of a different length, then a 'foot' would most likely be a different length now. Although human beings, it could be said, could change the "space" by readjusting the increments on the tools they use to measure. They do not necessarily have to keep changing "space" like they have to with "time". Human beings have already agreed upon and accepted a set of lengths, which could have come from any thing, for example the distance between finger tip and elbow, which they now do not change now. Human beings have already adjusted the "space", the increments on a ruler for example, to suit what has become an agreed upon value. Although objects are allegedly moving away from each other, human beings do not change "space" to suit in with any other thing. Although this may be harder to argue for, "space", itself, like "time" does not exist. Both "time" and "space" are just terms used for reference when measuring.

Obvious leo's writings would probably explain non-existence space better. He was the first person I have seen to come up with this idea.

To be able to see and understand better how both "space" and "time" do not exist, i think, this needs to be looked at from the Observer's perspective, the One from within a body. Just like the observed star/planet object that is very far away, in "space/time" distance, from the body, which an Observer is within, it is obvious, after learning it that is, that that star/planet is not the exact same as it is appearing to the Observer NOW, at that exact same moment of NOW. Obviously that star/planet has completely changed. It could have, in fact, exploded and be completely obliterated. This phenomena also happens with objects much closer, to the Observers body, for example a tree or a house or a human body or any other physical thing. The exact same phenomena happens in the exact same way. Depending on how far away an object is and thus the event has also occurred, from the furthest galaxy objects billions of light years away down to say the eye ball object planck lengths away, will mean how much change has actually happened from what is observed and appearing to be happening.

What appears to be happening has actually already happened. But, where did it happen, and where did it go to? And, when did it happen, and where did that go to? The minute changes that are occurring constantly may not be noticed in the objects planck lengths or millions of millimeters away from the observer may not be noticeable but absolutely every thing is in a state of constant-change.

Every thing that happens, occurs right HERE and right NOW. The One True Observer, at the center, sees and understands It ALL.

The likes of stephen hawking and such are slowly starting to realize this also. They are now making documentaries concluding that the center of the Universe is right "under our noses", as they say, although this is NOT entirely true nor truly correct, at least they are somewhat getting closer to seeing and understanding the Truth.

I think I understand with what you said but I have to say that I disagree with it. You need to imagine a situation that no object exist in universe. Does space still exist? Of course yes. How about time? Of course it doesn't.

[ken]

Could you please provide your argument on space?

As others have explained and like what they were saying; objects are only a "time" distance away. An actual object in its shape and form being observed, no matter how seemingly "close" or "far away" it is, actually does not exist anymore in that shape and form. That observed object appearing the way it is could not be a distance away spatially because it does not exist anymore. The observed appearance was suggested as being only a distance away temporally. Sadly the best one to better explain this has passed away. However, there was a problem with the way this person was trying to explain this. Leo was trying to explain a universe without 3 dimensional space, the problem was, 'How does a person with a 3 dimension body explain a space less non 3 dimensional Universe? I was trying to help leo explain his idea, but he was not interested in further discovery of the self. The Self, i think, is what is needed to be discovered first in order to learn how to fully see, understand and explain the rest. Leo just insisted that a human body was the self and that it did not matter anyway. I wanted to and was trying to show how to find a deeper truer Self, in order to then be able to properly explain his idea that 'space', itself, does not exist. The idea that 'time', itself, also does not exist, but he was not readily willing to look at this latter prospect.

The Universe works, at Its most basic fundamental level, with only two things, i.e., physical objects and a non-physicality. (The non-physical between objects is sometimes referred to as "space".) All physical objects are in a constant state of motion, which I call constant-change. It is the 'space', around and between all physical objects, from the smallest sub-atomic particles/objects up to the largest stars/planet/objects, that is what allows ALL physical objects to move about always, and freely in all ways.

Now, just like "time" does not exist, as you are already well aware of, in the context that it was generally accepted, this context is slowly decreasing so it is not as generally accepted now, the idea that "space" also does not exist, in the context that is generally accepted now, this context will also slowly decrease, until what is true, right, and corrected is seen for what it really is. But I digress, to Me, space and time both work in the same way in that they are just a usable frame of reference so that human beings know what i't' is that 'it' is being talked about when describing 'distances'. "Space" and "time", in of their own rights, do not exist. They are just references to the distance between objects and events.

