Thanks, Musick, for the public post. I'll respond in kind.

Musick writes that the value of this reflection is stronger, requires more concentration, communicates more intensely....

Maybe this is why it is so difficult to actually discuss. I'm also a devil's advocate who learns more fleshing out arguments by taking opposing views. One could doubt the existence of time because there isn't any empirical proof that it exists. Yes, what we measure as time is tied to the order of celestial bodies, but nature knows no time, really. Think of Heracleitus' idea of the omnipresence of change. Doesn't that only exist in our minds? Isn't it our memory alone that preserves the past and nothing physical?

Once upon a time I had a point worth making...