Obviously chairs don't exist. Scientists have discovered a thing called "wood," which is the true name of many of the things that members of the public call "chairs." Whenever I see someone sitting on what they think is a "chair," I tell them to stand up because it's not coherent to expect every piece of wood to be comfortable to sit on.
You “supported” your statement with another instance of you making the same statement somewhere else.
This bit of the article should clear any misunderstanding on whether the existence of time is relevant for this discussion. Regardless of the actual existence of time, our perception of it is certainly real.
> Of course, although some physicists propose that time does not exist, time perception – our sense of time – does.
About perception - it's out of discussion if time does exist or not. Perception is one thing and time existence another.
All of us know mechanisms why we perceive time - neural networks are consisted of units which current state is shaped by previous mutations. All physical objects are constantly mutating - but some of them have abilities to remember previous states.
Science has been sticking to that view since around Newton. But it's actually beginning to slowly change now, as time-independent physics might be a reason why our theories work very well in specific areas, but tend to break down in a more holistic approach.
Thanks for the recommendation.
Indeed information is the most fundamental concept and mutations. If you will call time a causality force which makes this mutations it's fine. But it's wrong if you think about time as a dimension in which you can travel.
