Time Is Less Real Than River

Time is less real than a river. This has to do with the fact that a river is bounded by other things. Indeed, a river must have water, but it must have water under particular conditions. And there are river banks made up of (not-river) soil, trees, grasses, etc...

So, time is basically a word that refers to our experience of movement. All things exist in relation to one another- some, being much bigger than others, exert a stronger force. Day, night, month, year- the influences of larger bodies on our own. But if you want to think about time in general, something becomes clear- there is no boundary- at least, not one like the riverbank.

Because, for instance, God cannot be analogous to the riverbank. He is everpresent, thus He is ever-present to both the river and the river bank- and all the actual things in time. There's simply no reason to assume He also has to be present to them in the aggregate as 'time', nor is there any evidence that there is anything to time apart from its parts.

Spatially bounded concepts seem more real, but this is because a place like France is more than just the space, but the things in it (as well as their relationships to one another). If you somehow removed everything, it would no longer be France. Similar things are true with a river.

I don't know if any of this is useful. After all, it is like a fish not only trying to describe water, but the fishbowl too. But I recently saw something disappointing on this topic, not least of which was that I and others had commented on a previous post about it, but it seemed not one of us had made an impression.