The other day in USU 1320 we examined an argument against the reality of time:
1. Time requires change. (As shown by another argument, which turns upon the inherent impossibility of distinguishing two lengths of changeless time.)
2. Change requires (a) a past state and (b) a future state.
3. Any past state does not now exist.
4. Any future state does not now exist.
5. Hence, there is no change now.
6. Hence, there is no time now.
And since this argument can be presented at each and every “now,” it would seem to follow that time is “at all times” nonexistent, i.e., time is unreal.
It’s a nifty argument, since it is so hard to see where anything goes wrong. (And yet it seems wrong, doesn’t it?)
By the way, I think a parallel argument can be given against the reality of space. It gets a little weird around premise 3, but follow along:
1. Space requires some sort of extended dimension (length, width, etc.).
2. Any extended dimension can be divided into an “over there (1)” and an “over there (2)”.
3. But “over there (1)” is not right here.
4. And “over there (2)” is not right here.
5. Hence, there is no extended dimension right here.
6. Hence, there is no space right here.
And since this argument can be presented at every possible spot, it would seem to follow that space is “at all spaces” nonexistent, i.e., space is unreal.