Actually, that's what I'm saying, too. If we have now at all, it's gone as soon as we realize it. Still, it's all that we do have for certain, isn't it?
Hello logos! So good to see you!
WRT the above: Well, yes and no. The way I'm reading this is that the idea of segementing time into a unit, or a "freeze frame", and then correlating that unit 1:1 with the state of a physical process for the purpose of "measuring" amplitudes, velocities, etc., will always lead to imprecision, or indeterminacy in the measurement, precisely because all physical processes are always constantly in motion. That is, the idea of the "second" or time unit -- though it's quite natural for the mind to think in such terms -- does not correspond to what is going on in nature. You can try to "hold time still" by virtue of such an "artificial [mental] construct," in order to take measurements; but that which is being measured -- nature, or natural processes -- is constantly on the move. It "won't stand still" for the measurement-taking, to put it crudely.
Another way to put this might be to say that isolating time into a "static" unit will not be sufficient for the purpose of complete accuracy WRT examining something that is not itself static, and never can be static in principle. We and all of nature are all moving, all the time.
At least, that's my take on Mr. Lynd's fascinating speculation. I'd be interested in chatting with anyone who has reached a different conclusion.