No not by the same token. Coffee is a physical manifestation. Time is a perspective or measurement.
So time is a perspective in the same way that thinking of a cup of coffee as an object is a perspective. Both exist as something that can be observed in reality, and you're the one that clumps several billions of observed phenomena (changing molecules) into something observed (either a cup, or a second, depending on what you fixate upon).
So no, space and time are not "measurements/perspectives" that are fundamentally distinct from "a bunch of molecules".
Also I never said space was measurement/perspective, I said time was. You believe what you want to believe, but maybe stick to a single scenario in the future. I'll say it again, a cup of coffee just sitting there is distinct from time.
Duration is as much a measurement/perspective as displacement, this is an observation which led to Special Relatively. If time can be called an illusion, so can position.
Time flows and is irreversible, this is what makes it special, and it is the denying that the flow and irreversibility are inherent properties of time that constitutes "dispelling the illusion".
In other words, saying that "time is an illusion" is saying "time is just like space".
In what sense? Normally people use that word in a sentence such as “time flows like water”, but water is made of discrete molecules and has momentum, which doesn’t generally ever sound like the subsequent sentence, whatever that happened to be at the — ah ha — time.
> and is irreversible
The funny thing is, thermodynamics is the only law of physics which say that and last I checked nobody knew (or agreed) why, as thermodynamics is inevitable from the other laws but the other laws don’t imply a direction for time.
Of course, there’s also the difference of it acting like imaginary (sqrt(-1)) space…
I think you need to be precise with language for this sort of thing, and avoid similies everywhere, or you’ll run into the same sort of problems quantum physicists have with “observations collapse the wave function” being misunderstood as “conscious minds collapse the wave function”.
There's also cosmology, which says there has to be a direction to time because of how the universe turned out as a result of the Big Bang, inflation, and everything that followed.
The question is where does this structure originate? Is there a fundamental thing "time" that has direction, irreversibility, a moment of now, memory of the past?
It doesn't appear so. Instead it seems that most of these properties emerge for complex systems.
If the universe was a box of gas there would be none of the above. So we conclude that time direction, memory, irreversibility, etc... are features of particular configurations of matter that we experience. A universe with the same laws of physics but without these features is conceivable, so they are not fundamental.
If updown was a special named dimension and you took a single 2-space+1-time slice of the universe at fixed radius from the Earth, your argument wouldn’t really be different, only words and phrases like “sitting still”, which is inherently about the dimension being removed, because it’s convenient for us.
And that’s ignoring questions like “can particles have momentum if there is no time?” which might actually be important in the unlikely event that I understand what a black hole’s singularly does to time.
Regarding the last question, if I understood forces correctly, it's that they remain in motion until an equal or greater force stops them right? Why do we need time for that out of curiosity?
A fascinating book on this topic is "Philosophy in the Flesh" by George Lakoff:
Momentum has a direct influence on Einstein field equations, and I don’t know enough maths to follow GR (just two A-levels) so I have no idea if that “direct” influence is still present at a no-more-future boundary condition.
My insufficient maths skills are, amongst other things, why I don’t trust my understanding that a black hole singularity really is a no-more-future boundary condition.
I don't believe that mental experiment proves what you think. If you freeze time, there wouldn't be anyone that could make observations. You might as well choose one fixed point in the universe, eliminating space considerations, and think about its whole story from the beginning to the end of time; that would be as real as a frozen universe.
I think of reality as a goo of vibrating stuff, encompassing all matter and energy. Matter creates space, and the vibrations of change create time.
I did not say they are interchangable, I said if one is an illusion, so is the other.
I also claimed that your notion of "physical manifestation" is not a meaningful distinction. Or at least, it's not easy to make it into a meaningful distinction that is compatible with what we know about the laws of physics.
It iis incorrect to claim that nobody really understands black holes. There are aspects of them that we don't understand, but we understand fairly well how a massive amount of coffee would turn into a black hole (a structure in space and time).
Also space and time are really not on different epistemological or ontological footing anymore.
We also should distinguish a particular instance of coffee and the concept of coffee itself, just as we should distinguish a particular time interval from the overall notion of time. A time interval then is a chunk of metric between two endpoints that would be marked, for example, by molecules doing something like ticking. It's a relative configuration of gravitational and matter fields.
Your concrete cup of coffee is likewise a configuration of matter and gravitational fields. Ontologically they really aren't that different if you take general relativity seriously.
Your perspective seems to be somewhat pre GR. Sort of Kantian: Time is not a category of reality but a category of our perception of reality. The work of Rovelli et.al. is two steps further. In GR time no longer has a distinguished foundational meaning in (and in that way it is like coffee). It's constructed from physical fields that describe its structure. The thermal time hypothesis goes one step further by making the "time field" (which is the metric, which is the gravitational field) be emergent. It's not the only theory to do so. Jacobsons GR from black hole entropy is conceptually similar.
In any case, the cup distorted spacetime even when it wasn't big enough to form a event horizon, so that it still does it after being squashed proves nothing for the issue at hand.
If you take out time, you can't point to the coffee: you'd be stuck not-pointing!