Linguistic aporia, linguistic trap! ... a need for some wittgensteinian linguistic turn? :-)

It's a common misconception that if something has only existed for zero seconds, it has not existed at all. — elucid

Time can "exist" for zero seconds just like a container can be empty. You speak of potential, not existence.

Time can "exist" for zero seconds just like a container can be empty. You speak of potential, not existence.

Sorry, I meant to say that each unit of time "can" and only exists for zero seconds.

Sorry, I meant to say that each unit of time "can" and only exists for zero seconds. — elucid

Zero time is the moment of transition existing outside of time.

Zero time is the moment of transition existing outside of time. — synthesis

An astronomist would tell you Zero time is the moment right before the big bang and physicist would talk to you about light being in the border line between space and time.... but isn't it already implicit within the concept of "existing" that space-time is needed?

Nevertheless, as I say in my previous post this is a linguistic trap, you won't get anything out of this because you mix up categories in wrong context. It looks like the question makes sense but it doesn't unless you provide scientific definitions of each of the terms instead of "colloquial" meanings.
It is something like trying to answer what is the color of nothingness for a blind person :lol:

Second, fundamental unit of time, now defined in terms of the radiation frequency at which atoms of the element cesium change from one state to another.

from: https://www.britannica.com/science/second