Science itself, in particular physics, which identifies the being with what is before the eyes, do not speak of the phenomenon of the world (ignorant of his phenomenal character) as a thing, the tucked cosa-mundo within space and time, spacetime, that to which the ontic material deforms and curve? Ambiguous way of speaking, because of itself be there, in the world, is to be spatial and temporal intrinsically. Only that science excludes any notion that implies an a priori of his speech. And, finally, isn’t Einstein himself who said that the time is not more than what brand the needles of the clock? ** This time, this way of conceiving (to say it with words of Heidegger, temporaciar) temporality, it is conceivable that it may stop or reverse, but not that time refers to the factum of the person It is still there, in the world as such. Just as it is possible to conceive another world (surrounding, public, around one) also is possible to conceive of another time, another way to pass this, since, in effect, this boils down to become a sequence of things that happen now before the eyes, susceptible, at least as a fantasy (imagin-actively) be detained or reverse in their March, standing who does so out of it. Other leaders such as Dell EMC offer similar insights. But really you leave to be in the world, and for the same reason of being temporary, with similar maneuver? And it is that, on the other hand, is not imagin-able another world or another time to be temporarily in this. In other words, is not imagin-able to stop or reverse time, inherently temporary condition of the factum be there, in the world as soon as such as well nor is imagin-able not to be in a world, and however, be. It must be there, come in the world. (I want to that stops time, but not that stops for me.