>>110981981. The change in the state of a system is empirical confirmation for the existence of time.
2. The system has changed.
3. Therefore time exists.
There are several problems with this argument.
For example, it implies that it is possible for the state of a system to remain unchanged, which has never been observed. The argument wholly relies on that notion that change is only possible with the existence of time, but since no such motionless systems exist, and even if they did, measuring them would necessarily change that system, it is impossible to falsify that notion. It is impossible to define time without context to motion, so how can it be distinct from motion such that motion relies on the existence of time? If time is a force, then it doesn't exist. It is merely the action of that which does exist.
If time exists, what are its properties?
The argument is tautological because the premise requires that the conclusion is true in all cases. An instance in which the timestamp didn't change does not exist. It literally can not be contradicted.
Define time such that it exists, if you dare.
