Time is a measure of change. Space doesn't itself provide any landmarks by which to make any judgment of a change. IOW, we'd never notice an expansion of space without some landmark, so it would only be philosophical to discuss time without mass.
Doesn't your argument pre-suppose that space always existed?
Wouldn't the very creation of space be a measure of change? Nothing, then something = change over a period of time. This argument pre-supposes time already exists, but it could be called potential time. Now I am thinking Time came first
[COLOR=red]Space and Time -> Matter
Time -> Space -> Matter[COLOR=red]
To me, your argument which I am not dismissing, just testing, would be:
[COLOR=red](Space always existed) - Space expands - Matter for landmark - Time[COLOR=red]
even in this example time exists once there is a change between space and inflation of space......time already exists and can be measured.
I still seem to see time as existing before matter needs to exist, but I know why. I am viewing the argument from outside the universe (as though something existed then) and you are logically viewing your argument from inside the universe where we find ourselves.
It is a question of, if there is nothing, and then something, was there a change. Before something there maybe was nothing, so does this mean there could not have been a change, as nothing is nothing? Should there be a zero or should we start at 1. What do the programmers out there think?
This argument seems to ignore infinity, but I haven't entirely ruled infinity out, infinity existed before our universe. Of course if we claim infinity exists infinitly, then time should also be infinite.....No?
Too many thoughts in one post. Ignore if it was rambling and it is probably as you say more philosophy then anything else.
Space is distinct from mass.
Does it have none of the hallmarks of mass at all?