>>11328450Would anyone here agree that time and memory are inextricable from eachother? Isn't "the past" only known to us through memory, and in such a way that one cannot argue that these are separate entities? 10 seconds ago, when you started reading this post, is only known to you through your memory of it - but you'd also consider that same memory to be an objective fragment of an edifice you title as "time".
Now I know that our "recollection" of events is not guaranteed to be accurate and to have a degree of subjectivity unlike the objectivity that necessarily characterizes time (i.e misremembering the past does not alter the actual past which occurred), but I still have difficulty imagining time itself as wholly separate from memory.
If true, then it's not exactly accurate to view yourself as being "in time", but rather that time is also in large part "inside of you". The recollectable past is, anyway.
(I'm also not suggesting that time didn't exist prior to human existence, but more of a kind of panpsychist idea of a universal consciousness which has a dimension of memory embedded in itself, and this memory being inextricable from time whether it's for human beings or any other species of the universe.)
TL:DR - I don't think we can understand what time is without also understanding what memory is, since both may be labels given to a singular edifice.