All objects are a 'distance' apart from each other, and, all objects are in motion relative to at least one other thing. With every motion, of the constantly-changing in shape and form of all objects, a new event occurs.

The distance from one 'event to another' is measured in what is called "time". 'Time' just being the term we use to describe the distance between events. A 'clock or calendar' being just some of the tools human beings have invented and created to measure the distance between events. Human beings measure the distance between these events in devised and agreed upon increments, which some have labelled and call planks, seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, and light years, etc.

'Time', the measured distance between events, is just based on or set to light, itself. That 'light' comes from a sun. For example human beings, it could be said, change the "time", by readjusting their clocks. They do this to suit the light that comes from the sun. Human beings adjust the "time", on a clock for example, to suit the motion of earth relative to the sun, in lets say a few years or so they may have to change their clocks by a second or so. Human beings regularly change the "time" to fit in with and to suit the earth's rotation of the sun, or more precisely the speed of light. They certainly do not change the speed of light nor the earth's rotation of the sun to suit their clocks. So, "time", itself, does not exist, in the context that it is/was generally accepted to mean.

"Space", also, does not exist.
The distance from one 'object to another' is measured in what is called "space". 'Space' just being the term we use to describe the distance between (physical) objects. A 'ruler or speedometer' being just some of the tools human beings have invented and created to measure the distance between these objects. Human beings measure the distance between these objects in devised and agreed upon increments, which some have labelled and call inches, feet, yard, miles, centimeters, meters, kilometers, light years, etc.

Whereas "time" is set in accordance with light.

'Space', the measured distance between objects, is just based on or set to length, itself. That 'length' comes from any thing. For example, if feet were of a different length, then a 'foot' would most likely be a different length now. Although human beings, it could be said, could change the "space" by readjusting the increments on the tools they use to measure. They do not necessarily have to keep changing "space" like they have to with "time". Human beings have already agreed upon and accepted a set of lengths, which could have come from any thing, for example the distance between finger tip and elbow, which they now do not change now. Human beings have already adjusted the "space", the increments on a ruler for example, to suit what has become an agreed upon value. Although objects are allegedly moving away from each other, human beings do not change "space" to suit in with any other thing. Although this may be harder to argue for, "space", itself, like "time" does not exist. Both "time" and "space" are just terms used for reference when measuring.

Obvious leo's writings would probably explain non-existence space better. He was the first person I have seen to come up with this idea.

To be able to see and understand better how both "space" and "time" do not exist, i think, this needs to be looked at from the Observer's perspective, the One from within a body. Just like the observed star/planet object that is very far away, in "space/time" distance, from the body, which an Observer is within, it is obvious, after learning it that is, that that star/planet is not the exact same as it is appearing to the Observer NOW, at that exact same moment of NOW. Obviously that star/planet has completely changed. It could have, in fact, exploded and be completely obliterated. This phenomena also happens with objects much closer, to the Observers body, for example a tree or a house or a human body or any other physical thing. The exact same phenomena happens in the exact same way. Depending on how far away an object is and thus the event has also occurred, from the furthest galaxy objects billions of light years away down to say the eye ball object planck lengths away, will mean how much change has actually happened from what is observed and appearing to be happening.

What appears to be happening has actually already happened. But, where did it happen, and where did it go to? And, when did it happen, and where did that go to? The minute changes that are occurring constantly may not be noticed in the objects planck lengths or millions of millimeters away from the observer may not be noticeable but absolutely every thing is in a state of constant-change.

Every thing that happens, occurs right HERE and right NOW. The One True Observer, at the center, sees and understands It ALL.

The likes of stephen hawking and such are slowly starting to realize this also. They are now making documentaries concluding that the center of the Universe is right "under our noses", as they say, although this is NOT entirely true nor truly correct, at least they are somewhat getting closer to seeing and understanding the Truth.

I think I understand with what you said but I have to say that I disagree with it.

What part, exactly, do you disagree with?

You need to imagine a situation that no object exist in universe. Does space still exist? Of course yes. How about time? Of course it doesn't.

Do not think that I have not imagined that situation before.

