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

"the conclusion would be that "In essence, when all motion or change stops, *existence* effectively stops, because there is nothing that exists that is not constantly in motion, and it is physically inconceivable that this should happen." If ALL motion did cease, life would automatically be blanked out instantly, but it is simply a fact that atomic and sub-atomic particles do not cease motion. So if the cessation of motion is ruled out by physical law, this argument becomes invalid (although theoretically very interesting.) In our universe, nothing cannot not be in constant motion and still "be" in any recognizable sense." 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. It would then exist in a different way when motion is restored because other things move and affect it while it is in its stationary state. HOWEVER 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. "Throw perception out the door completely: all objects that exist will still have orientation on three spatial axes (x, y, z) and one temporal (t)." 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. "have to disagree here and say that although we sense space and time differently, we still perceive them both directly - as I said, space is sensed externally and time is sensed internally" 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. "They do not sense space, but they do interact with space (and necessarily time) as you suggested." This was just a tag-along point to the one above. Single celled organisms may not sense, but they interact. They can be observed interacting with matter and space, but not with time. The single celled organism operating as a mechanism need not use time for its existence. For it, there is no concept of past and there is no concept of future. There are examples where they develop resistance, but this is not due to memory. This is due to it containing new genetic material to synthesize proteins. Hence, there is nothing to validate the existence of time if only these single celled organisms exist on earth. Only mass and space. "You say that humans recognize mass and space inherently and then use the example of an infant and a mobile. I argue that humans also recognize time inherently, as everything you described takes place on the four axes x, y, z, and t. To speak of one without the other is nonsense" No no, I've already established that the concept of time is necessary for humans to understand things. But understanding things has nothing to do with existence and is not inherently necessary given the scope of the entire universe. Thus, the definition that all things take place in time is just as arbitrary as saying that everything has length, width and height. Everything *is* and exists in space. It's only for our own personal clarification that we separate existence of mass into three different dimensions. I want to know why time exists inherently and why it should exist in and of itself. In a universe without humans. ""-Exactly. The reaction takes place with or without observers." Because it interacts with matter. Time is not sound, and there is nothing in your reply to indicate that time can exist in and of itself. This argument only shows that matter can, which we have both established as true. Hence, this argument does not contribute to either of our positions. "I covered the rest earlier on. To end this round, I will say that indeed there *may be* nothing objectively supporting the existence of time *except physical necessity* and thus I conclude that time is not only real but also a fundamental component of reality itself." In that case, I need only ask what this physical necessity is. Simply saying that a universe without time is inconceivable will not work, as I have already mentioned the significance of the amount of bias we have. Also, it may not be inconceivable as per the point above because we were talking about motion, not about change or time. The significance of the difference between MOTION and CHANGE is the deciding factor here. Even if I concede the point that the universe cannot exist without motion, it does not show that CHANGE or TIME is a physical necessity.