Does anyone read the part 2 of Nagarjuna's karika as an argument about infinite divisibility?

Is Nagarjuna is arguing that time cannot really be both infinitely divisible and extended, so is a conceptual construction? I'm asking because verse 2.23 suggested that to me, taken completely out of context, anyway. > 23. **[A going] which is other than the going by which a goer is made *evident* does not [enable a goer to] go**. Because it is impossible for > going to be twofold within a single goer. Emphasis, obviously, mine. I really like the idea that Nagarjuna was saying that time must be infinitely divisible, but time as we experience it (***evidently***) is not infinitely divisible, because if it was it would take forever to compose it. ---------- As I think it was pointed out in an answer, it is often I think said that Nagarjuna means time cannot inherently exist because it is infinitely divisible. I'm just adding that it ***can neither be infinitely divided nor not***. I would not conclude that time does not flow, but that anything that arises has already passed, radical impermanence, suggesting that extinction and so on is already present.