Peter,
You wrote, "In relation to George's comment, again, one can assign the readings of a clock an order without referring to time and tense, before/after, past/future etc. For example, because 1, 2, 3, is simply a sequence of numbers, one can say that, in their given order, 2 follows 1, and 3 follows 2, without referring to time and tense."
No, one cannot. The order is not the issue--transitivity (along with identity and refexivity) is a fundamental property of an equation. When you sacrifice all mathematical language to describe the physics, you sacrifice numbers, and you can't do physics at all. The claims in your second paragraph are therefore obviated.
You wrote: "In relation to your comment about motion without time implying change without energy, I think you aren't quite grasping how, without time, continuity is still possible. If there is simply motion (without time), the hands of a clock can still rotate, so the continuity of all other physical processes, including energy transfer, is naturally possible too. Indeed, such continuity would only not be possible if time (and as such, instants) did exist."
If you know your Einstein, you know the limits of continuous function physics. Discontinuity is not only possible--it's demonstrable. Einstein was part of that revolution, too.
"PS: Unless George prompts it, I think it could be a good idea to round off this discussion. "
George did prompt it. He wrote an essay supporting the flow of time in physics, and my comments are on topic. The arguments are all on the table, however, so any more comment would be redundant.
John,
It's irrelevant to the flow of time whether time is a simple parameter of reversible direction, as in a relativistic description, or a measure of motion as in classical mechanics, e.g., Mach. Any physical description of an event is transitive.
Tom
