God and the Present

'Where you live' is in your brain's model of reality, which is generated in part based on the light that hit your retina (on the order of 100 milliseconds) earlier.

Reply to wonderer1 And in that model nothing is synchronized enough to be called 'the present'. If you see a bird flying in the sky near the sun, the light that bounced off the bird hit it a fraction of a second ago, but the rays coming for the Sun left it eight minutes ago. That is, what you perceive as contemporary is not – the Sun might have suddenly ceased to exist four minutes ago, long before that bird even got near you. Your perception 'the bird flies when the sun shines' would be false in that case.

The same goes for all your senses, of course. If you step on something sharp, you feel it about 0.3 s after the fact. If you think that you have heard something at the exact same moment - you did not, as your auditory impulses are also delayed, but less than touch. And of course both stimuli occurred even earlier, before they were processed by your brain. What you perceive as 'the present' is a jumble of of various occurences that have already happened at different times. 'Reality itself' it is not.

Reply to Jabberwock

Exactly. Thank you for explaining.

May I use you, as a demonstration to other forum members, of something apropos to discussion going on in the "Simplisticators and Complicators" thread? :nerd:

Quoting Art48

I am always in the present, even if my mind is elsewhere.

More or less, depending on the duration of "the present".
But if your mind is elsewhere, where are you and where is that else where your mind is?
What are you without your mind, and what is your mind without your body?

And what's any of it to do with God?

Quoting Vera Mont

And what's any of it to do with God?

I wrote,if God exists. The point being if we are only really in the present (not the past or the future), then if God is real, our only point of contact where we could possibly meet is the present.

Quoting Art48

hen if God is real, our only point of contact where we could possibly meet is the present.

So? For Him, that's all times and every time. For us, it's a microsecond, and the next microsecond, and the next. He can comprehend everything about us from conception to disintegration, but we, who need time to process information, can comprehend nothing about Him in that infinitesimal moment. The very process of living necessarily takes you away from that microsecond in which you met God - if, indeed, that happened at all: You can't ever be sure, because you didn't have time to commit the experience to long-term memory.

Reply to wonderer1 Sure :)

As to the OP, what is important, I think, is not what we say of it, but what we do. I can imagine two outcomes. 1) Someone practices trying to often reflect on how now is always the same, until they actually see the world that way. Or 2) someone doesn't. For 2), it doesn't really matter if they agree with the OP or not; the result is the same.

This approach sees a purpose of philosophy as transformation. This may seem as aiming too high. Maybe transformation of a human being into a person more in accord with reality is better left to psychology and/or religion?

I don't mean to belittle any other purpose of philosophy but I think it's valid including transformation among those purposes.

Quoting Art48

I don't mean to belittle any other purpose of philosophy but I think it's valid including transformation among those purposes.

Is all transformation assumed to be an improvement? Or should a transformation be purposeful and directed to some specified end?

Reply to Art48
Here's something to think about. Try to pinpoint the present, the exact point in time, which divides the future from past. Every time you say "now', by the time you say "now" it is in the past. So the present cannot be a point in time which separates past from future, because that point will always be in the past.

Now consider the way you sense things in your existence, or being at the present. We always sense things happening, activity, motions. And all activities and motions require a period of time during which the activity occurs. So if we sense things at the present, and we sense activities, then the present must consist of a duration of time rather than a point in time.

But if the present consists of a duration of time, then some of that duration must be before, the other part which is after. So if the present separates future from past, and it consists of a duration of time, then part of the present must be in the future, and part of it in the past.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Here's something to think about. Try to pinpoint the present, the exact point in time, which divides the future from past. Every time you say "now', by the time you say "now" it is in the past.

A bullet at any instant is at some point in space but my perception limits me to perceiving it in some region of space in that I cannot tell exactly where it is. Ontologically, the now may be a point in time even if I perceive it as a small region of time.

Quoting Art48

A bullet at any instant is at some point in space but my perception limits me to perceiving it in some region of space in that I cannot tell exactly where it is. Ontologically, the now may be a point in time even if I perceive it as a small region of time.

As I explained, the idea of "an instant", as a point in time, is not really consistent with reality as we know it. It's a useful ideal, but not at all real.

Quoting Art48

Ontologically, the now may be a point in time even if I perceive it as a small region of time.

Ontological principles need to be supported by something. If no experience, nor logic can demonstrate the reality of a point in time, then there is no room for it in ontology. Since time is known as what is passing, and what always has some duration, then such a proposed point must be something other than time. So we can't really say it's "in time". The point is in our minds, as the useful tool, it's not in time.

Quoting Jabberwock

And in that model nothing is synchronized enough to be called 'the present'. If you see a bird flying in the sky near the sun, the light that bounced off the bird hit it a fraction of a second ago, but the rays coming for the Sun left it eight minutes ago. That is, what you perceive as contemporary is not – the Sun might have suddenly ceased to exist four minutes ago, long before that bird even got near you. Your perception 'the bird flies when the sun shines' would be false in that case.

This implies that 'the present' is the time at which we each find ourselves to be conscious; when we each perceive the occurence of things in the world to be contemporary. Obviously, this isn't a universal time measure, but is similar enough for those of us on Earth (travelling at approx. the same velocity).

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Every time you say "now', by the time you say "now" it is in the past. So the present cannot be a point in time which separates past from future, because that point will always be in the past.

It seems that your "by the time you say "now"" is equivalent to "after you say "now"". It could be argued that the present time is that time while or during your saying of the word "now", and that (at that time) the past precedes this act and the future procedes it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I explained, the idea of "an instant", as a point in time, is not really consistent with reality as we know it. It's a useful ideal, but not at all real.

Then the same could be said of any period of time - not just an instant - and so all periods of time are "useful ideals" that are not "consistent with reality". In fact, the whole of language could be considered as "useful ideals". Congratulations then, MU: we must not use language as it is "not really consistent with reality".

Quoting Luke

It could be argued that the present time is that time while or during your saying of the word "now", and that (at that time) the past precedes this act and the future procedes it.

Yes, and that\s what comes later in the post. If activity occurs at the present, then the present must consist of duration, not a point.

Quoting Luke

Then the same could be said of any period of time - not just an instant - and so all periods of time are "useful ideals" that are not "consistent with reality".

Yes, exactly. Any proposed period of time is actually indefinite, having an imprecise beginning and ending because of this issue.

Quoting Luke

we must not use language as it is "not really consistent with reality".

This does not follow though. As I said, it's a useful ideal. Usefulness is not dependent on accuracy, precision, or even truth in the sense of correspondence.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, and that\s what comes later in the post. If activity occurs at the present, then the present must consist of duration, not a point.

I don't see what difference it makes, especially to your argument.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Any proposed period of time is actually indefinite, having an imprecise beginning and ending because of this issue.

If you mean a period of time, such as a minute or an hour, then I disagree that these are indefinite periods of time. If you mean any measurement of time, then I suppose there might be at least some imprecision involved with any measurement, but I don't see why it matters.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I explained, the idea of "an instant", as a point in time, is not really consistent with reality as we know it. It's a useful ideal, but not at all real.
— Metaphysician Undercover

...we must not use language as it is "not really consistent with reality".
— Luke

This does not follow though. As I said, it's a useful ideal. Usefulness is not dependent on accuracy, precision, or even truth in the sense of correspondence.

But if "an instant" is "not really consistent with reality" as a point in time, then "a minute" is "not really consistent with reality" as a period of time.

Quoting Luke

If you mean a period of time, such as a minute or an hour, then I disagree that these are indefinite periods of time. If you mean any measurement of time, then I suppose there might be at least some imprecision involved with any measurement, but I don't see why it matters.

I didn't say that "it matters", only pointing out the reality and truth of it. It might matter to you, or it might not, depending on your interest. But it seems to me like you are trying to make an argument where none is called for.

Quoting Luke

But if "an instant" is "not really consistent with reality" as a point in time, then "a minute" is "not really consistent with reality" as a period of time.

Right, and as I said above, this might matter to you or it might not, depending on your interest.

Quoting Art48

Only the present is real.

A nonsensical statement due to the fact that neither past nor future are escapable in – separable from – the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If you mean a period of time, such as a minute or an hour, then I disagree that these are indefinite periods of time. If you mean any measurement of time, then I suppose there might be at least some imprecision involved with any measurement, but I don't see why it matters.
— Luke

I didn't say that "it matters", only pointing out the reality and truth of it. It might matter to you, or it might not, depending on your interest. But it seems to me like you are trying to make an argument where none is called for.

I was seeking clarification.

Are you saying that (e.g.) a minute is an indefinite period of time? Isn't it exactly 60 seconds?

Or are you saying that any measurement of time is indefinite?

If the latter, then what bearing does it have on your views/comments regarding the present moment?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But if "an instant" is "not really consistent with reality" as a point in time, then "a minute" is "not really consistent with reality" as a period of time.
— Luke

Right, and as I said above, this might matter to you or it might not, depending on your interest.

My interest is that I didn't find your argument - that the present moment cannot be an instantaneous point in time - to be very convincing.

You could make an argument such that if we imagine an instant of time to be like a photograph, and if we consider that the average shutter speed of a typical photograph is 1/60th of a second, then it follows that an actual instant of time requires some duration, no matter how small.

As (I think) you note, an instantaneous point in time, like a point in space, is a dimensionless concept. However, in reality, if we assume the present to be the time at which we each find ourselves conscious, then a dimensionless point in time with zero duration would seem to be an insufficient "time window" in which to be conscious. A point in time with zero duration is no time at all, and there is nothing to be conscious of in no time at all. Or something like that.

Quoting Luke

Are you saying that (e.g.) a minute is an indefinite period of time? Isn't it exactly 60 seconds?

Or are you saying that any measurement of time is indefinite?

Both, defining one period of time with another doesn't clarify anything because it would lead to an infinite regress, without ever giving any indication as to how to actually apply those measurement principles in practise. And, in practise any measurement is imprecise due to the problem with the start and end point.

Quoting Luke

My interest is that I didn't find your argument - that the present moment cannot be an instantaneous point in time - to be very convincing.

If you are interested in my argument, then address the argument itself, rather than some other vague ideas about measurement problems, which seem to be irrelevant to my argument anyway.

Quoting Luke

You could make an argument such that if we imagine an instant of time to be like a photograph, and if we consider that the average shutter speed of a typical photograph is 1/60th of a second, then it follows that an actual instant of time requires some duration, no matter how small.

That's a better question, more directed at the argument itself. What you propose here would not resolve the issue because that 1/60th of a second time period would require a beginning and end point. So defining an "instant" as a specific time length does not remove the need for points to mark the beginning and ending to that time length. Whether the "instant" is defined as the time between the points, or defined as the points, makes no difference to the actual issue which still remains despite such attempts at annihilation by definition.

Quoting Luke

As (I think) you note, an instantaneous point in time, like a point in space, is a dimensionless concept. However, in reality, if we assume the present to be the time at which we each find ourselves conscious, then a dimensionless point in time with zero duration would seem to be an insufficient "time window" in which to be conscious. A point in time with zero duration is no time at all, and there is nothing to be conscious of in no time at all. Or something like that.

Right, that was the first part of the argument, arguing that "the present" must consist of duration. And, this is consistent with our sense experience. We sense things as moving, therefore duration is implied within the present of our consciousness. The second part of the argument is that any duration of time consists of a part which is before and a part which is after. In relation to the present, the prior part is past and the posterior part is future, therefore the present must consist of both future and past.


It appears like it is the first part of the argument which you find unconvincing. But then you say "if we assume the present to be the time at which we each find ourselves conscious", this first part would be correct. So how would you propose to define "the present" in any other way? You could define it as the point which divides future from past, but the argument is designed to show that this is an incorrect representation of the present, inconsistent with empirical evidence. There is no such point which separates future from past.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Both, defining one period of time with another doesn't clarify anything because it would lead to an infinite regress, without ever giving any indication as to how to actually apply those measurement principles in practise. And, in practise any measurement is imprecise due to the problem with the start and end point.

You said earlier:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Any proposed period of time is actually indefinite, having an imprecise beginning and ending because of this issue.

It was this claim about any proposed period of time being "indefinite" and "imprecise" that I was querying and criticising. As you confirm above, this relates only to measurement. There is nothing indefinite or imprecise about a stipulated measure of time, such as a minute. Your introduction of how to "actually apply measurement principles in practise" are not relevant to your statement that "any proposed period of time is indefinite [and] imprecise". A minute is exactly 60 seconds long - no more, no less.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If you are interested in my argument, then address the argument itself, rather than some other vague ideas about measurement problems, which seem to be irrelevant to my argument anyway.

You have stated more than once, including immediately above in bold, that "in practise any measurement is imprecise due to the problem with the start and end point". I have not introduced "some other vague ideas about measurement problems". This is very clearly your argument.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You could make an argument such that if we imagine an instant of time to be like a photograph, and if we consider that the average shutter speed of a typical photograph is 1/60th of a second, then it follows that an actual instant of time requires some duration, no matter how small.
— Luke

That's a better question, more directed at the argument itself.

It wasn't a question.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Whether the "instant" is defined as the time between the points, or defined as the points

Points have zero dimension or length, so it would make no difference either way. There would be a difference if an "instant" were defined as a single point of zero duration, rather than as the time between two points, which would then be of some duration.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The second part of the argument is that any duration of time consists of a part which is before and a part which is after. In relation to the present, the prior part is past and the posterior part is future, therefore the present must consist of both future and past.

This makes little sense to me. The present is neither past nor future. I see no reason to accept why it must "consist" of either past or future. Nobody is attempting to measure the present moment. If we could measure the present moment, then there would be no reason to say that the present therefore consists of both future and past. If we knew of any measurement errors, then we'd account for them in our measurement of the duration of the present.

Quoting Luke

It was this claim about any proposed period of time being "indefinite" and "imprecise" that I was querying and criticising. As you confirm above, this relates only to measurement. There is nothing indefinite or imprecise about a stipulated measure of time, such as a minute. Your introduction of how to "actually apply measurement principles in practise" are not relevant to your statement that "any proposed period of time is indefinite [and] imprecise". A minute is exactly 60 seconds long - no more, no less.

I thought it was quite clear that I was talking about the thing measured, the passage of time, hence my statement "time is known as what is passing, and what always has some duration".

Quoting Luke

This makes little sense to me. The present is neither past nor future. I see no reason to accept why it must "consist" of either past or future.