If no object existed in the Universe, then there would be just "space", as the way you are implying that word to mean now, right?

If that is what you are implying now by the use of the word "space", then I think you do not understand what I said previously.

Depending on how people want to define and use the words 'time' and 'space' will influence if, and how, they can see if those things exist or not. You are defining and using the word "space" in a way that does not allow you see and understand that "space" does not exist. Do you ever question yourself as to why some/most people do not understand you when you say 'time does not exist'?

If there is no object, just space in the way you want to use that word now, and you want for Me to imagine that, then just space is an absolutely useless and pointless point to try to make her, for two reasons:
1. there would be no consciousness nor awareness of the fact that there was just space. An object, i.e., a human brain, is needed to see this
2. there would be no thing to reference just space with. That means there would be absolutely nothing to measure space against.

So, if you can not measure some thing, i.e., space against some thing else, i.e., physical objects, then how do you know it does and/or could exist? Also, if you can not measure some thing, i.e., space with some thing, i.e., a human brain, then how do you know that it does and/or could exist?

Of course space can and does exist, in the way you are trying to describe "space" here, bu how you are defining and using the word space actually defines if it exists or not. I can also argue that time also exists if I define and use the word "time" in another way than how you define and use the word "time" here.

If, as you say, you think you understand with what I said, then why can you not understand, that if you use the term or word "space" to be the reference tool by which to measure the distance between objects, just like you are using the term or word "time" to be the reference tool by which to measure the distance between events, then this is the exact same way to explain that both "time" and "space", in of themselves, do not exist?

If time does not exist in a Universe with moving/changing objects that cause events and a distance between those events, then of course time would not exist in a universe with no objects. Just like, if space does not exist in a Universe with moving/changing objects and a distance between those objects, then of course space would not exist in a universe with no objects. There would just be an eternal distance.

Try and imagine explaining that with a Universe with changing/moving objects that time does not exist, what would you call that passing of events "thing", which most people generally refer to as time?

Now,

Try and imagine explaining that within a Universe with changing/moving objects that space does not exist, what would you call that empty of all physicality "thing", in between all objects, which most people generally refer to as time?

[Terrapin Station]

I simply say we can only measure relative motions because we need an observer which is bounded to a framework.

We're having a scope issue in this tangent. So let's just scratch it for a minute. I'll ask again:

Why wouldn't we simply say that time is (relative) motion/processual change?

In other words, let's assume that from this point forward, we could simply decide to say that that's what "time" is going to refer to. We can either do that or not. I say "Let's do it." You say, "No, I don't like that proposal" maybe. If you don't like it, why not? What is your objection to it?

[Terrapin Station]

You need to imagine a situation that no object exist in universe. Does space still exist? Of course yes.

I would say "No" rather.

[Prisoner of Love]

I agree that we have no evidence of any separate entity called "time" existing. We observe motion and change and as far as I can see, our conception of time is derived from these. I'm not an expert in physics but the way I understand it, we have no reason to assume such a separate entity for physical theories such as quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity to work. Even in the twin paradox the difference in aging is caused by the relative state of motion, not by "time". It seems to me that the steadfast holding on to the concept of time is mostly based on the fact that it plays a part in physical theories and physicists are not as inclined or trained to ask whether anything real actually corresponds to that concept as philosophers are.

This difference is the reason for the misunderstandings and certain amount of antipathy between philosophers and physicists (physicists often think that philosophers ask meaningless questions and philosophers see physicists as shallow). Physicists tend to have a more instrumentalist attitude so that if a concept is a crucial part of a succesful physical theory, then it might as well exist objectively and further questioning is meaningless. I agree with the philosophers who think that this is a superficial point of view. The fact that a particular concept (such as time) is a part of a succesful physical theory does not necessarily mean it has an independent existence. Perhaps it could be reduced to something more basic (such as time to motion).

Basically the viewpoint that time only exists as a manifestation of motion agrees with presentism - the idea that only the present is real. Past and future do not exist at all. I'm not sure if this theory is right but it is my honest opinion that there really is no good reason to assume that time exists as a separate entity so that it cannot be reduced to motion of some kind. And for anyone who doubts this conclusion, I propose a test: try to come up with an example of time passing without referencing motion in any way. I've tried this and I failed. Can you do it?