I've been working my way through Lynd's paper here: http://doc.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/ext/ext-2003-042.pdf

The way I understand it (which is barely the surface unfortunatly) trying to get an exact instance of time is like trying to determine a point on a curve as it aproaches infinity. You can get damn close but never get there. Hence since you can never get there he is saying there is no there (meaning an instant in time). This is basically what Fox was saying too.

This reminds me of a joke:

A psychologist makes an experiment with a mathematician and a physicist. He puts a good-looking, naked woman in a bed in one corner of the room and the mathematician on a chair in another one, and tells him: 'I´ll half the distance between you and the woman every five minutes, and you´re not allowed to stand up.' the mathematician runs away, yelling: 'in that case, I´ll never get to this woman!'. After that, the psychologist takes the physicist and tells him the plan. The physicist starts grinning. the psychologist asks him: 'but you´ll never get to this woman?', the physicists tells him: 'sure, but for all practical things this is a good approximation.' (credit: Thomas Mayer)

http://www.physlink.com/Fun/Jokes.cfm

I'm not really sure how earth shatttering Lynd's paper is. For all practical purposes what does it differ whether time can be determined to be an exact instant or not. Since the 1800's we tolerated the fact that we can not manufacture anything to an exact measurement, hence the bith of tolerences in the manufacturing process. Why is it a big deal for time to act the same? Perhaps this alters fuzzy perceptions like travel at the speed of light, but I'm not smart enough to know.

At any rate it is fun to think about practical or not.

-Steve G.