If you would like to address the argument, then I'd be happy to oblige you, and reply to any questions you have about it, or explain further any parts which you say that you do not understand. But to simply state that the conclusion makes no sense to you, and claim "I see no reason to accept" that conclusion, (regardless of the argument given), gives me nothing to discuss with you.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I thought it was quite clear that I was talking about the thing measured, the passage of time, hence my statement "time is known as what is passing, and what always has some duration".

I spent several posts trying to clarify whether you were talking about the measurement of time or of stipulated time periods such as seconds and minutes, and your latest reply was: both. So, no, it was far from clear that you were talking about the thing measured. I believe I've helped to clarify that for you.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If you would like to address the argument...

Okay, I'll address it. The argument you gave was:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

if the present consists of a duration of time, then some of that duration must be before, the other part which is after.

Before and after what?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So if the present separates future from past, and it consists of a duration of time, then part of the present must be in the future, and part of it in the past.

I don't see how the conclusion follows, and you have offered no reason to accept it.

Quoting Luke

Before and after what?

Before and after each other. That's what I said explicitly "some of that duration must be before, the other part which is after". How could I be more clear? I'll try though. One part of the duration is before the other, which is after the part which is before.

Quoting Luke

I don't see how the conclusion follows,

OK, in other words you do not understand the argument. It seems you are having difficulty with "before" and "after". Is my usage unfamiliar to you? Do you understand the following example? "Last night was before this morning, which is after last night. So if the time duration we are talking about consists of last night and this morning, the part which is called last night is before the part which is called this morning, which is after the part called last night.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Before and after each other.

Good. Im glad you did not mean before and after the present. Now all that’s left to explain is how your conclusion follows:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So if the present separates future from past, and it consists of a duration of time, then part of the present must be in the future, and part of it in the past.

Why must part of the present be in the future and part of it in the past?

Quoting Luke

Good. Im glad you did not mean before and after the present. Now all that’s left to explain is how your conclusion follows:

I said, "in relation to the present". The present was already described as the period of time within in which we find our conscious existence. And, it was shown that this is necessarily a period of time, not a dimensionless point. That was the first part of the argument.

Quoting Luke

Why must part of the present be in the future and part of it in the past?

I really can't believe that this is so difficult for you. I think you are faking it. Anyway, I'll recap the argument for you in case you might come around. The "present", as described, is a period of time, not a point in time. Any, and every period of time has one part before the other part which is after, as explained. In relation to the present, the before is called "past", and the after is called "future". Therefore when we talk about this period of time which we call "the present", part is in the past and part is in the future.

Perhaps a couple examples will help you to understand. This year, 2023, is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Today, July 2, is the present. Part is in the past, part is in the future. This minute is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Etc..

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In relation to the present, the before is called "past", and the after is called "future". Therefore when we talk about this period of time which we call "the present", part is in the past and part is in the future.

The second sentence does not follow from the first. What is before the present is called "past" and what is after the present is called "future". Therefore, neither the past nor the future are part of the present.

The present is a duration with start and end points. What is before the start of the present is the past, and what is after the end of the present is the future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps a couple examples will help you to understand. This year, 2023, is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Today, July 2, is the present. Part is in the past, part is in the future. This minute is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Etc..

If 2023 is the present, then the past is everything before 2023 and the future is everything after 2023.
If July 2 is the present, then the past is everything before July 2 and the future is everything after July 2.
If this minute is the present, then the past is everything before this minute and the future is everything after this minute.

There is no part of the past or the future in the present.

Quoting Luke

The second sentence does not follow from the first. What is before the present is called "past" and what is after the present is called "future". Therefore, neither the past nor the future are part of the present.

"Present" is not defined that way in my argument. It is defined by our conscious experience. So your objection is based in equivocation, and is irrelevant.

Furthermore, it is this definition of "present", which requires a non-dimensional divisor between different parts of time, and this is dealt with in the first part of the argument. So you are really just relying on a definition of "present" which is demonstrated by the first part of the argument as incorrect, unreal, or false.

Quoting Luke

The present is a duration with start and end points.

Start and end points are what is demonstrated by the first part of the argument as incorrect, unreal, false. Remember, you wanted to give the "instant" temporal extension, duration, with start and end points. But I explained that the problem is with the assumption of points, so you cannot avoid the problem this way. If you do not understand this, I can probably give you a better explanation.

Quoting Luke

If 2023 is the present, then the past is everything before 2023 and the future is everything after 2023.
If July 2 is the present, then the past is everything before July 2 and the future is everything after July 2.
If this minute is the present, then the past is everything before this minute and the future is everything after this minute.

Now you are neglecting the second part of the argument. If the present is a period of time, part of the present is before, and part is after. And in relation to "present" before is past and after is future. Part of 2023 is in the past and part is in the future, despite the fact that 2023 is the present. You can deny this all you want, with your use of imaginary points, but that's just your way of denying the reality of time.

Quoting Luke

There is no part of the past or the future in the present.

So says the person with the demonstrably incoherent idea of "present".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"Present" is not defined that way in my argument. It is defined by our conscious experience.

Right, so you are using "present" in two different senses. It is defined by our conscious experience and it is the year 2023, or July 2, or whatever. This is the only way your argument makes any sense, but it contains a fallacy of ambiguity. This is what I have been attempting to show you. It was why I asked: before and after what, because I anticipated that the answer to this would be before and after your present conscious experience. That is, I could see that you were also using "the present" to refer to some moment (of consciousness) in the middle of the (other, larger) present moment (of 2023).

Your ambiguous model looks like this:

Past---------------Future
---------------
P---R---E---S---E---N---T


Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

your objection is based in equivocation, and is irrelevant.

The equivocation is yours.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Start and end points are what is demonstrated by the first part of the argument as incorrect, unreal, false.

How can there be a duration without start and end points? If there is a duration of some length, then that length must have end points.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Furthermore, it is this definition of "present", which requires a non-dimensional divisor between different parts of time, and this is dealt with in the first part of the argument.

To be clear, can you link to the post(s) that contains the argument?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Part of 2023 is in the past and part is in the future, despite the fact that 2023 is the present.

How can the present both be defined by our conscious experience and also be 2023? Is a part of your present conscious experience in the past and part in the future? How can your present conscious experience be in the future or the past? Wouldn't they just be your past and future conscious experiences? Unless you wish to argue that you consciously experience 2023 all at once?

Quoting Luke

It is defined by our conscious experience and it is the year 2023, or July 2, or whatever.

Actually, I provided those dates as examples you might be able to relate to. I now see that trying to talk your language was a mistake. Remove the examples, and the argument is logically sound, but it makes no sense to you. This is because you will not allow "present" to be defined by conscious experience. So it appears like my argument makes no sense to you because you insist on an incoherent definition of "present".

The difference is this. You insisted that "present" be defined by past and future. I say that the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present. The reverse of what you desire, and what makes "the present" require the incoherent dimensionless points. This is because present is logically prior to past and future, and human beings determine past and future relative to their existence at the present. They do not determine the present from past and future, like you say.

Quoting Luke

How can there be a duration without start and end points? If there is a duration of some length, then that length must have end points.

We went through this already, the duration is indefinite. it is not "a duration of some length", simply duration. It is your tendency to fall back on measurement which makes you insist on points. However, we can and do experience time, and duration without measuring it.

Quoting Luke

How can the present both be defined by our conscious experience and also be 2023? Is a part of your present conscious experience in the past and part in the future? How can your present conscious experience be in the future or the past? Wouldn't they just be your past and future conscious experiences? Unless you wish to argue that you consciously experience 2023 all at once?

Sorry for the misleading examples, let's just go back to the argument itself, if you will. I suggest that if you want to understand, release your preconceived notion of "the present", and start with an open mind. Are you willing to start with your conscious experience of being at the present, experiencing the passing of time, without reference to measurement?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is because you will not allow "present" to be defined by conscious experience.

I've never said that.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

They do not determine the present from past and future, like you say.

I've never said that.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We went through this already, the duration is indefinite. it is not "a duration of some length", simply duration. It is you tendency to fall back on measurement which makes you insist on points.

It was your argument that measurement is the cause of the duration's imprecision and indefiniteness (remember you agreed that a stipulated time period such as a minute is not indefinite or imprecise?). Unless you are merely defining the duration to be imprecise and indefinite?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry for the misleading examples, let's just go back to the argument itself, if you will. I suggest that if you want to understand, release your preconceived notion of "the present", and start with an open mind. Are you will to start with your conscious experience of being at the present, experiencing the passing of time, without reference to measurement?

I've already provided you with several rebuttals to your argument. You are welcome to address them. You could start with this:

Quoting Luke

Is a part of your present conscious experience in the past and part in the future? How can your present conscious experience be in the future or the past? Wouldn't they just be your past and future conscious experiences?

Quoting Art48

I do not exist in the past or the future. I exist now, in the present. If God is real, I can only experience God in the present. Excessive thought and concern about past and future takes me away from where I really am, takes me out of reality, takes me away from God.

Furthermore, if God is only in the present moment also as you say, and that present moment is always the present moment, then distance/space and time is also a product of memories and the illusion of separations they create - the comparisons made by distinctions between memories of place and moment, the separation of the many "nows" into chronological order and dimension for which it must occupy. What separates you as a 7 year old with you now but space and time.

So "if" God exists, one would imagine they are accesible not by being "at the right place at the right time" to point them out and say "Hey there he/she/it is! Everyone look! I found where God's at/been hiding all this time!"

In essence that they're non-local and non-temporal. I would imagine such a state is prudent for an entity to qualify as everything, everywhere, all at once (the "omnis").

The only remaining way to "meet" such an entity is through contemplation from the present moment using ones mind. So if you're looking for "proof" of a God, it's unlikely that you can point to anything in specific. One must ask what form the "proof" must come in. What format? What type of proof is required and is it satisfying enough? You can simply know for yourself what the answer is. Perhaps you can explain it to someone else, perhaps they might believe you if you explain it well enough? Perhaps it enriches your experience or doesn't. Thats up to you - your free will/choice.

Quoting Luke

I've already provided you with several rebuttals to your argument. You are welcome to address them. You could start with this:

I haven't seen a reasonable rebuttal from you yet, only mention of measurement principles, and straw man representations which are irrelevant. You refuse to address the actual argument, just insisting that the conclusion is inconsistent with what you believe about "the present", therefore you claim that the argument cannot be sound and refuse to address it directly..

Your questioning here is more of the same. In essence, you are asking me, how can it be that the present is not as I believe it to be. The answer is simple, your belief is incorrect. And so you will inevitable continue with more of the same sort of so-called rebuttals. Instead of looking at the argument, and understanding it, you will continue to ask "how can it be that the present is ..., when I understand it to be ..."?

Quoting Luke

s a part of your present conscious experience in the past and part in the future?

Yes part is in the past and part is in the future.

Quoting Luke

How can your present conscious experience be in the future or the past?

Present consciousness is very complex, therefore it consists of parts, many, many events occurring at the same time, as the parts which compose it. And just like any event, some parts are before others. When an event occurs at the present it has a temporal duration and so some parts are in the past (have already occurred), and some are in the future (have not yet occurred). Therefore the "present conscious experience" is both in the future and in the past by virtue of its parts being thus situated temporally.

I know from the way you treated my examples (the present is 2023) that this idea is what you object to. You say that if the event (2023 for example) is "the present" then all of it is at the present, and anything before the entirety of it is past, and anything after the entirety of it is future. This would leave the entirety of that event (2023 in the example) as "the present" with no part inf the future or past.

The problem with that way of looking at it, is that it makes the temporal duration of the event which is "at the present" (2023 in the example) as unintelligible. In reality, if there is an event which occurs at the present, then by the fact that it is an "event" it is logically necessary that it has temporal duration and time passes during the occurrence of that event (2023). Therefore within the event itself, there are before parts and after parts. And it also follows that during the event, the present event (2023), while that event is occurring and time is passing during its occurrence, some of it in the past and some of it in the future. Therefore within the occurrence of the event which is "at the present" (2023 in the example) we can only understand its temporal progression by assuming that part is past and part is future. If we insist that all the event (2023) is present, and there is no past or future, there is no grounds for apprehending any temporal progression within the occurrence of the event. So the temporal dimension of the event is rendered as unintelligible.

Therefore we can conclude with a very high degree of certainty, because the premises are very strong, that within the event which we call "present conscious experience", some parts are in the past and some are in the future.

Quoting Luke

Wouldn't they just be your past and future conscious experiences?

Conscious experience occurs in the present. That is the principle premise. Conscious experience in the past, and in the future, contradict this premise. So, we start with that premise, and then position past and future relative to conscious experience. Therefore past and future are apprehended as distinct parts of the conscious experience, at the present, as explained, rather than independent things which conscious experience might be a part of. The latter is incoherent by the terms of the principle premise by way of the contradiction mentioned above. The former is not.

Quoting Art48

The future is memories.

Say what?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I know from the way you treated my examples (the present is 2023) that this idea is what you object to. You say that if the event (2023 for example) is "the present" then all of it is at the present, and anything before the entirety of it is past, and anything after the entirety of it is future. This would leave the entirety of that event (2023 in the example) as "the present" with no part inf the future or past.

If you define "the present" as the entirety of 2023, then the duration of the present is - the present lasts for - the entirety of 2023, by definition. Furthermore, it does not follow that 2023 (the duration of the present) therefore has "no part in the future or past", as it was preceded by 2022 (which is presently in the past) and will by followed by 2024 (which is presently in the future).

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In reality, if there is an event which occurs at the present, then by the fact that it is an "event" it is logically necessary that it has temporal duration and time passes during the occurrence of that event (2023).

That time passes is presupposed regardless of your argument that the present contains parts of the future and past or not. Your stipulation that the present contains parts of the future and past does not make time pass, logically or otherwise.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore within the event itself, there are before parts and after parts.

Within both the past and future, there are "before" parts and "after" parts. Does it follow from this that the future is in the past and that the past is in the future? This is simply a misuse of language. "Before" and "after" are not synonymous with "past" and "future". "Before" and "after" can be used independently of the present moment whereas "past" and "future" are relative to it. WWII came after WWI yet both are in our past. 2035 is before 2065 yet both are in our future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

And it also follows that during the event, the present event (2023), while that event is occurring and time is passing during its occurrence, some of it in the past and some of it in the future. Therefore within the occurrence of the event which is "at the present" (2023 in the example) we can only understand its temporal progression by assuming that part is past and part is future.

