ideas or to explore in detail even if they do. I did said my idea was self-interested: I perceive an issue that I can illustrate with a specific example. For me, the answer to one (relatively) small question would significantly further my understanding and there may be others in the same position. I accept that other others have may different objectives. The jury's choice caused me to read Barbour's essay. I appreciate this and I also appreciate that the merely religious essays were not awarded. Barbour might be correct in that time is not a primary quantity. McGucken made me aware of Minkowski's ict. I see the usual notion of time an abstraction from measurable i.e. past time which on its turn is a cumulative measure that structures events being primary to it. However, I cannot see any practical use of any denial of time and in particular the non-reality of future. Possibly, the essay "The Nature of Time" from Julian Barbour is the best among all essays presented on contest, but in this essay are many points for criticism. The main problem of essay is an absence of author's concepts and postulates. The author considers only a mechanical motion. Yes, the ideal inertial motion and ideal mechanical clock in the nature are absent, but it speaks about time very little - much less, than it is told by the author. Besides, the mechanical motion it only "vertex of iceberg". The change of state of material system, which associates with