Jackie:
If something exists, it is. And if something is, then there has to be a time in which it exists, no matter how brief.
My whole point is that, if something exists, it
is.
My hypothesis is something that comes into existence and ceases to exist at exactly the same point. The very fact that one can postulate the fact that it comes into being, and them ceases to be is a clear statement of its existence.
But time isn't part of my hypothesis! I see no reason why time has to be part of it. If so, how long does something have to exist in order for it to be said to have existed? The very fact that this question is, in practical terms, unanswerable* is part of the reason why I am prepared to accept the possibility that time does not realy exist.
(*name any amount of time, and you can always halve it!)
There has to be a possibility that the "big bang" which started "time"
(as per tsuwm) and that which ends "time" are an example of exactly the phenomenon that I have postulated.
In which case, "time" is, indeed,© a convention of ours, invented, as Prof. Chronotis stated, to stop everything from seeming to happen at the same time!