Yes, but none of the duration of the present is in the past or the future. By definition, it is the duration of the present, not the duration of the past nor the duration of the future. We seem to agree that the present moment is defined by your conscious experience, and it is the duration of your conscious experience that defines the duration of the present moment, and only the present moment. Otherwise, it would not be the duration of the present moment, but the duration of the present moment +/- some duration of the past and/or some duration of the future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If we insist that all the event (2023) is present, and there is no past or future…

I”ve never said that there is no past or future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

…[then] there is no grounds for apprehending any temporal progression within the occurrence of the event.

Why not? There were many years before 2023 and will be many afterwards.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore we can conclude with a very high degree of certainty, because the premises are very strong, that within the event which we call "present conscious experience", some parts are in the past and some are in the future.

Which premises?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Conscious experience occurs in the present. That is the principle premise. Conscious experience in the past, and in the future, contradict this premise.

How do they contradict the principle premise? They would need to state that conscious experience occurs in the past and in the future in order to contradict it. To avoid contradiction, we could simply state that conscious experience occurred in the past and will occur in the future.

Quoting Luke

If you define "the present" as the entirety of 2023, then the duration of the present is - the present lasts for - the entirety of 2023, by definition.

That is an example, "the present is 2023". It is not a definition of "the present". That's why all the other examples were examples too, none of them defined "the present". They were examples of possible particular instances.

Quoting Luke

That time passes is presupposed regardless of your argument that the present contains parts of the future and past or not. Your stipulation that the present contains parts of the future and past does not make time pass, logically or otherwise.

If, "time passes" is presupposed, then you'll understand exactly why "the present" cannot be defined as 2023, or any such named "time", because the name of the present time would always be changing.

That the present contains parts of the future and parts of the past is not a stipulation, it is the conclusion of the logical argument I presented, whether you like it or not. It is a conclusion, not a stipulation.

Quoting Luke

Within both the past and future, there are "before" parts and "after" parts. Does it follow from this that the future is in the past and that the past is in the future?

Events only occur at the present, so this is not relevant, because I was talking about the occurrence of an event, something which only happens at the present.

Quoting Luke

By definition, it is the duration of the present, not the duration of the past nor the duration of the future.

As I've been busily demonstrating to you, this is the faulty definition of "the present", which you cling to even though it renders the present as something incoherent and unintelligible. That's why I've been telling you that you ought to approach this topic with n open mind, and allow that perhaps the definition of "the present" which you cling to is wrong, instead of continually insisting that what I say is wrong "by definition".

Since what I say accords very well with the reality of time, and the conclusion of the very sound argument I've presented is in discordance with your definition of "the present", it's very clear that you ought to reject, and replace your definition.

Quoting Luke

We seem to agree that the present moment is defined by your conscious experience, and it is the duration of your conscious experience that defines the duration of the present moment, and only the present moment.

You say that you agree with me that the present is defined by conscious experience, but then you want to define "the present" as either a point in time, or an interval of time with beginning and ending points. Points in time are not at all consistent with our experience of time as continuous. Therefore if you really believed that the present is defined by our conscious experience you would have rejected this idea of points in time which mark "the present", way back when I first explained that such a thing is not consistent with our conscious experience of time. Instead you insist on clinging to this faulty ideas of points.

Quoting Luke

Why not? There were many years before 2023 and will be many afterwards.

Because there is no occurrence of any event if there is no passing of time. And passing of time only occurs at the present, as our experience indicates. We have no experience of any events ever occurring at any time other than the present. Events occur at the present, and only at the present. We can create an artificial representation of events occurring in the past or in the future, by artificially projecting the present to that time. But if the entirety of 2023 is already designated as "the present", we cannot artificially project another present to sometime within 2023 without contradiction. Therefore the occurrence of events within that designated "present" are unintelligible, as I explained in a slightly different way, last post.

Quoting Luke

Which premises?

How can you assert that you've rebutted my argument when you cannot even state the premises? 1 conscious experience indicates that the present is not a point, it consists of duration. 2. A duration consists of parts which are before and parts which are after. 3. Before and after in relation to the present are past and future. I suggest you reread.

Quoting Luke

How do they contradict the principle premise? They would need to state that conscious experience occurs in the past and in the future in order to contradict it. To avoid contradiction, we could simply state that conscious experience occurred in the past and will occur in the future.

Then you are not talking about the present any more, which would be inconsistent with the premise. To avoid contradiction we'd have to say that conscious experience occurred when that time which is now past, was present, to ensure that conscious experience is always at the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That is an example, "the present is 2023".

Yes, you returned to your example, so I addressed it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It is not a definition of "the present".

You defined it as such when you introduced it:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This year, 2023, is the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You say that you agree with me that the present is defined by conscious experience, but then you want to define "the present" as either a point in time, or an interval of time with beginning and ending points. Points in time are not at all consistent with our experience of time as continuous.

Points in time are consistent with a duration. A duration is a determinate period of time with beginning and end points. It is your premise that the present consists of a duration.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Why not? There were many years before 2023 and will be many afterwards.
— Luke

Because there is no occurrence of any event if there is no passing of time. And passing of time only occurs at the present, as our experience indicates.

That was my point: 2022 was present, 2023 is present, and 2024 will be present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

How can you assert that you've rebutted my argument when you cannot even state the premises? 1 conscious experience indicates that the present is not a point, it consists of duration. 2. A duration consists of parts which are before and parts which are after. 3. Before and after in relation to the present are past and future.

Thanks for clarifying. However, there seems to be some hidden premises because I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that "time passes" from these premises alone.

Also, if we take a closer look, premise 1 states that the present consists of a duration and premise 2 states that a duration consists of before and after parts. This implies that the present consists of before and after parts. This does not imply that those before and after parts are past and future parts, because it is the present which consists of those before and after parts.

We could add that, relative to the present moment, the past comes before the present moment and the future comes after the present moment, but we are not committed to any conclusion that the before parts of the present are past nor that the after parts of the present are future. The before and after parts are only what the present consists of.

You are still using two different senses of the present moment. On the one hand you treat the present as a duration. However, on the other hand, you also treat the present as some mid-point within the duration, which has some parts before it and some parts after, and you treat these as being past and future. You should instead treat what is outside the duration of the present as being past and future, rather than what is inside it on either side of the duration of the present's mid-point.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

How do they contradict the principle premise? They would need to state that conscious experience occurs in the past and in the future in order to contradict it. To avoid contradiction, we could simply state that conscious experience occurred in the past and will occur in the future.
— Luke

Then you are not talking about the present any more, which would be inconsistent with the premise.

I wasn't talking about the present or the principle premise that "conscious experience occurs in the present". I was talking about what contradicts the principle premise.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

To avoid contradiction we'd have to say that conscious experience occurred when that time which is now past, was present, to ensure that conscious experience is always at the present.

This was implied by my use of tensed language. Conscious experience occurs in the present, occurred in the past, and will occur in the future. The contradiction is thus avoided.

Quoting Luke

Points in time are consistent with a duration. A duration is a determinate period of time with beginning and end points. It is your premise that the present consists of a duration.

Points in time are not consistent with our conscious experience of duration. As I said, the duration of the present is indefinite. I said the present consist of "duration", not "a duration", and if I sometimes mentioned "a duration", I meant an indefinite duration.

This seems to be our principal disagreement. If you want to understand, then drop the points. But if this is where you think the weakness of the argument lies, then explain to me how you think there are points within our conscious experience of the present. Because that lack of points is a fundamental premise which I believe is very sound.

Quoting Luke

Thanks for clarifying. However, there seems to be some hidden premises because I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that "time passes" from these premises alone.

The conscious experience of the present is the experience of time passing. We could discuss whether or not it's properly called "passing", or if some other word would be better. As I explained in the original argument it is the experiencing of a continuous passing which cannot be pinpointed.

Quoting Luke

Also, if we take a closer look, premise 1 states that the present consists of a duration and premise 2 states that a duration consists of before and after parts. This implies that the present consists of before and after parts. This does not imply that those before and after parts are past and future parts, because it is the present which consists of those before and after parts.

The premise is "duration", not "a duration".

I don't see how the matter described is relevant. It's an issue of defining the terms. "Before and after" in relation to "the present" are known as past and future. If you like, we could adhere to "the present consists of before and after parts", and discuss what this means. But what it means is that the present consists of future and past parts, because if it consisted of only past, or only future parts, this would not be consistent with the conscious experience.

Quoting Luke

We could add that, relative to the present moment, the past comes before the present moment and the future comes after the present moment, but we are not committed to any conclusion that the before parts of the present are past nor that the after parts of the present are future. The before and after parts are only what the present consists of.

But we have no "present moment". You are inserting an unwarranted "moment" into the scenario. This is the manifestation of your desire to utilize "points". There is not "moment" in the conscious experience of the present. We only have the continuous experience of time passing to deal with, and this manifests as duration, indefinite duration.

So I don't see any reason for your limiting of the naming of the before and after parts. You impose an unwarranted "moment", in order to define "past" and "future" as relative to this moment. Then by this unwarranted definition you exclude "past" and "future" from the naming of the parts of "the present", because they have already been used as names relative to the "present moment". But there is no "moment" in the conscious experience so we must deny this proposition as false and this frees up "past" and "future" to be used relative to "the present", as I described, without any "moment" .

Quoting Luke

You are still using two different senses of the present moment.

I do not use "present moment". You introduced this. The present is duration, not a moment. That is the principal premise. Any time we try to assign "a moment", or "a point" to the present, the assignment fails, because the present does not consist of moments, nor is it "moment" in general.

Quoting Luke

However, on the other hand, you also treat the present as some mid-point within the duration, which has some parts before it and some parts after, and you treat these as being past and future.

Saying "before parts and after parts" does not imply a mid-point. There is no mention as to how any division into parts is to be carried out here, it is only implied that there is distinct parts. The mode of division is not mentioned so "mid-point" is not implied.

Quoting Luke

You should instead treat what is outside the duration of the present as being past and future, rather than what is inside it on either side of the duration of the present's mid-point.

This proposal is the manifestation of your faulty way of looking at the present, as a moment. Since there are no moments, only an apprehension of duration, which is indefinite, we have no boundary which would enable us to go "outside" the present. The principles for this "going outside" have not yet been established. We need a thorough understanding of the fundamentals before making such complex proposals.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Points in time are not consistent with our conscious experience of duration. As I said, the duration of the present is indefinite. I said the present consist of "duration", not "a duration", and if I sometimes mentioned "a duration", I meant an indefinite duration.

Do you think it would make sense to distinguish between the nature of our subjective experiences of 'the present' and the nature of time in the larger reality we are a part of?

It seems to me that you and Luke are both right in ways, but this discussion seems a muddled mess due to not making such a distinction.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Also, if we take a closer look, premise 1 states that the present consists of a duration and premise 2 states that a duration consists of before and after parts. This implies that the present consists of before and after parts. This does not imply that those before and after parts are past and future parts, because it is the present which consists of those before and after parts.
— Luke

I don't see how the matter described is relevant. It's an issue of defining the terms. "Before and after" in relation to "the present" are known as past and future. If you like, we could adhere to "the present consists of before and after parts", and discuss what this means. But what it means is that the present consists of future and past parts, because if it consisted of only past, or only future parts, this would not be consistent with the conscious experience.

It is relevant because you are misusing the terms "past" and "future", which are not part of the present, but distinct periods which - as you yourself have stated - are defined relative to the present. You appear to grasp this issue and my main point here:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...you exclude "past" and "future" from the naming of the parts of "the present", because they have already been used as names relative to the "present moment".

Precisely. "Past" and "future" cannot be used as names of parts of the present because they are used as names relative to the present. Your use of two different senses for each of these terms indicates your use of two different senses of "the present".

Quoting wonderer1

Do you think it would make sense to distinguish between the nature of our subjective experiences of 'the present' and the nature of time in the larger reality we are a part of?

I don't think that this would be possible at this point. The only thing we have to go on is our subjective experiences. So I think it's necessary to get a good understanding of our subjective experiences of time before we can proceed toward speculating about the nature of time in a larger reality. This is because our subjective experiences of time have a very significant impact on our speculations concerning any larger reality. I think that how one interprets one's subjective experience of time influences whether God may or may not enter the speculations about the larger reality.

Quoting wonderer1

It seems to me that you and Luke are both right in ways, but this discussion seems a muddled mess due to not making such a distinction.

The muddled mess is due to Luke's assumption that we can step outside of our experience of the present, and make assumptions about the nature of time outside of this experience of the present. See below, Luke puts forward an unwarranted and unjustified proposition that the future and past are "outside" of our experience of the present. So Luke seeks to define "present" in such a way that the future and past are outside of the present, leaving them as impossible to experience, therefore unknowable and unintelligible to empirical knowledge.

This is the problem with "presentism". By assuming Luke's premise, future and past get placed outside of the present. Then future and past become unintelligible to presentism when Luke\s premise is adopted without a thorough understanding of how we really experience "the present".

I, on the other hand define "present" in a way which is completely consistent with our experience of the present, and in a way which also brings "past" and "future" into our experience of the present, as part of it. This makes activity at the present (as we do sense motion at the present) coherent and intelligible, and it also brings past and future into our experience of the present, making these empirically knowable.

Quoting Luke

It is relevant because you are misusing the terms "past" and "future"

This supposed "misuse" is a product of your incoherent definition of "present", as I've already shown to you. You have an incoherent definition of "present" which puts past and future outside of the present, and this renders all aspects of time as unintelligible. By the terms of this incoherent definition, I misuse "past" and "future".

Quoting Luke

Your use of two different senses for each of these terms indicates your use of two different senses of "the present".

In the course of this discussion, I have on occasion, used "the present" in your way, solely for the purpose of demonstrating the incoherency of that way of using "the present".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This supposed "misuse" is a product of your incoherent definition of "present", as I've already shown to you. You have an incoherent definition of "present" which puts past and future outside of the present, and this renders all aspects of time as unintelligible. By the terms of this incoherent definition, I misuse "past" and "future".

I'll make a final attempt then leave you to your confusion.

Most people use the following terms to refer to three distinct periods of time:

1. Past (A)
2. Present (A)
3. Future (A)

You have also noted more than once that the past and the future are determined relative to the present, e.g.:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...present is logically prior to past and future, and human beings determine past and future relative to their existence at the present.

However, you simultaneously maintain that the present also consists of past and future periods. Let us denote these subdivisions of duration of the present as:

4. Past (B)
5. Future (B)

If 1 and 3 above are determined relative to 2, then 4 and 5 are determined relative to what? That is, 4 and 5 are in the past and in the future of what?

The answer can only be a second present - Present (B) - that is nested within Present (A).

