Sequentially depended and independent time...

There are two kinds of past events, those that have sequential important and those that do not.

Those that have sequential important, such as birth, life and death could not happen in any other order and that their order imparts meaning beyond the events themself...ie you.

Those that have not sequential important are sleep, eat and work. Our bodied demand we perform the first 2 and society the last, but the order that these events occur have no consequence, they could happen in any order.

Sequentially dependent events are the current of the river of time, and the sequentially independent are akin to the eddies.

Now, are the sequentially depend more than those independent?

Time as change....

Time, if it exists at all, is that tipping point, that spark, the instantaneous moment when apple becomes pie, man becomes corps, or egg becomes life. It is not past or present; it is now. More than now, it is the link between states of being. They can be an instant or last generations, they are short as they can be and as long as they must be.

A past devoid of time...

We said; in some discussions that time is change. Time is the measure of time. So, if an apple becomes a pie, it has, according to most, done so in time; that change itself being time incarnate.

But "the past" is the antithesis of change. Once made into a pie, it is no more possible for that apple to change in any other way. If change is time, then the past must be devoid of it, for no past event is mutable.

By that same thread, we might say that future as also devoid of time...why?

Does the quark know what time it is?

First we must ask, what is a thing?
We all believe that we travel thought time...its seems a priori knowledge. If we were adrift somehow in the void of space, we would still "feel" time...we "aged".
What do we mean by aged?
We experience time by aging; that is the growth and decay or our bodied as we mature to adult hood and decay into death. As our skins cells divide, grow and die. In fact if one did not do this, if one were somehow exempt form aging. If ones body did not change, the term ageless or timeless would be appropriate. If we further added, that, as stated earlier, that we were floating in the void of space, not only were we ageless but our experience would also be devoid of time. One would say that, if such a condition where "eternal" or never changed...perhaps could never change, the idea of time would be at least meaningless and at most shown, in this mental universe, nonexistent.

Now that we have established that (to what ever assuredly) lets look deeper.

Are you a thing or are you, more or less, a particular collection of atoms? A collection of atoms.

So, although one might say "YOU" change with time, does the atoms that compose you, do they age?
Is the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, et all "older" at death than at your birth?

Well let’s say that the electrons that form your atoms move, cosmic radiation may cause atoms to break apart and decay and that is a form of "aging"

What about the Quarks that make up the atomic partials? As far as science knows, they can not change; there are the ageless in the sense of our earlier thought experiment.

What about the world they exist in?