>>>Interesting read, and I could understand it.
>>
>>What about accepting it? Is there anything specifically that you understand, but not accept as true, or have articulated doubts about?
>
>I do not think I can answer definitively without really studying what is being said. Time and change are so intertwined, IMO, that I do not think you can separate them. Therefore, I am not sure if the point is relevant whether time is a result/consequence of change or vice versa. It does boggle the mind when contemplating if there was ever a "time zero." Emotionally I think most would say yes. Logically, is the answer no?

If you're asking "is there a time zero" then you're thinking about time as a dimension and have already made a wrong turn.

Some people think of an instant as a point on a line of time. A single state of the world.

I think of an instant as the time that exists in the analysis of discrete change. In other words, when there is state A and state B, and nothing in between, then an instant is the time associated with the change from state A to state B.

More relevantly, if there is a state C that represents another discrete change, then there is an instant of time in the analysis of state B and state C.

Where it gets goofy is that the first instant (A-B) and the second instant (B-C) are not related at any level, except that they are both in your head.

That means trying to label the instants in some succession along a set of integers in order to get to instant 0, is simply a nonsensical question, in that context.

Since there is no dimension of time there is no beginning of time.