And so on, ad infinitum.

Quoting Luke

Most people use the following terms to refer to three distinct periods of time:

Yes, and I've discussed the problems with this way that most people think. "Distinct periods of time" requires points, dimensionless boundaries to separate them. These points are inconsistent with our experience. Furthermore, if we assume that there are dimensionless points, boundaries, within time, then these points cannot themselves consist of time, but must be composed of something other than time. Then we have something other than time within time, and this produces the incoherency.

Quoting Luke

If 1 and 3 above are determined relative to 2, then 4 and 5 are determined relative to what? That is, 4 and 5 are in the past and in the future of what?

We've been through this a number of times, 1 and 3 are simply rejected as incoherent, false ideas of what past and future are. There are no points or dimensionless boundaries separating distinct parts of time. That idea is completely inconsistent with our conscious experience of time. Then after these are dismissed, we adopt 4 and 5 as a more realistic representation of past and future, a representation which is consistent with our empirical knowledge.

We might then proceed toward understanding a "past and future" which is outside the realm of experience and empirical knowledge, and this would be a "past and future" which is outside of the present, like your 1 and 3, with the difference being that they are not based on distinct boundaries. Then we have a way to properly understand past and future as they are, outside the realm of the present , and this understanding will be consistent with our experience, and therefore our empirical knowledge, as not based in distinct boundaries.

Quoting Luke

The answer can only be a second present - Present (B) - that is nested within Present (A).

Not at all, Present (A) is simply incoherent, and wrong, as explained above. It is inconsistent with experience and is a faulty idea which cannot be justified, because it is wrong. That is the point I made when I first entered this thread, and you still do not get it, wanting to nest Present (B) with present (A). The point is that Present (A) is incompatible with conscious experience, and incompatible with present (B) which is compatible with conscious experience. Therefore there can be no nesting, and present (A) must be rejected as a misleading idea.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Most people use the following terms to refer to three distinct periods of time:

— Luke

Yes, and I've discussed the problems with this way that most people think. "Distinct periods of time" requires points, dimensionless boundaries to separate them. These points are inconsistent with our experience.

You don't acknowledge any duration called "the present" that is distinct from past and future times? I thought your argument depended on it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Furthermore, if we assume that there are dimensionless points, boundaries, within time, then these points cannot themselves consist of time, but must be composed of something other than time. Then we have something other than time within time, and this produces the incoherency.

You believe that linguistic distinctions are composed of something physical?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We've been through this a number of times, 1 and 3 are simply rejected as incoherent, false ideas of what past and future are. There are no points or dimensionless boundaries separating distinct parts of time.

You said that the past and future are determined relative to the present. Now you reject the past and future as incoherent? If there are no distinctions between different parts of time, then why is your argument based on the distinctions between past, present and future? If there is no present time that is distinct from past and future times, then what the hell have we been talking about?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Then after these are dismissed, we adopt 4 and 5 as a more realistic representation of past and future, a representation which is consistent with our empirical knowledge.

So, there is no past or future times outside of the present time, there is only the present time which consists of past and future times? In that case - for the umpteenth time - what are these past and future times relative to; they are in the past and in the future of what? It cannot be the present time if these past and future times constitute the present time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We might then proceed toward understanding a "past and future" which is outside the realm of experience and empirical knowledge, and this would be a "past and future" which is outside of the present, like your 1 and 3, with the difference being that they are not based on distinct boundaries. Then we have a way to properly understand past and future as they are, outside the realm of the present , and this understanding will be consistent with our experience, and therefore our empirical knowledge, as not based in distinct boundaries.

You reject my 1 and 3, which you state "are simply rejected as incoherent, false ideas of what past and future are", but now you reclaim them as being "consistent with our experience, and therefore our empirical knowledge".

Your "imprecise boundaries" do not affect my argument. Your "imprecise boundaries" simply make you vacillate over maintaining the distinction between past, present and future or not. If you maintain the distinction, then you must face my argument. If you reject the distinction, then your argument (which relies on the distinction) collapses in a meaningless heap.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The point is that Present (A) is incompatible with conscious experience, and incompatible with present (B) which is compatible with conscious experience. Therefore there can be no nesting, and present (A) must be rejected as a misleading idea.

Okay, but presumably Present (B) will follow your same argument as before:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

1 conscious experience indicates that the present is not a point, it consists of duration. 2. A duration consists of parts which are before and parts which are after. 3. Before and after in relation to the present are past and future.

Therefore, you still need to address the same criticism that I levelled at your argument regarding Present (A) for your argument regarding Present (B). That's the problem with your argument: it's nested presents all the way down.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Do you think it would make sense to distinguish between the nature of our subjective experiences of 'the present' and the nature of time in the larger reality we are a part of?
— wonderer1

I don't think that this would be possible at this point. The only thing we have to go on is our subjective experiences. So I think it's necessary to get a good understanding of our subjective experiences of time before we can proceed toward speculating about the nature of time in a larger reality. This is because our subjective experiences of time have a very significant impact on our speculations concerning any larger reality...

Well, we have different subjective experiences, and based on my subjective experiences it is not only possible, but extremely valuable to recognize difference in our subjective experiences of a present, and happenings in time in the world.

One of my subjective experiences involves watching basketball games and recognizing that I'm not processing visual data at the rate that neurotypical people do, and therefore miss details of the action that other people catch. But even neurotypical people don't have visual processing speeds all that much faster than mine, and that is why slow motion replay is common with televised sporting events, to allow people to catch details of action which they would otherwise miss.

Along similar lines, scientists, studying how baby birds learn to sing an attractive song, realized that because birds have higher flicker-fusion (visual processing) rate than humans, the scientists might need slow motion video of birds to find out what is going on. I posted a link in the shoutbox recently, but if you are interested I can look it up again.

Another factor in my subjective experience is looking at signals captured by oscilloscopes that represent things at time resolutions down to around a nanosecond. I have very good reasons for thinking events really are happening on extremely small time scales regardless of the fact that my unaided perceptions don't reveal things on such small time scales.

Might it be the case that there is a relevant lack of diversity to the sort of subjective experiences you have had?

Quoting Luke

ou don't acknowledge any duration called "the present" that is distinct from past and future times?

That's exactly right, and the principal premise of my argument. Since there are no points in time the past and future cannot be distinct from the present. Therefore our only means for understanding the nature of time is through our conscious experience of the present. And within our conscious experience of the present, we encounter the past and future.

Sorry Luke, but I see a whole lot of straw men in your post, and nothing worth replying to, very little effort, if any, on your part. If you put some effort into an attempt to understand, I would be very willing to reply.

Quoting wonderer1

Well, we have different subjective experiences, and based on my subjective experiences it is not only possible, but extremely valuable to recognize difference in our subjective experiences of a present, and happenings in time in the world.

Yes, this is another good point. Since we all have somewhat different subjective experiences of "the present", this is a very good reason why there cannot be an objective, and to use Luke's word, "distinct", separation between present, past, and future. There are no objective points of distinction within time, those distinctions are subjective and somewhat arbitrary

Quoting wonderer1

Another factor in my subjective experience is looking at signals captured by oscilloscopes that represent things at time resolutions down to around a nanosecond. I have very good reasons for thinking events really are happening on extremely small time scales regardless of the fact that my unaided perceptions don't reveal things on such small time scales.

I agree, things happen on a very large time scale, and also on a very small time scale. And we observe this, in one way or another. That's another good reason why we cannot limit "the present" to one particular time scale. If we designated "the present moment" as a tenth of a second, or something like that, then a whole lot of nanoseconds would be going past at the present moment. This would mean that within "the present moment" some nanoseconds would be in the future, and some would be in the past.

Quoting wonderer1

Might it be the case that there is a relevant lack of diversity to the sort of subjective experiences you have had?

I don't understand the question. Diversity in the conscious experience of the present is what this conception of the present is aimed at accounting for.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Since there are no points in time the past and future cannot be distinct from the present.

If there is no distinction between "past", "present" and "future", then what does each word mean?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, this is another good point. Since we all have somewhat different subjective experiences of "the present", this is a very good reason why there cannot be an objective, and to use Luke's word, "distinct", separation between present, past, and future. There are no objective points of distinction within time, those distinctions are subjective and somewhat arbitrary

I'm curious about your theory, as to how it is we are communicating with each other. However, I can tell you, that you can't understand much about the answer without a more accurate theory of time than you currently have. I suspect you haven't subjected your theory of time to the many falsifying tests which could be done. Thus you haven't seen the need for a more accurate paradigm.

Think about what you said earlier:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But if the present consists of a duration of time, then some of that duration must be before, the other part which is after. So if the present separates future from past, and it consists of a duration of time, then part of the present must be in the future, and part of it in the past.

You are correct that we can't think thoughts without a period of time elapsing but look at the inability to clearly distinguish between past and future that comes with your perspective. Do you think it is your thought processes which determine what is past and what is future?

Quoting Luke

If there is no distinction between "past", "present" and "future", then what does each word mean?

You have an unbelievable way of associating meaning with words Luke. That is why it is very difficult to hold a discussion with you. Obviously what I mean by "distinct" is not the same as what you mean by "distinction" here. So your criticism of my argument has just turned into an exercise in equivocation. My use of "past" and "future" (A) is inconsistent with, and cannot support yours (B), therefore my use is problematic. What you apparently fail to understand is that my use is designed to be incompatible with yours, because of the problems I associate with yours. The principal problem is that you require points in time to distinguish your three aspects, and these points are not real, but arbitrary.

Quoting wonderer1

I'm curious about your theory, as to how it is we are communicating with each other. However, I can tell you, that you can't understand much about the answer without a more accurate theory of time than you currently have. I suspect you haven't subjected your theory of time to the many falsifying tests which could be done. Thus you haven't seen the need for a more accurate paradigm.

The theory is a starting point, a launch pad toward a more accurate understanding of the reality of time.
It is designed and intended to avoid many of the current problems associated with the conventional understanding of time. I don't see how your comment about communication is relevant. Clearly communication is a difficult task, as my attempt at discussion with Luke indicates, and the capacity to communicate is not something which ought to be taken for granted. However, I don't see how this bears on my temporal theory.

Perhaps you could explain the "falsifying tests" which could be carried out. I've described the theory as well grounded in conscious experience, and extremely sound, therefore I clearly believe that the required falsifying tests have already been carried out in human practise.

Quoting wonderer1

You are correct that we can't think thoughts without a period of time elapsing but look at the inability to clearly distinguish between past and future that comes with your perspective. Do you think it is your thought processes which determine what is past and what is future?

Distinguishing between past and future is a judgement which is carried out by human beings. I do not think that any other creatures could do such a thing because they would have to form an understanding of the meanings of these words, "past" and "future", and then make a judgement according to some criteria. So I think human beings are the only creatures we know of who attempt to make such a judgement. In any case, it is only thought which makes such a judgement, whether it's your thought, mine, Luke's, anyone else, or everyone. So I think it is very clear that it is thought processes which determine what is past and what is future, whether it's yours, mine, or some other. Can you think of anything else which might determine what is past and what is future?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Since there are no points in time the past and future cannot be distinct from the present.
— Metaphysician Undercover

If there is no distinction between "past", "present" and "future", then what does each word mean?
— Luke

You have an unbelievable way of associating meaning with words Luke. That is why it is very difficult to hold a discussion with you.

You have not answered the question. If you make a distinction between these, then what is it?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Obviously what I mean by "distinct" is not the same as what you mean by "distinction" here.

That is not obvious at all. It might help if you answer my question.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So your criticism of my argument has just turned into an exercise in equivocation.

There is no evidence of that because you have not answered my question.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

My use of "past" and "future" (A) is inconsistent with, and cannot support yours (B)...

I thought that you rejected "past" (A) and "future" (A) times in favour of "past" (B) and "future" (B) times?

As a reminder, (A) represents past and future times that are external to the present time (A), whereas (B) represents past and future times that are internal to the present time (A); of which the present time (A) consists. Except you later reclaimed (A) times but with imprecise boundaries. However, I note that I never mentioned anything about sharp or imprecise boundaries with regard to (A) times (in the post where I first referred to (A) and (B) times).

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What you apparently fail to understand is that my use is designed to be incompatible with yours

You designed it that way?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...because of the problems I associate with yours.

You advanced your argument before I entered this discussion. It seems you would prefer to attack straw men that you believe represent my position instead of making an honest attempt to defend your own argument.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The principal problem is that you require points in time to distinguish your three aspects, and these points are not real, but arbitrary.

Regardless, your argument is dependent on the distinctions between the "three aspects" of past, present and future. Making a fuss over these distinctions being real or arbitrary, precise or imprecise, does not advance your argument or address my criticisms. It is instead a red herring that you use to hide behind.

Once again: If the present time (A) consists of both past (B) and future (B) times, then what are those past (B) and future (B) times relative to? They are in the past and in the future of what?

Quoting Luke

If you make a distinction between these, then what is it?

I've been through this so many times, I don't know why I continue. The distinction is a judgement of before and after in relation to, or if you prefer, from the perspective of, the present.

Quoting Luke

As a reminder, (A) represents past and future times that are external to the present time (A), whereas (B) represents past and future times that are internal to the present time (A); of which the present time (A) consists. Except you later reclaimed (A) times but with imprecise boundaries. However, I note that I never mentioned anything about sharp or imprecise boundaries with regard to (A) times (in the post where I first referred to (A) and (B) times).

You referred to |"three distinct periods of time", and that's what I objected to. And I told you why, because to be distinct periods of time requires boundaries of separation. These boundaries, or points in time re what I consider to be a false premise.

If the past and future, as we experience them, are within the present then there is not three distinct periods. But this still allows that the past and future might extend outside the present as well. Think of a Venn diagram of past and future, overlapping at the present, for example. In no way can this be described as three distinct periods of time. However, both past and future are within the present, and also extend outside the present.

Quoting Luke

You designed it that way?

Yes, of course, that is the point. The conventional way, which you describe requires arbitrary points, or boundaries in time, to separate distinct periods of time. However, these points and boundaries are nowhere to be found in our experience of time. So I designed a conception which works very well without such points, but it is necessarily incompatible with a conception which employs such arbitrary points.

Quoting Luke

Once again: If the present time (A) consists of both past (B) and future (B) times, then what are those past (B) and future (B) times relative to? They are in the past and in the future of what?

