I think our language is filled with misleading semantics about the flow of time, the passing of time, past, present, future, the arrow of time, all of that. It would be hopeless to try to use different language. But time isn't doing anything. There's no time for time to do anything in.
I'll acknowledge relativity and different frames of reference, but that isn't really the point.
Things happen, some things happen before other things. We count time by using clocks, they tick at regular rates with respect to other things happening.
If a clock is in a frame of faster time, it will tick faster, its ticks will happen before, than an identical clock in a frame of slower time.
That’s how I see time, it is the ordering of physical events, which we can trivially observe.
You keep trying to explain time as if it was a thing of its own, like a water flow, but it is no more than an abstraction to indicate how some things happen before others, and they definitely do, at least in the same frame.
This analogy is insufficient as well of course. For instance, if we have two clocks, we move one onto a faster time frame for a while and then bring it back, it is as if the clock was an ordered stack of physical events, the ordering between the events in either stack is tricky to determine, but you could clearly observe that one stack was more filled than the other.
I am not trying to get into a fight, this is simply a welcome exercise that forces me to crystallize my own understanding, hope it is for you too.
> That’s how I see time, it is the ordering of physical events, which we can trivially observe.
My teacher explained it in a similar way. Time passes when we can observe change. If there is no change then we can not measure time.
Like with the heat death of the universe. At that time (lol) no more time would "happening".
What I ask myself is: is time purely the ordering of things that happen, or do gaps where there is potential for something to happen also count?
Let's assume for simplicity that time is a discrete dimension, which it might be. Then there would be a measure of distance of how many ticks of potential events there are between two actual events, even if nothing happened in between. Or maybe that's not the case and it's more of a directed graph defining the partial ordering of actual events.
Not sure if we could measure that in any case, we always need some kind of actually ticking clock, and it's not like we can isolate a period of time where nothing happens globally, unless its in a simulation. Just like weird things happen at quantum scale, I'm sure weird things happen at small enough time scales where there's really nothing between one event and the next, and there's no good way to determine how far a part they are.
I'll acknowledge relativity and different frames of reference, but that isn't really the point.