If I say that time has memory by itself, would I be said so strange? Of course, it means that itself has memory, thus it doesn’t mean that we can read our memory to time.
But we could never verify it is just the false, neither.

As first what I have to say is that time is never nothing.
Coz nothing has no time ans space, but surely and obviously time by itself has the presence.

But ordinarily we could say that it must nrver intervene with anything in which happens never selfishely, otherwise rather it is so selfish, coz it by itself anytime does never say anything then it could be either so selfish.

Russell’ｓ radadox means that one assenbry means that any kind of assembry has either its assembry itself could be included to itself, but probably time is never applied to its example, coz any beings in consistent change and beings as concept of it are applicable, but time must never be applied to its example.

Thus, being itself and time is obviously different to each other, Kant said that time is sensation's form, but it could be said either the mind of being, in other words, time is just witness, never acting so cooly composed witness to all things happens in time.

But one thing so exceptional is that time must never be changed in itself as if the all things as beings.
Just the bpossiblity that time itself has a memory to all past matters, if it was so correct, possibly time may have made anything must be repeated as the same matter, namely only time can know that anything happening in time is each distinct and no similar thing to anything, and only time must know it, we can say either.

(to be continued)
(May. 10. 2019)