As I explained in my last reply to wonderer1, distinctions of past and future are judgements made by the thinking being. So "past" and "future" are conceptions within the mind of the being, at the present, who uses these conceptions to make judgements. So the "past (B) and future (B) times" are past and future relative to those judgements. And the thinking being may use projections to extend one's judgement to things outside of one's mind.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I've been through this so many times, I don't know why I continue. The distinction is a judgement of before and after in relation to, or if you prefer, from the perspective of, the present.

Right, so past and future come before and after the present, respectively. In fact, that's what these words are typically used to mean.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You referred to |"three distinct periods of time", and that's what I objected to. And I told you why, because to be distinct periods of time requires boundaries of separation. These boundaries, or points in time re what I consider to be a false premise.

And my argument has been that if you want to place the past and the future within the present time, then you need another present time inside that, that these past and future times actually come before and after. The words create the distinction. You are misusing these words.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If the past and future, as we experience them, are within the present then there is not three distinct periods.

Why do they need to be within the present?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But this still allows that the past and future might extend outside the present as well. Think of a Venn diagram of past and future, overlapping at the present, for example. In no way can this be described as three distinct periods of time. However, both past and future are within the present, and also extend outside the present.

Okay. But the past is not before the present and the future is not after the present in this example (per your second premise). Of course you will say that some of it is, but then you will need another present which completely is. That's what coming before and after means.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What you apparently fail to understand is that my use is designed to be incompatible with yours
— Metaphysician Undercover

You designed it that way?
— Luke

Yes, of course, that is the point.

I meant: did you intend only for your use to be incompatible with mine? Which is how it sounded.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The conventional way, which you describe requires arbitrary points, or boundaries in time, to separate distinct periods of time.

No, the meaning of the words requires those arbitrary points. Those words are used to separate distinct periods of time into past, present and future. You aren't using the words correctly. Perhaps you could state why you want the boundaries to be imprecise.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

However, these points and boundaries are nowhere to be found in our experience of time.

Most people have no trouble using the words correctly. Furthermore, those points and boundaries can change with context, such as your use of 2023 as the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So "past" and "future" are conceptions within the mind of the being, at the present, who uses these conceptions to make judgements.

In simpler terms, people use language.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So the "past (B) and future (B) times" are past and future relative to those judgements.

Are you saying that everyone uses the words "past", "present" and "future" incorrectly? People really use those terms to mean that the past and future are a little bit inside the present? Then it seems strange that they aren't normally defined that way.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

And the thinking being may use projections to extend one's judgement to things outside of one's mind.

Since we can think about the past or the future in the present, then those times are present?

Quoting Luke

Right, so past and future come before and after the present, respectively. In fact, that's what these words are typically used to mean.

No, "past or future", "before or after", are judgements made from a perspective. The perspective is said to be "the present". Therefore past and future are before and after each other, from the perspective of the present. Think of the way that first is before second, which is after first. The observer, or counter's perspective is not between first and second. The perspective encompasses both, it is not between the two. This is no different from any other set of opposing terms, right and left, up and down, hot and cold, etc.. The two opposing terms are conceptual, and are used to describe things relative to the perceiver.

Quoting Luke

And my argument has been that if you want to place the past and the future within the present time, then you need another present time inside that, that these past and future times actually come before and after. The words create the distinction. You are misusing these words.

No, your argument is based on equivocation. The claimed "need" is the result of you trying to create compatibility between your use of "present" and my use of "present". But your use relies on the false premises of points or boundaries which divide separate parts of time. Therefore it ought to simply be rejected as incompatible with the truth, due to falsity, and there is no such need for your proposed nested present time.

Quoting Luke

Why do they need to be within the present?

To be consistent with reality, and this is known as being true. To proceed from true premises, true proposition about the nature of time, in an effort to understand further, the nature of time, we must accept the propositions which position past and future as within present.

As I explained to Wonderer1, this makes presentism into a coherent ontological perspective by making past and future intelligible, and real, to the presentist.

Quoting Luke

Okay. But the past is not before the present and the future is not after the present in this example (per your second premise). Of course you will say that some of it is, but then you will need another present which completely is. That's what coming before and after means.

This is your misunderstanding. The past and future are before and after, each other. None of this is before or after the present, as the present is simply the position of perspective, the so-called point of view. The idea that the perspective is a "point" of view is the problem, the false premise. So "before: and "after" are judgements made from that perspective. Think of the way that right and left, up and down, etc;, are judgements made from a perspective.

Therefore there is no need for your proposed "another present", because this is already accounted for within my proposed "present" due to the nature of subjectivity, as I discussed with Wonderer1. The overlap of past and future (as evident in the Venn diagram example), which appears to contradict the premise that past and future are before and after relative to each other, is the result of subjective differences in perspective. This feature of "the present", as the perspective of the observer manifests as the relativity of simultaneity. And, we can extend it even further to cover the unclarity within one person's own subjective experience.

Quoting Luke

No, the meaning of the words requires those arbitrary points.

No, the meaning of the words does not require "points". The points are just a mathematical tool applied in the practise of measurement. For example, to my right, and to my left requires no point, to have meaning, up and down requires no point. What is required is a perspective, and the perspective is often referred to as the "point of view", and this is commonly reduced to a "point". The reduction of the perspective to a "point" is done to facilitate measurement, but it is not as you say, a requirement for meaning.

Quoting Luke

Are you saying that everyone uses the words "past", "present" and "future" incorrectly?

"Correct" and "incorrect" are a matter of convention, meaning consistent with or inconsistent with a specific conventions. "Truth" is a matter of consistent with reality. What I am saying is that the conventions which are employed for the purpose of measurement are principles which are not consistent with reality. Therefore when people talk about points in time they speak correctly, but not truthfully.

Quoting Luke

Since we can think about the past or the future in the present, then those times are present?

Past and future, like before and after, are concepts employed in judgement. We must respect the fact that judgements made by distinct people may be inconsistent with each other, just like whether something is to the right or to the left. Because of this we must look at the judgement as property of the judge (i.e. within the judge), and not as something independent, regardless of whether the thing judged is supposed to be external to the judge. The latter, is a projection of the internal to the external.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, the meaning of the words requires those arbitrary points.
— Luke

No, the meaning of the words does not require "points". The points are just a mathematical tool applied in the practise of measurement.

I misspoke here. I should have said that the use or meaning of the words creates those arbitrary points or boundaries. It is the distinctions between the meanings of the words that creates the distinctions between "past", "present" and "future", or in which those distinctions pre-exist. The different meanings of the different words are themselves the distinctions. These arbitrary boundaries are not based on anything except the usage or meanings of these words. You can forget about mathematical "points". The upshot is that there is no overlap between them; no part of the past or the future "inside" the present. The meanings of those concepts are mutually exclusive. If something is present, then it is neither past nor future; if past, then neither present nor future; and if future, then neither past nor present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"Correct" and "incorrect" are a matter of convention, meaning consistent with or inconsistent with a specific conventions. "Truth" is a matter of consistent with reality. What I am saying is that the conventions which are employed for the purpose of measurement are principles which are not consistent with reality. Therefore when people talk about points in time they speak correctly, but not truthfully.

When have the conventional meanings of "past", "present" and "future" been "employed for the purpose of measurement"?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This feature of "the present", as the perspective of the observer manifests as the relativity of simultaneity.

Is that what this is all about? You have changed the meanings of "past", "present" and "future" to try and accommodate relativity? Surely, people travelling at different relative speeds to us could just use different conventions; i.e. use those words to refer to different times than we do?

Quoting Luke

You can forget about mathematical "points". The upshot is that there is no overlap between them; no part of the past or the future "inside" the present.

The reality is that there is a whole lot of overlap. As I said in my first post, by the time you say "now", it is in the past. By the time someone hears you say "now" it is in the past. That's the unavoidable reality. And if you say that what was meant by "now" is a period of time encompassing both speaking and hearing, then there is both before and after inside the now. So, any time that someone uses "the present" to refer to a period of time, anyone can divide that period of time into past and future, consequently there is "overlap".

The overlap in usage is very real, obvious, and unavoidable, yet you just deny this with "there is no overlap", as if denial makes the obvious overlap not real. If you really believe what you say, tell me how "the present" can refer to anything other than a dimensionless mathematical point separating past from future, which everyone must respect, if there is to be no overlap in the usage of these terms.

Quoting Luke

When have the conventional meanings of "past", "present" and "future" been "employed for the purpose of measurement"?

The conventional meanings are put to use anytime that time is measured. A future is presupposed prior to measurement as the time which will be measured. A present moment is designated to start the measurement. The time going past is measured until another designated present moment. Have you ever used a stopwatch?

Quoting Luke

You have changed the meanings of "past", "present" and "future" to try and accommodate relativity?

Since relativity is one of the most often used theories in physics, don't you see it as a problem if it is not consist with the conventional (correct) meanings of "past", "present", and "future"? Obviously, something needs to be changed. Perhaps it is the case that conventional usage is actually based in false premises, as I've been telling you.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I said in my first post, by the time you say "now", it is in the past. By the time someone hears you say "now" it is in the past. That's the unavoidable reality. And if you say that what was meant by "now" is a period of time encompassing both speaking and hearing, then there is both before and after inside the now.

You are repeating your error of conflating "before" with "past" and "after" with "future". These are not interchangeable terms. If before and after are inside the now, it does not follow that past and future are inside the now, because past and future are determined relative to now.

The year 2050 is before 2070 but both years are in the future. 2050 is not in the past, despite being before 2070. 2050 and 2070 are before and after relative to each other, but past and future are only relative to now.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So, any time that someone uses "the present" to refer to a period of time, anyone can divide that period of time into past and future, consequently there is "overlap".

Nonsense. Past and future are determined relative to the present. The present is not divisible into past and future, otherwise it would not be the present.

No part of the present can be in the past because if it were then it would no longer be in the present, and no part of the future can be in the present because if it were then it would no longer be in the future. Likewise, no part of the past can be in the present because if it were then it would not yet be in the past, and no part of the present can be in the future because if it were then it would not yet be in the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If you really believe what you say, tell me how "the present" can refer to anything other than a dimensionless mathematical point separating past from future, which everyone must respect, if there is to be no overlap in the usage of these terms.

The present could be a dimensionless mathematical point or it could be 1,000 years long and, either way, it would still not overlap the past or future. The past is before the present and the future is after the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

A future is presupposed prior to measurement as the time which will be measured.

This is not part of the measurement, so is not "employed for the purpose of measurement".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

A present moment is designated to start the measurement. The time going past is measured until another designated present moment.

Clocks and times (numbers) are used; not present moments.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Have you ever used a stopwatch?

Not any stopwatch that used the words "past", "present" or "future" for the purposes of measurement.

Quoting Luke

You are repeating your error of conflating "before" with "past" and "after" with "future". These are not interchangeable terms. If before and after are inside the now, it does not follow that past and future are inside the now, because past and future are determined relative to now.

I explained this. "Now" is the human perspective. Both, past/future, before/after, are judgements made from within that perspective. The human subject is a sensing being, and such judgements are made from within that being. Therefore past/future are within "the present". "The present" is the temporal position of the sentient being and past/future are judgements made within.. To put past/future outside the present requires projection, extrapolation. Putting past/future outside the present of the sentient being is a further process which can only be understood after a firm grasp of past/future within the sentient being is established.

Quoting Luke

Nonsense. Past and future are determined relative to the present. The present is not divisible into past and future, otherwise it would not be the present.

Any example that anyone gives as what is referred to as "the present" can always be broken down by someone else, and denied as the true "present". Look at the examples I already gave. If someone says that 2023 is the present, someone else could say no, July 8 is the present, and the rest of 2023 is past and future. Then someone could state the hour as the present, and the rest of July 8 is past and future. Then the second, nanosecond, etc.. Whatever is referred to as "the present" is always divisible into a smaller present with a past and future. I've explained this to you already. Why is it so hard for you to understand? It's never clear exactly what "now" or "present" refers to when someone uses these terms.

Quoting Luke

No part of the present can be in the past because if it were then it would no longer be in the present, and no part of the future can be in the present because if it were then it would no longer be in the future. Likewise, no part of the past can be in the present because if it were then it would not yet be in the past, and no part of the present can be in the future because if it were then it would not yet be in the present.

All you are doing here is explaining why your definition of "present" is not consistent with reality. What you stipulate as required for the meaning of "the present" cannot be upheld in reality. Look at the examples. If 2023 is stipulated as the present, then someone can say part is in the past and part is in the future. And this is the case with any time period which is stipulated as "the present", anyone can argue that part of that time period is in the past and part is in the future.

To avoid this problem, and maintain your stipulated requirements "no part of the present can be in the past...etc.", the present must be reduced to a non-dimensional point in time, which separates future from past. However, such points are not consistent with the reality of our experience of time.

Therefore, what is stipulated as required for "the present" under your proposed definition, "no part of the present can be in the past...etc.", cannot be fulfilled in a way which is both logically rigorous (agreeable to all rational people) and consistent with reality. If a time period is proposed as "the present", any rational person can show how that time period contains both past and future, (as the examples demonstrate). And if "the present" is reduced to a mere point, this is not consistent with reality. So the reasonable response is to reject your stipulated conditions for "the present" as providing nothing but a false premise.

Quoting Luke

The present could be a dimensionless mathematical point or it could be 1,000 years long and, either way, it would still not overlap the past or future. The past is before the present and the future is after the present.

Don't you see that if you propose that "the present" is 1,000 years long, or any other period of time, without any overlap of past or future, any reasonable person would reject this proposition, saying that the time period has some past and some future within it. You could insist that this time period is what you stipulate as "the present", but then you are only being unreasonable, as trying to force your own arbitrary stipulated time period as "the present". So to make your stipulation agreeable, and reasonable, it must be reduced to a mathematical point. But then it is not consistent with the reality of time as we experience it. The problem is that your requirement "no part of the present can be in the past.." is impossible to fulfill in a reasonable way. Therefore it is unreasonable.

Quoting Luke

This is not part of the measurement...

You and I have such a vastly different idea of what constitutes "measurement", that discussion on this subject would just make the thread a messy digression. That's why I've been insisting that we avoid the topic, as not a requirement for the subject of the op.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I said in my first post, by the time you say "now", it is in the past. By the time someone [***ELSE***] hears you say "now" it is in the past. That's the unavoidable reality. And if you say that what was meant by "now" is a period of time encompassing both speaking and hearing, then there is both before and after inside the now.
— Metaphysician Undercover

You are repeating your error of conflating "before" with "past" and "after" with "future". These are not interchangeable terms. If before and after are inside the now, it does not follow that past and future are inside the now, because past and future are determined relative to now.
— Luke

I explained this. "Now" is the human perspective. Both, past/future, before/after, are judgements made from within that perspective. The human subject is a sensing being, and such judgements are made from within that being. Therefore past/future are within "the present". "The present" is the temporal position of the sentient being and past/future are judgements made within.. To put past/future outside the present requires projection, extrapolation. Putting past/future outside the present of the sentient being is a further process which can only be understood after a firm grasp of past/future within the sentient being is established.

