Gyahd … 
Lev, cause and effect does not imply time it implies change.
“Both Galileo and Newton and most people up until the 20th century thought that time was the same for everyone everywhere. This is the basis for timelines, where time is a parameter. Our modern conception of time is based on Einstein’s theory of relativity, in which rates of time run differently depending on relative motion, and space and time are merged into spacetime, where we live on a world line rather than a timeline. Thus time is part of a coordinate”
Lev, coordinates do not exist; they are mathematical models.
Time is merely the measure of the changing.
And even though Newton didn’t have it quite right, neither did Einstein.
Agreed, and there is no time out there in reality.
The measurement does not exist other than as a model in our minds.
The thing being measured exists.
with love,
sanjay
Does the difference between a 1 meter rod and a two meter rod exist?
If not, does the difference between a 1 meter rod and no rod exist?
The measure that we call time exists in that same way. Whether it “exists” is merely an issue of our chosen ontological terminology. There is difference in the speed of changing from place to place, thus there is time.
The thing being measured exists but the measurement does not exist.
There is no meter out there that grids the universe.
The meter is a measure of separation. Time is a measure of change.
If you changed your initial statement to:
The second is a measure of time… then time could exists.
But then time is a parameter and NOT a measure of change.
So which is the parameter being measured. Time or Change?
What you call a “thing” is merely what you [subconsciously] choose to be significant to you.
If the difference is what is important to you, then the difference/measure is what “exists”.
Yes, I understand that all measurements are relative… this is a given.
This does not resolve the conflict of time as a parameter or time as a measure.
The universe is not scattered with an all encompassing 3D matrix of metre length rods.
If time is a measure of change then the universe is not scattered with time.
If time is a parameter, which is measured in seconds, then it is plausible that time is part of the underlying fabric of the universe (it exists outside of a mathematical model).
Well, that’s good, but on the other hand, how to distinguish a “parameter” from a “measure”?
I can’t say that I fully understood what you intended to say, but you have the choice to decide for yourself what is or is not an “entity”, or what exists or doesn’t exist in your chosen ontology (understanding of … the universe).
It is entirely up to the individual as to whether the thing called “time” exists or doesn’t. The individual can make it as complicated as they like. Reality doesn’t care what you call any part of it. And you have no choice but to label which parts that you think are relevant.
You can say that time itself doesn’t exist at all and be 100% accurate depending on the rest of your chosen understanding of reality, your ontology. There is not, and has never been, a single ontological understanding that is reality. There can never be such a thing. In that sense, there can never be an actual “truth” concerning anything at all. Everyone must choose an ontology and hold to it until they discover that it doesn’t actually conform to experience. And such is the make of all debates.
I would never have formed the phrase, “outside of time”. But I can understand what was meant by it. One must consider what language or ontology a person is using when they make claims concerning reality. But first one must understand that no language expresses the one and only Truth. Truth is merely a single chosen way to express reality, and is often, but not always, incorrect. But is to be respected as a possibility until logic truly dictates otherwise.
James at his best. 
You are deflecting the question James. You would make a good politician.
What question?
I answered the OP question at the very beginning of this thread.
Mutcer, you are saying „outside of time“, but that wording is not correct because time is not space. Did you mean „outside of space“, or „without time“?
duplicate post
James, read back to when we started discussing.
If your style is hit and run and deflection then this is fine (I can live with this).
That isn’t my intention.
But are you speaking of a question that YOU asked?
… might have helped if you bothered to repeat it.
You declared that there is no time in reality. I tried to explain that such depends on exactly what you mean when you say such a thing. The differences in rates of changing exist, thus time exists, even though no one has bothered to quantify it into numbers.
Where is the question?
It is okay James, sorry to bother you.
Try not to take my response as if I had attitude. I don’t. But I also don’t know what you are referring to.
There is a thing called selective attention. If you do not find a particular thing interesting or relevant then …