A fundamental flaw of this, and other, books on time. If time has no causal impact, then what is the agreed starting point for any explanation of it? If time is just a word (i.e. it has no real outcomes, no empirical evidence, to anchor our definitions around) then its meaning is based on our collective usage only (what else?); but no one ever seems to bother looking in the dictionary when writing about time - including in this otherwise interesting book.
If you do, and you break down the many varied uses of the word time you can separate them all into two distinct core meanings:-
1. Time is an abstract referencing framework for calibrating and indexing events (and intervals i.e. change), and
2. Time is also a non-specific collective term (mass noun) which refers to events (i.e. a non-specific collection of events).
So events determine time (events are the underlying fundamental). And that makes time explainable outside of itself – one of these two definitions will always hold – it is very powerful.
And as interval [or period, duration] and persistence can be explained by reference to events (and not to time) that makes time a redundant word.
Too many assertions are made about time by supposedly eminent academics, whilst apparently still in search of its meaning. How does that work? How can they make an assertion about something they’ve either not yet fully defined, or empirically evidenced? [...]