My response was to your previous post and its conditional: "if you say that what was meant by "now" is a period of time encompassing both speaking and hearing, then there is both before and after inside the now". In that post, you referred to the present time as "encompassing both speaking and hearing" of two individuals. You called this "the unavoidable reality".

However, in your latest post, you refer to the present time as "the temporal position of the sentient being" and "the human perspective" of one individual.

Therefore, no, you did not explain this. You simply changed your definition of "the present" to suit your argument, and once again did not address mine.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Any example that anyone gives as what is referred to as "the present" can always be broken down by someone else, and denied as the true "present".

Your example was of a present time that encompassed two people. That's what I was replying to.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Look at the examples I already gave. If someone says that 2023 is the present, someone else could say no, July 8 is the present, and the rest of 2023 is past and future.

Disputes over when, or how long, the present time is are irrelevant. Once agreement is reached (or context understood) on that matter, then past and future are determined relative to that.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

To avoid this problem, and maintain your stipulated requirements "no part of the present can be in the past...etc.", the present must be reduced to a non-dimensional point in time, which separates future from past.

No, the present needn't be reduced to a non-dimensional point in time, hence my 1000 years example. You've also given examples of the present time being 2023 or July 8. Once established, the past and future are determined relative to that.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Don't you see that if you propose that "the present" is 1,000 years long, or any other period of time, without any overlap of past or future, any reasonable person would reject this proposition, saying that the time period has some past and some future within it.

You asserted that the only way there could be no overlap between past and present or between present and future was if the present was a dimensionless mathematical point. That people might bicker over the "real" duration of the present is irrelevant. If we agree to refer to the current millennium as "the present time" then what comes before the current millennium is the past and what comes after the current millennium is the future, wIthout overlap. Your assertion is therefore refuted.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Don't you see that if you propose that "the present" is 1,000 years long, or any other period of time, without any overlap of past or future, any reasonable person would reject this proposition, saying that the time period has some past and some future within it. You could insist that this time period is what you stipulate as "the present", but then you are only being unreasonable, as trying to force your own arbitrary stipulated time period as "the present". So to make your stipulation agreeable, and reasonable, it must be reduced to a mathematical point.

Why must it be "reduced to a mathematical point" in order to be "agreeable and reasonable"? You clearly don't agree with it or find it reasonable.

Quoting Luke

However, in your latest post, you refer to the present time as "the temporal position of the sentient being" and "the human perspective" of one individual.

Your addition of "one individual" here is what I described as "unreasonable" in the rest of that post. So read the rest of my post, and keep that in mind. It is unreasonable to reduce "the human perspective" to the perspective of one human being. Each individual human being makes the judgement concerning "the present", past/future, before/after, but the judgement is "unreasonable" if the perspective of other human beings is not considered in that judgement.

Quoting Luke

Therefore, no, you did not explain this. You simply changed your definition of "the present" to suit your argument, and once again did not address mine.

The definition is still the same. I just expanded it to explain how we account for the reality of other subjects. This is necessary to avoid solipsism. I touched on this already in my replies to Wonderer1 concerning the subjectivity of the present.

Quoting Luke

Disputes over when, or how long, the present time is are irrelevant. Once agreement is reached (or context understood) on that matter, then past and future are determined relative to that.

Obviously, as demonstrated right here, between you and I, it is highly probable that agreement will never be reached in the way you propose. It's simply not realistic to think that people will ever agree on how long a period of time "the present" lasts for.

Quoting Luke

No, the present needn't be reduced to a non-dimensional point in time, hence my 1000 years example. You've also given examples of the present time being 2023 or July 8. Once established, the past and future are determined relative to that.

I don't see anyone agreeing with you, that the present is a period of time which lasts for 1,000 years. Nor do I see any one agreeing that the present is one year, one day, one hour, a second, or a nanosecond. So you're simply speaking out of your hat, assuming that people will agree to such proposals. I brought those up as examples of what might be proposed as "the present", but clearly none of these are acceptable, and this demonstrates hoe the present, a a length of time is indefinite.

Quoting Luke

That people might bicker over the "real" duration of the present is irrelevant.

No, this is not irrelevant at all, it's the whole point. If the length of the period of time which is called "the present" cannot be justified, and people disagree because it is nothing more than an any arbitrary length, then clearly no one knows the real length of "the present". Therefore the length of "the present" might just as well consist of all past and all future time. That is why I called it "indefinite".

Quoting Luke

If we agree to refer to the current millennium as "the present time" then what comes before the current millennium is the past and what comes after the current millennium is the future, wIthout overlap. Your assertion is therefore refuted.

Your statement starts with "if", and ends with what would be the case if that condition, "we agree", would be fulfilled. Obviously we do not agree, nor is agreement likely, therefore it will likely be the end of time before my assertion is refuted. Have a happy time waiting for agreement.

Quoting Luke

Why must it be "reduced to a mathematical point" in order to be "agreeable and reasonable"? You clearly don't agree with it or find it reasonable.

Obviously, any proposed length of time, as that length of time which provides a distinct separation between past and future, (as are your conditions for "the present"), will never find agreement. And agreement is what demonstrates "reasonable". Because a specific length of time will never be agreed upon, and is therefore unreasonable, the proposal may be reduced to a point in time which separates past from future. That is why the point in time, as "the present moment" is the common convention for "the present". It is agreeable and reasonable. Therefore we might call it justified. However, it is not true, because it is not consistent with reality.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It is unreasonable to reduce "the human perspective" to the perspective of one human being. Each individual human being makes the judgement concerning "the present", past/future, before/after, but the judgement is "unreasonable" if the perspective of other human beings is not considered in that judgement.

Okay, so we acknowledge relativity and that each person's "judgement" regarding the past, present and future may be a little different. Why does this require there to be any "overlap" of the past, present and future? If I acknowledge relativity and that your present might be slightly different to mine, then I see no reason why your past, present and future must overlap or mine either. I don't see the need to create a singular past, present and future that accommodates everyone, everywhere, travelling at all speeds, especially if relativity is acknowledged.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see anyone agreeing with you, that the present is a period of time which lasts for 1,000 years.

I wasn't suggesting that it did last for 1,000 years. I was refuting your assertion that the present needs to be a dimensionless point in order to avoid any overlap. It could be any duration.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

clearly no one knows the real length of "the present"

I think that there probably is a "present" that represents the shortest window of consciousness or awareness for each person. I also think that for most people this duration will be roughly the same. A quick Google search suggests this duration ranges from a couple of hundred milliseconds to a couple of seconds. I don't believe it's likely that we will never know the answer to this question, nor that there will forever be disagreement about it. Moreover, I don't believe it's a terribly important question.

I also recognise that people use the phrase "the present" in other ways; namely, to represent longer periods such as the present day, present year or other common period. I think there are rarely any disagreements or misunderstandings over this usage.

Quoting Luke

Why does this require there to be any "overlap" of the past, present and future?

"The present" is defined by human experience. This implies human judgement. The distinct judgements of distinct human beings varies on this matter. Therefore "the present" as a standard, or principle, varies accordingly, and there is overlap accordingly.

Quoting Luke

I don't see the need to create a singular past, present and future that accommodates everyone, everywhere, travelling at all speeds, especially if relativity is acknowledged.

The goal is to understand the nature of time. I was defining "the present". If "present" refers to something completely different in every different situation then we cannot have any definition, Nor will we ever be able to understand the nature of time, because we will not be able to make any true propositions about the present in order to proceed logically. Instead, we look for general, true propositions which we can make, such as the following. The present separates past from future. It is itself a duration of time. Depending on one's point of view, past and future must extend into this duration which is called the present.

Quoting Luke

. A quick Google search suggests this duration ranges from a couple of hundred milliseconds to a couple of seconds.

This is clear evidence of the overlap I described. The fact that "the present" has duration, and there are no real points which mark the beginning and ending of that duration, nor is there a standard length of that duration, implies that there must be some overlap between past, present, and future.

Quoting Luke

Moreover, I don't believe it's a terribly important question.

Maybe you don't see it as important, but it definitely has implications. That is, that there cannot be distinct boundaries of separation between past, present, and future, if "present" is defined by human experience. There must be overlap of past and future within the present, "the present" being defined as what is common to us all, and possibly even overlap between past and future.

Once we realize, and accept as fact, that the overlap is very real, then we can see that the intuition which inclines us to define these temporal terms so as to exclude overlap, misleads us in this way. Then each one of us can look at one's own personal experience as having such an overlap inherent within, and recognize that the inclination toward exclusion was simply the result of that faulty intuition.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"The present" is defined by human experience. This implies human judgement. The distinct judgements of distinct human beings varies on this matter.

Firstly, how do you know that judgements vary on this matter? Secondly, I don't believe that it does vary; at least, not to any significant degree. There is general consensus and conventional agreement over the present time, down to the microsecond, thanks to GPS satellites. Almost anyone with a working mobile phone or computer can verify the present time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The goal is to understand the nature of time. I was defining "the present". If "present" refers to something completely different in every different situation then we cannot have any definition, Nor will we ever be able to understand the nature of time, because we will not be able to make any true propositions about the present in order to proceed logically. Instead, we look for general, true propositions which we can make, such as the following. The present separates past from future. It is itself a duration of time. Depending on one's point of view, past and future must extend into this duration which is called the present.

But if we acknowledge and account for relativity, where people travelling in different inertial frames may each experience a different "present time", then what further disputes or disagreements over "the present time" remain, such that we still require this idea of an "overlap" of past and/or future with the present time?

"The present" does not refer to something different in every situation. We, at least, agree that "the present" time is defined in terms of conscious experience. People travelling in different inertial frames can still agree what the meaning of "the present time" means, even though they might each be experiencing a different "present time".

You are attempting to change the conventional meaning of the concept of "the present" to account for all potentially different "present times". There is no conventional definition of "the present" which states that it consists of parts of the past and/or the future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is clear evidence of the overlap I described. The fact that "the present" has duration, and there are no real points which mark the beginning and ending of that duration, nor is there a standard length of that duration, implies that there must be some overlap between past, present, and future.

Presumably, this "overlap" is due to the fact that the duration of one person's "present" is different from the duration of another person's "present". But if "there are no real points which mark the beginning and ending of that duration, nor is there a standard length of that duration", then how do you know that they must have a different duration? Maybe they have the same duration. It does not necessarily follow that the durations are different or that there must be some overlap. So how do you know that different people must have a different duration of "the present" in the first place?

Reply to Luke I think the major difference in ideas here is, is "the present" a global state? (Perhaps universal would be more clear than global) Or is it a "local" or perhaps even "personal" state?

People often intuitively think of the universe as this big 3d grid, and the universe, as a whole, moves forward one moment at a time, and the grid moves to its next state in unison. That's a really convenient and easy to digest way of looking at how we "move into the future". I'm not sure that relativity necessarily proves that view categorically wrong, per se, but it does at least bring it into question.

Quoting flannel jesus

I think the major difference in ideas here is, is "the present" a global state? (Perhaps universal would be more clear than global) Or is it a "local" or perhaps even "personal" state?

People often intuitively think of the universe as this big 3d grid, and the universe, as a whole, moves forward one moment at a time, and the grid moves to its next state in unison. That's a really convenient and easy to digest way of looking at how we "move into the future". I'm not sure that relativity necessarily proves that view categorically wrong, per se, but it does at least bring it into question.

I'm far from an expert in physics, in case it wasn't already apparent, but I tend to think of there as being a global progression with local differences. The expansion of the universe would seem to support global progression, I think, and relativity indicates that there would be local differences within that.

Reply to Luke Reply to Luke unfortunately I haven't figured out how to quote people appropriately, so bear with me lmao.

If we want to think of the world as having a "global clock" so to speak that always ticks forward, the problem relativity presents us is: which one? In relativity, different reference frames have explicit disagreements about which events happened simultaneously, and yet all reference frames are internally consistent and they're isomorphic with respect to each other (you can translate between reference frames, you can derive what the other reference frames see given what you see).

So if they're all mathematically equivalent and consistent with the physics, but yet they disagree on which events happened simultaneously, then how do you figure out which events ACTUALLY happened simultaneously in this "global now"? Well... you can't. As far as physicists know, there's no experiment that can tell us that this reference frame is the universal one that decides the universal now.

I'm not sure if relativity explicitly outlaws a universal now, or if it just means we could in principle never figure out which reference frame decides the universal now. That's something I'd like to hear an expert's opinion on tbh. It's a question I've had for a long time.

As a complete aside, this is why Einstein was so concerned with "spooky action at a distance". Relativity of simultaneity creates some serious head scratchers in regards to the question of wavefunction collapse.

Reply to Art48

You might be interested in this similar line of thought:

One might think that philosophy ought to begin with the concept of “beginning” itself. Yet for Hegel such a concept is, paradoxically, too complex to serve as the real beginning of thought. The concept of “beginning” (Anfang) is that of “a nothing from which something is to proceed” (SL 73/1: 73 [181]). It thus takes for granted from the start that what is being thought is the beginning of something yet to emerge...

Hegel’s account of being begins not with a full sentence but with a sentence fragment: “being, pure being, without any further determination” (SL 82/1: 82 [193]). In this way, Hegel indicates through his language that what we are to focus on is not a determinate subject of discourse or “thing” nor a predicate of some assumed thing (such as the “Absolute”) but rather utterly indeterminate being. Such being is to be thought of not as existence or nature but as sheer being as such—what Hegel calls "indeterminate immediacy.”

Such being is abstract, but it is not a mere illusion for Hegel... At this point, Hegel confronts us with the first of many surprising paradoxes: for he maintains that by virtue of its utter indeterminacy pure being is actually no different from nothing at all: “being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing (Nichts), and neither more nor less than nothing” (SL 82/1: 83 [195]). Of all Hegel’s statements in the Logic, this is the one that has perhaps invited the most ridicule and elicited the greatest misunderstanding. In Hegel’s view, however, it is trivially true: pure being is utterly indeterminate and vacuous and as such is completely indistinguishable from sheer and utter nothingness. This is not to say that we are wrong to talk of pure being in the first place. There is being; it is all around us and is, minimally, pure and simple being, whatever else it may prove to be. Insofar as it is pure being, however, it is so utterly indeterminate that logically it vanishes into nothing. Presuppositionless philosophy is thus led by being itself to the thought of its very opposite.

