Time Vs Space : Pick one

[Bells]

Let's break down some minds here...

If you had to choose only one, automatically removing the other entirely. Being able to interact and exist only within your choice, what would you choose? Time or Space?

Make your case! what is the best pick for existence itself?

Yeah, i went there! What?!

[Magus]

This doesn't even make any sense, though. You can't really have one without the other. There's a reason they call it space-time...

Okay, fine. Space. Time might not be an actual thing...unless it is.

EDIT: Like seriously are we predicating this on "if you have time, you can visit different time periods of nothingness" or space, where it's like "you can sit totally frozen forever and ever and ever and ever"

[Flarecobra]

Yeah, I cannot really choose, since both are co-dependent...

[Menarker]

Agreed.

That said, if I had POWERS over one of those two, I'd probably choose space. =3

[Arcanum]

It would help if you put down some ground rules. If time doesn't exist in this scenario, does that mean everything is frozen in place? Or that everything else is frozen and you're free to move about the world, trapped in a single isolated moment in time? And if space doesn't exist, does that mean you're trapped in nothingness? Pure void in all directions, but you'll still age and die eventually?

[Aerozord]

yea they are the same thing. but if you assume they aren't than I guess no time. I'd be immortal, and could still be in two places at once by just making time paradox duplicates.

[Amake]

Movement through space is inversely proportional to movement through time. I think of them as different mediums in which observable phenomena occur (or rather different perceptions of the same medium); we might say time and space are not phenomena themselves. But anyway, to remove one would just mean making our speed of movement through the other infinite - we could either stand still as Archimedes' fulcrum and watch the universe move around us at an apparent infinite speed, or freeze the universe in an apparent infinite moment and move freely inside it.

Both options seem like they'd get boring fast, ultimately reducing you to a powerless observer, but the first has some possibilities. I'm imagining without movement through space time would seem to pass in an instant, and that brings us to the question of how much time there is. If we assume time in the universe will eventually break down or change into something we don't recognize as time for some reason, be it an Aztec calender machine, heat death or some manner of spiritual rebirth or redesign, then moving through time at absolute speed would put us outside of time. Which probably means looking at all of spacetime from the outside. I can't imagine that'd be boring.

[Bells]

See? that's what i like about this topic... the more you think about it, more abstract it gets.

Would you rather have access to all of the space and none of the time, or all of the time but none of the space?

It's madness, Madness i tell's ya!

[Sifright]

I'm going to go with space, given that time is a byproduct of space and thus simply having access to it would negate the initial statement that you have to choose.

Space/matter by it's very essence is what gives existence to the idea of time. all matter is contained within it's own space-time frame so to have space is to have time by default.

[Ryong]

You want a picture of the universe or the ability to go back and forth in non-existence?

That's a weird question.