Sree: “What has time got to do with those photos?”
Einstein is quoted as saying that time is what we see when we look at a clock. I think he was right. Notice that we would see only one arrangement of the clock’s hands relative to its face. We would call that a particular time. In order to establish the concept of the passage of time, which is what we commonly call time, we would need memories, or records, of other individual times.
Each of the photos I gave you would be a record of a single time. Without additional memories, or records, associated to the photos you cannot have any idea of the sequence the photos and thus you cannot conclude anything about the passage of time they might represent. It would be the same for any physical evidence such as the footprints in your example.
Sree: " Since there is no need to remember (i.e. conceptualize), nor do we need a ticking clock that is replaced by you marking steps on the path, can we conclude that time does not exist in absolute terms?"
Bob: “My answer to your question is no, we can not make any such conclusion.”
Sree: “Why not?”
I think that us observing the footprints on the path is not enough to conclude anything about time. I don’t see how a line of footprints by themselves could tell us much about how, when or why they were made. I think we would need more info about them. I don’t make the connection that they replace memories or a clock.
Sree: “Don’t mess around with truth, Bob. You are the one who announced that time is an artifact of the memory (i.e. imaginary). Now, that I prove your claim, you are hemming and hawing. You are like someone who claims that you can fly; and when I throw you off the balcony, you are clutching to the railing terrified.”
I don’t see where your example proves my claim. I don’t get it.
The only “proof” of my claim that I can see is that there is no evidence to the contrary and that is not really a proof. My claim would be shown to be false if there was evidence that time interacts with anything, that it is an actual phenomenon. I think there is no such evidence. I think it better to say that my claim is assured by logical deduction rather than proved.