This nothing that pure, indeterminate being itself proves to be is not just the nothingness to which we frequently refer in everyday discourse. We often say that there is “nothing” in the bag or “nothing” on television when what we mean is that the specific things we desire are not to be found and what there is is not what we are interested in... .By contrast, the nothingness Hegel has in mind in the Logic is the absolute “lack” or “absence” of anything at all, or sheer and utter nothing. It is not even the pure void of space or the empty form of time, but is nothing whatsoever... as the sheer “not.”

Being and nothing are utterly different from one another but collapse logically into one another because of the indeterminate immediacy of their difference.

From this, we get the dialectical move where the initial posit, being, sublates (negates, while incorporating parts of) its opposite (which emerges from the original concept itself). So, we get becoming the process through which whatever has being continually passes into non-being. The being of the present, forever passing on into non-being of the past, while the future has yet to become.

Being and nothing thus both prove to be absolutely necessary and to be endlessly generated by one another. Yet neither has a separate stable identity apart from its vanishing since logically each vanishes straight away into the other.

What Hegel’s philosophy shows... is that logically, purely by virtue of being “being,” being turns out to be “becoming.” Becoming is thus what being is in truth: immediacy as the restless vanishing and reemergence of itself.

Thus, we are always in the one place, that of becoming, the same "now." There is another progression that comes to define how we are always in the same "here," and so always in the same "here and now."

https://phil880.colinmclear.net/materials/readings/houlgate-being-commentary.pdf

I can totally understand why people don't like this sort of thing, and the Logic is a beast, but I find it pretty neat. Houlgate's full commentary on the first bit of the logic is also fairly accessible given it is a commentary on perhaps the most inaccessible thing ever written.

Reply to flannel jesus

I'm not sure if relativity explicitly outlaws a universal now, or if it just means we could in principle never figure out which reference frame decides the universal now. That's something I'd like to hear an expert's opinion on tbh. It's a question I've had for a long time.

It's generally taken that a universal now cannot exist, although this to some extent depends on how one defines their terms. In the context of SR and GR and how time is defined there, we do not have an absolute "now." Rather, it is generally argued that either becoming/simultaneity occurs locally or that all times exist within a "block universe." There is also a "growing block universe" where the past exists but the future does not, such that the four dimensional universe "grows." Such growth occurs locally however, with a "many fingered time." There is also the "crystalizing block universe," where multiple quantum possibilities grow outwards from any local "now" and only "crystalize" when there is wave function collapse. At this point, what a quantum system appears to do is "retroactively decide" which past it actually had, although there is considerable debate on how to interpret this appearance. You can look up the "quantum eraser" experiments" for that sort of thing.



Or the crystalizing block:



Not to confuse you, but we can still talk about "time-like slices," but these aren't Euclidian planes but hyperplanes that may have a curved surface. Basically, we can talk about a global slice, but not about global simultaneity. Simultaneity is defined locally. But GR/SR are also classical theories, so things get even dicer when you talk about quantum phenomena like entanglement or tunneling.

Anyhow, below is a good quote I already had pulled out, although it is a bit dense. The Great Courses has a good class on relativity as well if you're interested.

We have seen that SR rules out the idea of a unique, absolute present: if the set of events that is simultaneous with a given event O depends upon the inertial reference frame chosen, and in fact is a completely different set of events (save for the given event O) for each choice of reference frame in inertial motion relative to the original, then there clearly is no such thing as the set of events happening at the same time as O. As Paul Davies writes (in a variant of the example given by Penrose above), if I stand up and walk across my room, the events happening “now” on some planet in the Andromeda Galaxy would differ by a whole day from those that would be happening “now” if I had stayed seated (Davies 1995, 70).


From these considerations Gödel concludes that time lapse loses all objective meaning. But from the same considerations Davies concludes, along with other modern philosophers of science, that it is not time lapse that should be abandoned, but the idea that events have to “become” in order to be real. "Unless you are a solipsist."

As I argued in Chap. 3 above, events “exist all at once” in a spacetime manifold only in the sense that we represent them all at once as belonging to the same manifold. But we represent them precisely as occurring at different times, or different spacetime locations, and if we did not, we would have denied temporal succession...


...in each case we are presented with an argument that begins with a premise that all events existing simultaneously with a given event exist (are real or are deter- mined), and concludes that consequently all events in the manifold exist (are real or determined). But the conclusion only has the appearance of sustainability because of the equivocation analysed above in Chap. 3.If a point-event exists in the sense of occurring at the spacetime location at which it occurs, it cannot also have occurred earlier. But if the event only exists in the sense of existing in the manifold, then the conclusion that it already exists earlier—that such a future event is “every bit as real as events in the present” (Davies), or “already real” (Putnam)—cannot be sustained. Thus, far from undermining the notion of becoming, their argument should be taken rather to undermine their starting premise, that events simultaneous with another event are already real or already exist for it in a temporal sense. For to suppose that this is so, on the above analysis of their argument, inexorably leads to a conclusion that denies temporal succession.

This, in fact, was Gödel’s point. As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, he had already anticipated the objection that the relativity of time lapse “does not exclude that it is something objective”. To this he countered that the lapse of time connotes “a change in the existing”, and “the concept of existence cannot be relativized without destroying its meaning completely” (Gödel 1949, 558, n. 5).To this he countered that the lapse of time connotes “a change in the existing”, and “the concept of existence cannot be relativized without destroying its meaning completely” (Gödel 1949, 558, n. 5).As we saw in Chap. 3, however, the sense in which events and temporal relations “exist” in spacetime is not a temporal sense. This would amount to a denial of the reality of temporal succession.20

So the root of the trouble with the “layer of now’” conception of time lapse is a failure to take into account the bifurcation of the classical time concept into two distinct time concepts in relativity theory. The time elapsed for each twin—the time during which they will have aged differently—is measured by the proper time along each path. The difference in the proper times for their journeys is not the same as the difference in the time co-ordinates of the two points in some inertial reference frame, since they each set off at some time t1 and meet up at a time t2 in any one ...

We may call this the Principle of Chronological Precedence, or CP. As can be seen, it presupposes the Principle of Retarded Action discussed in Chap. 4, according to which every physical process takes a finite quantity of time to be completed.Note that so long as CP holds for the propagation of any physical influence, it will not matter whether light or anything else actually travels with the limiting velocity.41


As Robb showed in 1914, this means that—restricting temporal relations to these absolute relations only—a given event can be related in order of succession to any event in its future or past light cones, but cannot be so related to any event outside these cones (in what came to be called the event’s “Elsewhere”).There are therefore pairs of events that are not ordered with respect to (absolute) before and after, such as the events happening at the instants A and B on Robb’s “Fig. 6.1" The event B, being too far away from A for any influence to travel between them, is neither before nor after A.



For example, B could be the event on some planet in the Andromeda Galaxy that Paul Davies asked us to imagine, in the Elsewhere of me at the instant A when I am considering it. It is true that by walking this way and that I could describe that event as being in the past or in the future according to the time coordinate associated with the frame of reference in which I am at rest. But that event is not present to me in the sense of being a possible part of my experience. It bears no absolute temporal relation to my considering it...

All the events I experience, on the other hand, will be either before or after one another, and therefore distinct. In fact, they will occur in a linear order.They will lie on what Minkowski called my worldline.


There is nothing unique about my worldline, however. On pain of solipsism, what goes for me goes for any other possible observer (this is the counterpart in his theory to Putnam’s “No Privileged Observers”).42 Thus if we regard time as constituted by these absolute relations, time as a whole does not have a linear order: not all events can be ordered on a line proceeding from past to future, even though two events that are in each other’s elsewhere (i.e. lying outside each other’s cones) will be in the past of some event that is suitably far in the future of both of them. In this way, all events can be temporally ordered, even if not every pair of events is such that one is in the past or future of the other. This is Robb's "conical order." In the language of the theory of relations, it is a strict partial order, rather than a serial order.

In a paper of 1967 the Russian mathematician Alexandrov showed how the topology of Minkowski spacetime is uniquely determined “by the propagation of light or, in the language of geometry, by the system of the light cones”, noting the equivalence of this derivation to Robb’s derivation on the assumption of chronological precedence.

The Reality of Time Flow: Local Becoming in Modern Physics

Quoting Luke

Firstly, how do you know that judgements vary on this matter?

To begin with, yours and mine vary, obviously. And, I've had numerous similar discussions on this forum which indicate variance among others. Also the google search you cited indicates a range between "a couple of hundred milliseconds to a couple of seconds"

Quoting Luke

Secondly, I don't believe that it does vary; at least, not to any significant degree. There is general consensus and conventional agreement over the present time, down to the microsecond, thanks to GPS satellites. Almost anyone with a working mobile phone or computer can verify the present time.

Obviously we disagree on what constitutes "significant". Engineers today are working in timescales of nanoseconds and shorter, so clearly the difference you derived from google, of over a second is very significant

Quoting Luke

We, at least, agree that "the present" time is defined in terms of conscious experience.

You assert this, but display otherwise with your expressions, insisting that the difference between various subjective experiences in this matter is insignificant.

You've also been insisting that there is no overlap between past and present, or present and future. This implies that there are two points in time, dimensionless boundaries, one which separates past from present, and one which separates future from present. But you agree that such dimensionless points are not consistent with the subjective experience of time You don't seem to grasp the fact that assuming that there is no overlap between such segments of time implies dimensionless boundaries, points within the experience of time, to provide these separations, and this is completely inconsistent with the subjective experience of time.

Can you honestly tell me that your experience of time provides a boundary between past and present so that there is no overlap? How do you identify this boundary? Do you see it, or otherwise sense it? Or, is it the case that this is just an ideal which you impose on your experience, insisting that your experience must be like this in order that your experience be consistent with your definition of "present", even though you do not really experience any such boundary between present and past, whatsoever? You just think that there must be a boundary because that's what your conception tells you, but you do not experience any such boundary.

Furthermore, many people assume the "present moment" to be a simple point in time, which separates past from future. This reduces your assumed two points, one separating past from present, the other separating present from future, to one point separating past from future. That point is the present. This is a significant simplification in comparison to your proposal, and one which has agreement amongst many different people. But it signifies a radical difference from your conception. Now "the present moment" has no duration at all. But this, though it is more agreeable than any stipulated length of time as "the present" because it is a simplification, requiring one point in time rather than two, and creating the illusion that measurements are precise, is not at all consistent with subjective experience of time.

Quoting Luke

ou are attempting to change the conventional meaning of the concept of "the present" to account for all potentially different "present times"

I am proposing a definition which is not conventional. This is because there is no conventional definition of "the present" which is consistent with the empirical evidence, the human experience of being present. Conventional definitions are outdated, coming from a time when we had less understanding of what being present meant.

Quoting Luke

There is no conventional definition of "the present" which states that it consists of parts of the past and/or the future.

That is exactly the problem with conventional definitions of "the present". None of these proposed definitions are consistent with the reality of the present according to human experience. This has created a significant problem, which is that many people have been led to deny the reality of the present. So, what is most basic, and fundamental to human experience, being at the present, is now completely denied by many people who insist that "the present" is not something real.

Therefore we have the very significant problem which is the denial of the reality of the human experience. Some insist for example, that we live in a simulation. This denial of the reality of human experience is the result of there being not a single conventional definition of "the present" which is consistent with reality. There are only false representations of "the present", like what you propose, ones which utilize arbitrary points in time. Since the subjective experience is inconsistent with the conventional definitions of "the present", instead of rejecting the definitions, as I do, people accept these representations of "the present" as true representations of the present, and reject the human experience of "the present" as not real.

Quoting Luke

Presumably, this "overlap" is due to the fact that the duration of one person's "present" is different from the duration of another person's "present".

No, this is a bit of a misunderstanding of what I've argued. The overlap is not due to the fact that one person's present is different from another. The overlap is the true nature of what the present is, and what time is. We do not know why time exists like this, so we cannot say what the overlap is due to. The fact that the duration of one person's present is different from the duration of another person's present, is evidence that this overlap is the real, or true nature of the present.

So you need to reverse the order of implied causation in your statement. The overlap is not caused by one person's present being different from another's, the overlap causes one person's present to be different from another's. That's why we can say that the difference between one person's present and another's, is evidence of overlap.

Quoting Luke

Maybe they have the same duration. It does not necessarily follow that the durations are different or that there must be some overlap. So how do you know that different people must have a different duration of "the present" in the first place?

As I explained already, the standard convention is to represent the present as "a moment", or "an instant", and this is a zero duration. It is the convention because it is an ideal which is agreeable, acceptable. But when it is seen by philosophers that this ideal is not consistent with the reality of time, then durations are proposed, such as infinitesimals. The fact that we cannot agree on the precise length of the infinitesimal which represents "the present" indicates that we do not all experience the same length of duration for the present. If we all experienced the same length of present, we could agree on the length of present, just like we agree on colours and things like that. We do not agree on the length of the present though, because we do not experience it the same as one another,. Therefore we've adopted a durationless, dimensionless, "present moment" instead, as something which is agreeable, and avoids the problem of having to find some means for determining the actual length of the present.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus, neat illustrations. The evolving universe might be the most intuitive, except if "evolving" already presupposes time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

To begin with, yours and mine vary, obviously. And, I've had numerous similar discussions on this forum which indicate variance among others. Also the google search you cited indicates a range between "a couple of hundred milliseconds to a couple of seconds"

Right, but as an empirical matter, have you done any measurements of anyone's duration of the present? Even on yourself? If not, then how do you know that judgements vary?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Obviously we disagree on what constitutes "significant". Engineers today are working in timescales of nanoseconds and shorter, so clearly the difference you derived from google, of over a second is very significant

If you accept the Google results, then where's the dispute?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We, at least, agree that "the present" time is defined in terms of conscious experience.
— Luke

You assert this, but display otherwise with your expressions, insisting that the difference between various subjective experiences in this matter is insignificant.

