06 Mar '16 07:57

I once heard of somebody claiming that time doesn't exist because it is nothing but an illusion because "time is just a series of events".

But does that really make any sense?

I think the following is my best argument so far that it doesn't:

If time is illusionary because it is nothing more than 'a series of events', how much time passes between one event and the very next one i.e. between 'adjacent' events?

If no time, then the sum of a series of periods of time between adjacent events within a whole series of events must also be no time and we wouldn't experience even the illusion of time because there wouldn't be any time between one mental experience, which is itself an event, of an event and the next mental experience of an event.

If some none zero finite period of time between adjacent events, what series of events defines the magnitude of that finite period of time? If a finite number of series of events, we are back to the same problem; how much time passes between adjacent events within that finite number of series of events? If there is an infinite number of series of events between adjacent events then, because of the way the mathematics of infinity works and because if you multiply or divide infinity by any finite number you get the same infinity, one hour will have the same length as two hours and there is nothing to define the differences in length of time between adjacent events. But then how is it that clocks can apparently show approximately the same time most of the time?

Besides, in mathematics, infinity is technically not even a 'number' so you cannot completely even accurately say the amount time between two adjacent events is defined as an 'infinite number' of events between them.

Is the above a completely valid argument?

Can you come up with a better one?

But does that really make any sense?

I think the following is my best argument so far that it doesn't:

If time is illusionary because it is nothing more than 'a series of events', how much time passes between one event and the very next one i.e. between 'adjacent' events?

If no time, then the sum of a series of periods of time between adjacent events within a whole series of events must also be no time and we wouldn't experience even the illusion of time because there wouldn't be any time between one mental experience, which is itself an event, of an event and the next mental experience of an event.

If some none zero finite period of time between adjacent events, what series of events defines the magnitude of that finite period of time? If a finite number of series of events, we are back to the same problem; how much time passes between adjacent events within that finite number of series of events? If there is an infinite number of series of events between adjacent events then, because of the way the mathematics of infinity works and because if you multiply or divide infinity by any finite number you get the same infinity, one hour will have the same length as two hours and there is nothing to define the differences in length of time between adjacent events. But then how is it that clocks can apparently show approximately the same time most of the time?

Besides, in mathematics, infinity is technically not even a 'number' so you cannot completely even accurately say the amount time between two adjacent events is defined as an 'infinite number' of events between them.

Is the above a completely valid argument?

Can you come up with a better one?