>>11122186>>11122210We end up with this sort of erroneous conventional thinking a lot- we say things like "An object has mass. The mass determines its inertia."
In truth mass is the abstract concept. Different values of an object show proportionality between them such as inertia and the objects strength of interaction with gravitational field. We use this proportionality to define an abstract value of mass.
It's the same with "time." In truth there's only causality, a sequence of cause and effect, which remains unchanged between observers, but we play on to the classical conventional thinking that time comes first, cause and effect comes second. But we've long since observed scientifically that it is not so. In fact, even one-directional flow of causality (the cause precedes the event) is only commonly true (ie. the classical macroscopic) but not always true as causality sometimes seems to act in the other direction (the event may precede the cause) on other scales of (ie. the quantum).
So when you discard your monkey brain assumptions,
like that a certain rate of heat loss from skin means you're wet,
like that the world has to be flat for you to sit on it like your cup sits on the table,
like that objects will only continue to move if you push on because on earth so often inertia is masked by gravity and friction,
like that time is an independent immutable property instead of a tool limited by the causality within clocks to mark the moment,
and finally like that all causality itself must be limited to one-direction of flow
you can settle the silly monkey brain thought that there needs to be a creator for the creator.
For 'time' doesn't exist beyond the abstract, you could say that our largely commonly aligned flow of causality started with the big-bang, which itself could be an event that precedes its cause within our flow of causality.
