I'm with Sean Carroll on this. From the wiki page you linked: "The problem is not that I disagree with the timelessness crowd, it’s that I don’t see the point. I am not motivated to make the effort to carefully read what they are writing, because I am very unclear about what is to be gained by doing so. If anyone could spell out straightforwardly what I might be able to understand by thinking of the world in the language of timelessness, I’d be very happy to re-orient my attitude and take these works seriously." So tell me, Michael. What do I stand to gain if I buy into your idea that time doesn't exist? What will it help me to understand better? Why is it preferable to think about time that way rather than as something real, the view I currently hold? Specifically, as it relates to what you've posted, I want to know what is to be gained from the "age is real, time is not" hypothesis.