What are examples of bent rulers?

The ephemeral 'order' of snowflakes requires as observer to define it. (Bishop Berkeley needed to evoke 'God' as 'the ultimate observer').
'The world' is also defined relative to human observers in which their concept of 'causality' plays a role in expectancy. In that sense the butterfly scenario can make sense but only in the context of scientific discussion about 'control' of parameters, or the lack of it.
Once you move beyond 'context' anything goes The catch-all position well known to meditators, is to go for transcendence characterized by ineffability.

You seem to assume that human consciousness is the only observer (other than possibly God) and that rocks, the earth and stars have no eyes, memory or inter-contentedness.

The earth came about and evolved by itself for billions of years without humans to till the soil and tame its forests.

Our consciousness is young and perhaps fleeting in the grand scheme of things.

The philosophy here has nothing to do with the science.

In General relativity, measurements are deterministic including the measurement of time. If you know her frame of reference you can predict what she will measure. There is nothing "teoleological" about that.

I think you have a basic misunderstanding here. First of all you seem to be confusing the "observer" in General Relativity with the "observer" in Quantum Mechanics. These are actually two very different concepts. The Frame of Reference in GR is deterministic.

Talking about "increasing entropy" is perfectly rational once you define a frame of reference.

...so is 'causality' but that's not the point. The point, according to Rovelli, is that 'time does not exist' in an accommodation of GR with QM. If you think he is confusing 'observer' concepts, perhaps you should read him (and the reviews).
e.g.
https://physicsworld.com/a/carlo-rovelli-the-author-of-the-order-of-time-discusses-perhaps-the-greatest-mystery/

Our universe is quantized in atomic and even much smaller particles that we may never know even exist.

These infinitely small particles are what time is made of.

Each tiny particle is one tick in the clock of time.

I have devoted my entire life to the creation of music and one could even call me a time machine.

The idea that time does not exist is, to me, preposterous.

In music there are songs and these songs are "quantized" into events, measures, beats, fractions of beats, ticks and samples and all of these are laid parallel to a measurement of time. Similarly our universe is an orchestration of stars and planets forming and fading into space.

The song's tempo may change and the amount of samples per second may be sped up or slowed down though time is the only constant. Time never changes. A a second is always a second, a minute a minute, an hour an hour and so on.

It is like saying inches and feet and pounds don't exist or that mass is irrelevant.

The mass of an object remains constant even in weightless space.

It is the object's inherent potential to exhibit mass in a gravitational environment.

Just as a song still exists in the midst of a loud blaring noise that obscures its patterns.

The song's sonic signature is simply added to the overall harmonics of the noise.

To say that time does not exist is to imply that we are really not here.

We may not to be the very purpose of all that exists but we still remain part of the whole.

You seem to agree with Heidegger that 'time' is the essence of 'existence', however his view of Existenz is that it only applicable to the experience of humans (Dasein). This may be paralleled by the view in physics that there are no 'things'....only 'interaction events' as measured by 'an observer'. Ref The Bohf-Einstein dispute).
I too play music, and am aware that one of the essential ingredients is anticipation. I have argued extensively that thinghood as denoted by nouns such as 'tree' amount to no more than persistent expectancies of potential interaction by language users captured via the abstract persistence of the words they use. (The biological tree changes, but the functional tree persists).
So when Rovelli argues that 'time doesn't exist' he is attempting to take a pov mathematicallytranscendent of human observation, whereas I am taking it from a pov of the philosophy of language.
In summary, this boils down to whether 'existence' (another noun ! ) is considered to be 'absolute' or 'relative'. The phrase 'we are part of the whole' does not clarify that issue.

I like how and what you wrote there. It is wonderfully opinionated without any negative attitude.

That is refreshing.

I would agree that many things seem disconnected to concepts like time and existence.

But, remember before existence there was something that set up the conditions for trees and life and eventually perception of time.

It is as if time has gravity and thus magnetism towards self discovery.

I am not implying there needs to be any "god" but the very nature of geometry is multidimensional.

Round earths rich in minerals and sunlight that happen to have a moon, over time, foster life.

Gravity and time are at the essence of this phenomenon.

The way a conductor's hand moves through space... is time and gravity bound.

No...you are missing a key point. The words 'before', 'existence' and 'something' are themselves human constructions which have meaning only in specific social contexts. They become meaningless (examples of what Wittgenstein called 'language on holiday') in a discussion which seeks to transcend such human contexts.
Now the implied claim*, by mathematical theorists such, as Rovelli, is that the metalanguage of mathematics can transcend normal language contextual constraints. (Its worth thinking about Niels Bohr's comment here that 'normal language applied to quantum physics amounted to no more than poetry'). So it with such transcendence in mind that I suggest we need to take a step back from 'everyday logic' as displayed by your statement quoted above.

*Elsewhere, I may have discussed the validity of this claim with respect to 'embodied cognition theory', but such a discussion is peripheral to the philosophy of language issues.

Not just one. Not only does Cobbler not understand what you're talking about he insists he's right about something he doesn't understand.

He's like that with everything, talking to him is like banging your head against a brick wall.

Let's see ! Posturing can be a debating technique.

It can, but I very much doubt that. He once insisted that right wingers in the UK were called republicans.

When I explained what republican actually meant and that right wingers were normally fervent supporters of the monarchy he went ballistic.

He can't accept he's wrong about anything. He's very good at changing the subject and pretending you were arguing about something else.

Some assume that language is relegated to the human condition.

I am asserting that the sun has a language and the earth speaks a language too.

Even plants communicate through micro-filaments in their roots.

Atoms have a language and time itself is comprised of words and self-awareness.

Before "our" words there were still words and languages that even today most people overlook and dispute their very existence.

It is perhaps incorrect to imply that meaning and cognition is relegated to only the human experience.

Can rocks think? (better than some humans) Can a tree see? Can a plant feel? Can the sun speak, touch, taste, hear, and see also? Yes.

Just as our physical eyes see, so also the eyes of the heart can see.

Poetic....but neither philosophy nor science, and therefore nothing to do with my posts.

NB At the moment your poetic thinking is stuck with the nebulous circularity of words describing words (e.g both 'rocks' and 'thinking' are human constructions). If you really want to get involved with the idea of the universality (non anthropocentrism) of 'language' and 'perception', I suggest you read up on the Santiago theory of cognition which deflates 'language' (the noun) to 'languaging' (the verb) and defines 'cognition' as 'the general life process'.
As far as I know, the 'words describing words' circle can only be broken in two ways: (1) the cessation of linguistic thinking...i.e. the ineffability of meditational states, or (2) the attempted use of a metalanguage...either mathematics, or a cohesive system of interconnected neologisms, examples of which are the work Heideggar (Zein und Zeit) or Maturana (the Santiago theory).
'

If one word could bring existence into being, one tiny equation could bring light into being.

e=mc2

It is easy to call someone's ideas "poetic".

Poetry, a collection of words and figures of speech with a metrical structure.

Science, a collection of words and figures of speech with a metrical structure.

Until we know the equation for all that is, all we have is poetry with which to speculate.

Could that which is used to create also be used to uncreate?

Are black holes not matter too?

The questions are so vast that where science becomes speculative, that precipice is where dreams and "poetry" can only tread further.