You realize, of course, that Zeno’s Paradox is *also* generated entirely within the mind for a specific purpose. I applaud your open mind—everyone should be a bit skeptical, really. Still, radical skepticism of the kind you seem to cling to, even in the face of empirical evidence, doesn’t buy you much either in terms of metaphysics or epistemology, and makes talking to one another essentially meaningless. I suspect that such is the fate of this conversation.

Still, if I burn down your house, and you get angry, then I think it’s safe to say that time exists. Or that our individual space-time context bubbles can somehow magically interact, which *just maybe* implies that there is a common context between the two which we can derive a metric for.

This is probably only going to make me cry, but since I have this slavish adherence to facts and evidence, I will only point a few out because I am a pedant, and not to fight you.

Calculus was created to deal with continuity. Calculus is continuous. That’s the point. There is nothing discrete in calculus.

That’s pretty much irrelevant, though. I can define a set of numbers to be discrete or continuous. Neither invalidates the number line itself. That’s just silly.

I’m not certain why you’re stuck on this discrete/continuous dichotomy anyways… How does it relate to proving the existence of time?

The axioms of real analysis do not refute Special Relativity, nor the Uncertainty Principle. Indeed, it would be quite difficult to derive these theorems without them.

re: Planck’s constant: bu-wha? What does that have to do with anything? Besides, the constant has both been derived theoretically and experimentally observed to a ridiculous number of digits of significance. I’m pretty sure we have that one down pretty well.