Mike Strand wrote: The physicist Julian Barbour wrote a book called "The End of Time", in which he claims the universe is a collection of "Nows", and he deals with fundamental physics without the time parameter.
http://www.platonia.com/
Thanks Mike, I did take a look. As you report, it's not an easy read for those of us without a physics background. Still, it's interesting to know that physicists are contemplating these issues. If you are able to provide a summary in your own words, I would read with interest.
As a science layman, I am forced to approach the subject from other more accessible (to me) angles.
Two writers on this topic I could suggest to you are...
Jiddu Krishnamurti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti
Eckhart_Tolle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle
Both writers make essentially the same points, each in their own language. Krishnamurti is (was) more formal, and probably better suited to members here. Tolle expresses the same insights in more modern, accessible and new age flavored manner. Probably not that appealing for most members here.
However, Tolle has the best book title. His chief work is called The Power Of Now, which gets right to the point.
To make the attempt in my own choice of words...
Philosophy seems based on the pursuit of what we might call "The Power Of Reality". The basic premise seems to be that the more in touch with reality we are, the better off we'll be. Reason is the chosen tool for accessing reality.
Such a perspective would seem to posit that one test for how connected to reality we are is the degree to which we're thriving. Modern civilization is often used as evidence of the benefits that can arise from contact with reality.
We can test this contact with reality principle personally and directly, without need of experts, and be our own scientists, in a real world experiment. Like any other skill this takes a bit of practice, but basically anybody can run the experiment if they are interested enough.
If we focus our intelligence and power of observation on the present moment, and leave it there, an experience that can generally be described as "healthy well being" tends to arise. I'm proposing that this "thriving" is evidence of contact with reality.
Reality happens only now. Thus direct contact with now is direct contact with reality. Direct contact means, experience of, not standing back at a distance and thinking about.
Past and future are seen as a form of fantasy, in the very same way atheists claim gods are a form of fantasy, because there is no hard evidence of existence. Past and future are to reality what the word "apple" is to a real apple. Past and future are concepts ABOUT reality, not reality itself.
If any of this makes sense, then we might arrive at an interesting philosophic perspective. That is, a meeting place of sorts between theism and atheism.
Theism posits there is some kind of huge intelligence which contains everything we need. Everything we need is a compelling issue, so we go chasing this intelligence.
Atheism posits there is no evidence of such an intelligence, and so we should focus on direct observation of reality instead.
What if direct observation of reality contains everything we need? The fundamental goals of theism are met, by the process suggested by atheists.
However, a crucial requirement, the needs are met not by ideas about reality, but only by direct contact with reality. The analogy is that our hunger is never satisfied by the word apple, only by the real apple.
One can think about reality in a romantic personal kind of way, or in a mechanical kind of way, and that's just a matter of personal preference that doesn't really matter.
What matters is whether our perspective leads us to direct contact with reality. However we approach it, do we take a bite out of the apple, or do we stand back at a distance reading about apples?
Is reality God? Is God reality?
If we're getting what we need, who the hell cares?
If we're getting what we really want, there is no need for theism, atheism, or even science, beyond the mundane task of meeting our physical needs.
Do we think about theism, atheism or philosophy while we are in the middle of wild sex? Nope, there is no need.
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "universal clock". Einstein's theory of relativity makes any such notion meaningless, since time can only be measured locally. Because light from distant galaxies has travelled for a long time, it shows us how the universe looked a long time ago. That in itself can not be used as a clock. It's more like looking into a history book.