Time is just a concept, and cannot exist by itself.

"That's actually untrue. If we cease the motion of one thing, it would essentially "blink out of existence" (as we perceive it) since mass is kept together by the constant sub-atomic vibration, and since we would have no way of perceiving it. However, it does not mean that it won't still exist. Something at absolute zero would simply be a form of matter we cannot detect or raw energy, one of the two." -Let's examine the actual idea of stopping all motion. That in itself is a physical impossibility: even at absolute zero (which getting to in the first place is not possible per the Laws of Thermodynamics), not ALL motion stops. Quantum mechanical motion is still retained. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Even if some heretofore unforeseen event did by chance happen to cause the temperature of the universe to instantly and completely drop to absolute zero, there would be no restoration of any motion as entropy is at 0 - the universe is in a state of equilibrium - and there is no energy transference to be found to "ignite" a recovery from this state, even if this state could be reached, which it can't. Stopping motion is out of the question to begin with, except as a theoretical brainteaser of sorts. "I am talking about motion stopping in the *entire* universe at once. In that case, when motion regains, the bonds will reform precisely as they were before (since the electrons would be in the same position) and nothing would interact in that instance because motion was stopped universally. Mass and space would still exist and would be the same way they were before." -Although this possibility has been ruled out, as I see no other way of even approaching zero motion except by the rapid drop of temperature to absolute zero: *if* it did happen, I argue that the bonds of matter would not form back in the same way as they previously existed because all matter would crystallize instantaneously on their way to absolute zero, which reduced entropy to zero. After matter were crystallized, if motion were to begin again out of the blue (which it wouldn't), entropy could only increase from that point onward, again due to the Laws of Thermodynamics, meaning that nothing would be the same as it were before the drop to 0 K. Throughout this whole *theoretical* process, which we have no reason to expect, and less than that to recover from, the properties of space and time would remain unaffected. In Round 2 your question was, "If all motion in the universe ceased, then began again, would we be able to tell how much time passed?" You answered in the negative and added, "Anything we use to tell time operates exclusively with space and mass and completely relies on comparison to other things. If all motion were to stop... then there would be no objective measure of time." You were correct in that that would be no objective *measure* of time (there would be no measure of anything, really), but that is the point: just because we are not there to measure time does not mean that time itself would not, or does not, exist, thus the relevance of my analogy about the tree in the woods. "Why separate it into 3? All objects that exist exist in space. The relationship that an object has to its surrounding is arbitrary and artificial." -The relationship is perhaps arbitrary, but not artificial: the relationship exists, unless you deny the existence of space as well, which you do not do. "I don't disagree with you there. However, the fact that we sense time internally is what makes me suspicious. Space and matter are sensed externally, and as a matter of fact, so is motion because motion operates only with mass. Times is the only one of these "fundamental realities" that we cannot interact with externally. " -Motion does not operate only with mass - by definition motion involves time and space: motion (countable and uncountable; plural motions) (uncountable) A state of progression from one place to another. (countable) A change of position with respect to time. (physics) A change from one place to another. (Wiktionary) That "time is the only one of these "fundamental realities" that we cannot interact with externally" does not automatically invalidate its existence. Space and time have different properties, and our ability to interact with them differs, that's all. "... Hence, there is nothing to validate the existence of time if only these single celled organisms exist on earth. Only mass and space." -By the same token, there is nothing to invalidate the existence of time if only single-celled organisms existed on earth. "In that case, I need only ask what this physical necessity is." -The physical necessity is that *time* is required, right along with space, for either *change* or *motion* to have any meaning; whether we humans had named time "time" or not, the process of becoming that takes place in every instance of existence would happen anyway, and these are the most fundamental parts in the framework of reality itself. I have shown at the very least that time can exist by itself, invalidating that it cannot. It is also more than a mere concept, I argue, but a part of the framework of reality itself, existing with or without - completely independent of and indifferent to - the experience of any being, human or otherwise.