>>13561137>a digital renderNeat. Now where is the proof?
>Doesn't follow.Time has no ontology. It isn't something to be compared. Those who claim *it exists* can do wonders by proving it, as I cannot prove the non existence of something (for there is no proof for me to derive from said non existence thing).
>If I measure the distance between you and me does the distance not exist? Like I said, "a measurement". That doesn't tell me what's actually there, it quantifies it. You're saying a quantity exists and you cannot tell me "of what".
>Then why are we not touching?Describing the distance as a measurement will NEVER answer that question. Because measurements aren't real, what's measured is.
