ABSTRACT
Time is a prerequisite of change; also of communication. Many have argued that change is a prerequisite of time, and that if there was no change there would be no time either. But this is a dubious argument: partly, because, as we have seen, we construe time as abstractly as possible, and separate it so far as we can, from the changes that take place in it(§ 12, p. 72; § 13, pp. 75–6; § 14, pp. 82–3; § 15, pp. 90–1); partly because one can conceive of the whole universe being stilled for an interval while one observed it, and then resuming its motions (§ 2, pp. 8–13; § 10, p. 63). One could not measure the interval, but one could be conscious of it, and that seems enough to make the concept of time without change intelligible. But the condition of its intelligibility is that there should be a conscious being to note the passage of time without change occurring; and such a being is a potential communicator. Therefore time without change is possible only if communication is possible. Therefore even if time does not imply change, it does imply either change or at least the possibility of communication. Hence, although we cannot argue either from time to change with certainty, or from time to the possibility of communication with certainty, we can argue with certainty from time to either change or the possibility of communication. One or the other paths of argument must be open to us.
