Time and space are obviously physical. — Trinidad

Yep and yep. By pointing. By saying now. — Trinidad

"Obviously", "yep", ... It doesn't work this way. This is not a chat place. It's a philosophy forum. You have to present arguments and support what you are saying by reasoning.

Time and space are obviously physical. — Trinidad

"Physical" from Oxford LEXICO: "Relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.". Can you perceive time or space with any of your senses? Can you locate a point in time or space?

It shows how certain things cannot be subdivided. What cannot be subdivided is a unity/eternal.

Well, from that aspect, yes, it could be. But it has to actually exist, i.e. be substantial. E.g. the universe may be called eternal or infinite (although this is disputable). Time and space on the other hand do not exist physically. They are just dimensions. Like a line in space. They cannot be actually measured or divided, but only arbitrarily, in order to be used, e.g. as representations in geometrical descriptions of axioms and problems. So, we cannot speak about them as eternal. We can call them infinite, and this only for descriptive purposes.

Re "I thought 'living' and 'alive' were synonyms": They would be synonymous if "living" was used as an adjective (adjectival gerundive), e.g. a living human being. However, I understand it is used as present participle ("he was living"), i.e. expressing a progressive aspect.

Re "my OP does show ... Sextus’ argument would still not be valid, right?": Right. Nowhere in my comment have I stated or implied that your conclusion is incorrect.

Re: Even if I did assume that, my argument does not reinforce the paradox: Right, it doesn't, and I didn't say or implied that.

In short: I have commented only on your using time as if it was discontinuous.

I cannot draw implications about Immortality from that! :) The problem refers to the physical world (bodily death). Immortality is not a part of it ...

By appointing a value to time and esp. dividing time, you do what Zeno did: assume that time is discontinuous. It's not. Time is continuous. It has no start or end or middle point, or any points in it. The same holds with space. Try to locate a point in space! We use points in geometry only for representation and description purposes, to show axioms and solve problems.

Besides Zeno's "paradoxes", this Sextus Empiricus's problem/paradox reminds also of Schrödinger's cat!

What I can immediately observe in his description --besides the totally irrational "died ... when he was dead"-- is the use of the word "living" instead the more realistic word "alive". Of course, because he could not have an argument then:)

No, it's a false paradox. There's no problem there. And in this, it reminds of Zeno's paradoxes, which are not paradoxes at all because they are based on a fallacy, or wrong assumption, if you like: that time and space are discontinuous. Which they are definitely not.

These "paradoxes" are not real paradoxes because they can be very easily rejected. That's why I call them either "pseudo-paradoxes" or, better, "sophisms", in the modern use of the term (a clever but false argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive).

Thanks for your reply and sorry again for the trouble!

I would like to contribute to this discussion. However I am new here and I have to know the following things, please:

1) Where is the question or how has this discussion started and who has posted/started it? I can only see the subject "The death paradox" and when I click on it the same page reappears! And if I search for "The death paradox" (verbatim) A list appears with a lot of answers/comments under the title "Death Paradox", which is not exactly the same ...
2) The space I am writing this message in is for comments. Where are the answer spaces, if any?

(I am sorry about this. I have no other means to know about all this except if I start a new discussion, which I don’t find appropriate.)