As pointed out by the op, "events" implies time. (1. Change implies time). So interpreting QM from the perspective of "events" does not remove time from the interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

The aim is not to remove ‘time’ from the interpretation, but to restructure our understanding in a way that doesn’t separate ‘time’ and ‘change’. I think Harry said it well:

There is change and then the measurement of change, which is time. How long did it take for the apple to turn from green to red? Seven spins of the Earth on it's axis. Time is using change to measure change. — Harry Hindu

So it isn’t 1) that change implies time, but 2) that time implies change. But, as Rovelli points out, this doesn’t mean time is an illusion.

This interpretation simply fails in its analytical extent, because it does not separate an activity (which is a description of what things do) from the thing which is engaged in the proposed activity. A proper analysis recognizes that an event cannot be fundamental because of this conflation of the description with the thing being described. The description (activity), is a product of human understanding and cannot be fundamental. That's why I said we need a proper separation between the features of space and time, regardless of what general relativity gives us. — Metaphysician Undercover

You’re working from an assumption that ‘things’ are fundamental, but I think this is as misguided as an assumption that ‘events’ are fundamental. Because they’re both products of human understanding. The interpretation isn’t aiming for analysis - that work has been done. Rather, it acknowledges that we cannot separate the human understanding of physics from physics itself without finding that point at which we interact - and that point is not between ‘things’ and a description of what they do, but between ‘events’ and a description of their potential.

So it isn’t 1) that change implies time, but 2) that time implies change. But, as Rovelli points out, this doesn’t mean time is an illusion. — Possibility

I never said it was. I did say that time is a measurement which means that believing that time exists independently of your mind would be an illusion. Change is more fundamental than time. Time is a type of change.

I never said it was. I did say that time is a measurement which means that believing that time exists independently of your mind would be an illusion. Change is more fundamental than time. Time is a type of change. — Harry Hindu

Sorry for the confusion - I’m not suggesting you did. I agree with you - I’m referring what you said back to the OP...

So, what exactly is the relationship between the two, change and time?

Possibilities:

1. Change implies time

2. Time implies change — TheMadFool

Is time an illusion? — TheMadFool

...for those who may have missed it.

Change is the universal substrate of the universe and all physical processes can be understood in relation to it. Time is measured change.

Thanks goes to all who've contributed to the thread. I'm out of my depths at the moment. Will get back if I think of anything interesting. — TheMadFool

Perhaps you are neither mad nor foolish enough. Consider the following...

What if there was no time as we conceive it, instead of this "movie-like" series of events, life is actually discrete moments, complete in and of themselves, one after the other, each lacking nothing, perfect.

Imagine how this reality might change human perception!

Change is a genus; what changes is the species. Time is the measurements of motion. Anything that changes moves. Time exists in the mind of man who created it, like the divine. Now space is a real immaterial existence. If time does not exist, how is there space-time and special relativity?