My "insistence" (I've only said it once) that the difference between various subjective experiences in this matter are insignificant does not affect, and is completely unrelated to, our agreement that the "present" time is defined in terms of conscious experience.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You've also been insisting that there is no overlap between past and present, or present and future. This implies that there are two points in time, dimensionless boundaries, one which separates past from present, and one which separates future from present. But you agree that such dimensionless points are not consistent with the subjective experience of time

I do not agree that "dimensionless points are not consistent with the subjective experience of time". Dimensionless points may be inconsistent with your view of the subjective experience of time, but they are not inconsistent with my view. Earlier in the discussion, I suggested an improvement to your argument that the present consists of a duration rather than a dimensionless point. However, even if I were to agree that the present consists of a duration rather than a dimensionless point, then I would only agree that the duration of the present itself is not a dimensionless point; that the present has a duration, and that that duration is bounded by definite end-points which separate it from the past and the future. I have maintained this position regarding definite distinctions between past, present and future throughout the discussion.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You don't seem to grasp the fact that assuming that there is no overlap between such segments of time implies dimensionless boundaries, points within the experience of time, to provide these separations,

Obviously, I grasp it; I've maintained that there is a definite distinction between past, present and future throughout the discussion.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Can you honestly tell me that your experience of time provides a boundary between past and present so that there is no overlap? How do you identify this boundary? Do you see it, or otherwise sense it? Or, is it the case that this is just an ideal which you impose on your experience, insisting that your experience must be like this in order that your experience be consistent with your definition of "present", even though you do not really experience any such boundary between present and past, whatsoever? You just think that there must be a boundary because that's what your conception tells you, but you do not experience any such boundary.

Can you honestly tell me that your experience of time provides an overlap between past and present so that there is no boundary? How do you identify this overlap? Do you see it, or otherwise sense it? Or, is it the case that this is just an ideal which you impose on your experience, insisting that your experience must be like this in order that your experience be consistent with your definition of "present", even though you do not really experience any such overlap between present and past, whatsoever? You just think that there must be an overlap because that's what your conception tells you, but you do not experience any such overlap.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Conventional definitions are outdated, coming from a time when we had less understanding of what being present meant.

What updated "understanding of what being present" means leads you to believe that there is an overlap of past/present and present/future? I thought your knowledge of this "overlap" was derived from your own personal experience, rather than from scientific knowledge?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There is no conventional definition of "the present" which states that it consists of parts of the past and/or the future.
— Luke

That is exactly the problem with conventional definitions of "the present". None of these proposed definitions are consistent with the reality of the present according to human experience. This has created a significant problem, which is that many people have been led to deny the reality of the present. So, what is most basic, and fundamental to human experience, being at the present, is now completely denied by many people who insist that "the present" is not something real.

Therefore we have the very significant problem which is the denial of the reality of the human experience. Some insist for example, that we live in a simulation. This denial of the reality of human experience is the result of there being not a single conventional definition of "the present" which is consistent with reality. There are only false representations of "the present", like what you propose, ones which utilize arbitrary points in time. Since the subjective experience is inconsistent with the conventional definitions of "the present", instead of rejecting the definitions, as I do, people accept these representations of "the present" as true representations of the present, and reject the human experience of "the present" as not real.

Putting aside the question of how the lack of a singular defintion of "the present" causes the idea that we live in a simulation... What does any of this have to do with your proposed "overlap" between past/present and present/future?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Presumably, this "overlap" is due to the fact that the duration of one person's "present" is different from the duration of another person's "present".
— Luke

No, this is a bit of a misunderstanding of what I've argued. The overlap is not due to the fact that one person's present is different from another. The overlap is the true nature of what the present is, and what time is. We do not know why time exists like this, so we cannot say what the overlap is due to. The fact that the duration of one person's present is different from the duration of another person's present, is evidence that this overlap is the real, or true nature of the present.

So you need to reverse the order of implied causation in your statement. The overlap is not caused by one person's present being different from another's, the overlap causes one person's present to be different from another's. That's why we can say that the difference between one person's present and another's, is evidence of overlap.

This brings us back to my earlier criticism. If there is no distinction between past, present and future, then the duration of the present must be infinite, right? Past, present and future are all one and without distinction, so there is no present time, really. Otherwise, what is the duration of your personal present time? How do you know if something is still present or if it is now in the past? Likewise, how do you know if something is still in the future or if it is now present? If there is no distinction between them, then past, present and future just blur into one single time period. But, in that case, there cannot be any differences between the duration of the "present" for different people because there really is no present time distinct from past and future times, and therefore there cannot there be any overlap of past/present and present/future. Just out of curiosity, what is the duration of the proposed overlap?

Reply to jorndoe

Presupposing time doesn't seem like an issue for empirical science. After all, we observe time and use it to define all sorts of phenomena. The unfortunately common claim that "physics shows that time is illusory," is quite misleading. A more appropriate restatement would be "physics shows that the passage of time relevant to some present moment is illusory." That is, virtually no one denies the existence of a relevant time dimension re: Minkowski Space-Time (time is right in the name).

But even the restatement goes too far. It'd be more accurate to say that "many physicists agree with philosophical interpretations of empirical findings in physics that suggest that the passage of time is illusory." Obviously there aren't empircal findings from some experiment where time has been stopped or run in reverse for us to observe. I am of the opinion that the evidence for these philosophical interpretations is far too weak to justify a blanket denial of any relevant present. I don't even think this is a majority opinion in physics writ large, but it seems like it is a majority opinion for those who work in cosmology and publish works of popular science and for philosophers of time.

I would imagine that, just as in philosophy, where you specialize changes how you see the issue. I'd be willing to bet that a survey would find that people who specialize in statistical mechanics are far less likely to believe in eternalist interpretations than those who work in cosmology.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

The unfortunately common claim that "physics shows that time is illusory," is quite misleading.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

It'd be more accurate to say that "many physicists agree with philosophical interpretations of empirical findings in physics that suggest that the passage of time is illusory."

It's my current (and very subject to change) belief that "illusory" is not the right word to use, and what they really mean is "emergent".

I hear more and more that time, and even space time, isn't a fundamental feature of our reality. People take that and go straight to "illusory", but there are plenty of non fundamental things we don't consider to be illusions. They're just emergent.

Time isn't an illusion, time is emergent, and the experience we have of time isn't an illusion so much as it is an inevitable part of what it feels like to be a being occupying space time in the way that we do.

I think.

As an aside, is the only alternative to "time is fundamentally real" some kind of block universe? It seems that way to me.

Reply to flannel jesus

Sure, time is emergent in that it's the dimension in which change occurs in three dimensional space. Aristotle noted this when rebutting Zeno's Paradox of the Arrow as a fallacy of composition. Sure, if we consider any frozen moment in the path of an arrow, from when it leaves the bow string to when it hits the ground, the arrow isn't isn't moving in any of the frozen moments. However, that doesn't imply motion doesn't exist. Rather, time is the dimension through which changes in location take place. A universe with no change has no (observable) time dimension.

Now, there is an argument that, ontologically, a toy universe, or our real universe, either has three dimensions or four, regardless of if change exists. You can imagine a four dimensional universe where nothing changes, it's just that it would observably indistinguishable from a three dimensional for anyone who inside said universe (ignoring that we arguably can't imagine an observer who doesn't experience time). Some formulations of cosmology for our universe add an extra dimension for the very early phase that "disappears," shortly after the Big Bang.

Quoting Luke

Right, but as an empirical matter, have you done any measurements of anyone's duration of the present? Even on yourself? If not, then how do you know that judgements vary?

Measurements of time rely on the determination of points which mark the moments which begin and end the measured period. Such points are not real, but arbitrary. In practise, we mark a point with the occurrence of an event, (the numbers on a clock for example). There are no such events which mark the beginning and ending of one's present, unless of course we make arbitrary ones. Therefore any such measurement of one's present would be completely arbitrary, and that is not a measurement at all. Without such points it is impossible to measure one's present.

So I know that the judgements of anyone's duration of the present vary because it is impossible to measure one's present, and through my experience with common usage I have noticed variance. People usually mark "the present" with reference to an event, "the moment when X is occurring, or occurred. But different types of events take different amounts of time, so the length of the person's present is dependent on the type of event that the person is concerned with at the time. Right now my present is marked by writing this post, and that might be an hour or so. When I'm pouring a coffee, that's a present of less than a minute. Since "the present" is arbitrary, without any real points, it's defined by whatever event one is paying attention to. So it is very clear to me that my own present varies in length.

Quoting Luke

If you accept the Google results, then where's the dispute?

What you presented from Google shows a very significant variance, between a couple hundred milliseconds and a couple seconds. Yet you claim this is not significant.

Quoting Luke

My "insistence" (I've only said it once) that the difference between various subjective experiences in this matter are insignificant does not affect, and is completely unrelated to, our agreement that the "present" time is defined in terms of conscious experience.

The principal disagreement between us is your insistence that no part of the past or future overlaps into the present. This would require points which separate past from present and future from present. Such a separation is inconsistent with subjective experience. It is an ideal which you hold, and you impose, yet you insist that your conception of the present is based on subjective experience. My reference to the differences between various subjective experiences is just provided as evidence that there is no such points of separation between past/present and future/present, because you refuse to find this in your own subjective experience, being in a state of denial.

Quoting Luke

I do not agree that "dimensionless points are not consistent with the subjective experience of time". Dimensionless points may be inconsistent with your view of the subjective experience of time, but they are not inconsistent with my view. Earlier in the discussion, I suggested an improvement to your argument that the present consists of a duration rather than a dimensionless point. However, even if I were to agree that the present consists of a duration rather than a dimensionless point, then I would only agree that the duration of the present itself is not a dimensionless point; that the present has a duration, and that that duration is bounded by definite end-points which separate it from the past and the future. I have maintained this position regarding definite distinctions between past, present and future throughout the discussion.

OK, so now it's your turn. Analyze your own subjective experience, find those points which separate past/present and future/present, and describe them to me. Justify your claim that there is no overlap in your own subjective experience.

Quoting Luke

Can you honestly tell me that your experience of time provides an overlap between past and present so that there is no boundary? How do you identify this overlap?

That's simple. I know there is past because of memories. I know there is future because anticipation. I can identify nothing which marks "the present" in my experience. Analysis of sensation indicates that everything sensed is in the past, therefore memories, and analysis of anticipations indicates that these relate to things in the future. Therefore I can conclude that my entire experience of "the present" is just an overlap of memories and anticipations, as the Venn diagram example I mentioned earlier.

Quoting Luke

What updated "understanding of what being present" means leads you to believe that there is an overlap of past/present and present/future? I thought your knowledge of this "overlap" was derived from your own personal experience, rather than from scientific knowledge?

Personal experience needs to be subjected to relevant knowledge in order to understand it. A being looking at one's own experience without any knowledge at the outset would come away with very little. Modern science, physics and engineering, which deals with extremely short periods of time indicates very clearly that what we thought was the present experience, sensations, are really in the past by the time they are apprehended by the mind. So the mind is "ahead of", or in the future, relative to the information it gets from the senses. That information is delayed through electrical processes. This implies that if the human being itself is said to be at the present, some parts of the human being, the mind, are in the future, while other parts, the senses are in the past. This means that the whole act of sensing and apprehending what is sensed, being eventual, and requiring an extended period of time, is part past, and part future.

Quoting Luke

What does any of this have to do with your proposed "overlap" between past/present and present/future?

It describe how other conceptions of the present, like yours, have been found to be incompatible with experience, and that we ought to change our conception of the present rather than blindly insist on compatibility.

Quoting Luke

If there is no distinction between past, present and future, then the duration of the present must be infinite, right?

It is not that there is no distinction, it is that they are not "distinct" in the sense of not overlapping. I already addressed this, you equivocate between "distinct" as in the way you use it to mean mutually exclusive, and "distinction" as in the way I use it to determine different features. So I say that there is a distinction between past and future, meaning that these are different predications of the same subject "time" but they are not necessarily opposing predications, therefore there is no contradiction in the subject, time, having both these predication at the same time, the present. You make them opposing predications so that there can be no overlap without contradiction.

If you take some time to consider the difference between past and future, you will see that these are not opposite to each other in the sense required in order that one would necessarily negate the other. Yes, they are completely different, but in no way is the past the opposite of the future, in the sense required for one to negate the other, as contraries.

Quoting Luke

Otherwise, what is the duration of your personal present time? How do you know if something is still present or if it is now in the past? Likewise, how do you know if something is still in the future or if it is now present?

These are difficult questions because time is a difficult subject. There is no reason to expect that anyone ought to know the answers to this sort of questioning.

Quoting Luke

If there is no distinction between them, then past, present and future just blur into one single time period.

Clearly there is a distinction between past and future. I never denied this. I only deny that it is the type of distinction we know as opposition, where the presence of one would deny the possibility of the presence of the other, by the law of non-contradiction. So the distinction is more like a distinction of category, like the difference between light and sound for example. There is a distinction to be made between light and sound, but the presence of sound in no way implies that the presence of light is impossible, nor vise versa. That is the type of distinction I am talking about, a difference in category.

Quoting Luke

But, in that case, there cannot be any differences between the duration of the "present" for different people because there really is no present time distinct from past and future times, and therefore there cannot there be any overlap of past/present and present/future.

You misunderstand this. There really is no present time distinct from past and future time. What I said is that the present is the perspective. So it is not a part of time at all, but the perspective from which time is observed. Time consists of the two aspects, past and future, and where these two are observed as overlapping is known as the present. Refer back to my Venn diagram explanation. There are two overlapping categories, past and future, and where these two overlap is called the present.

The reason why there is difference in the duration of the present, for different people, is that we all understand and interpret the overlap differently. Most, like yourself, don't even recognize the overlap, claiming "the present" to be something completely different from this, like you do. Obviously, if you do not even recognize that the overlap of past and future is real, then for you, any claimed duration of this overlap would be completely arbitrary. Therefore, since most people do not even recognize the reality of this overlap, if they were asked to state the duration of the present, it would be something arbitrary. So the duration would be different for different people.

On the other hand, if people started to take this perspective seriously, and started looking into the reality, and objective truth of this overlap, then they could come up with principles to measure it. In this way we could develop a conventional, standardized measurement of the overlap (the present). Then instead of "the present" signifying the perspective from which the overlap is view, we could move toward "the present" signifying the overlap itself, after we develop the principles required to understand the overlap itself.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The theory is a starting point, a launch pad toward a more accurate understanding of the reality of time.

I've been meaning to get back to this for awhile. I hope your statement above is an accurate description of your view. However, I can't say that I get the impression that it really is true based on what I have read of this thread since I last posted in it.

I don't see how your comment about communication is relevant. Clearly communication is a difficult task, as my attempt at discussion with Luke indicates, and the capacity to communicate is not something which ought to be taken for granted. However, I don't see how this bears on my temporal theory.

I should have connected more dots. What I was hoping you would recognize is that we are communicating via the internet.

There are implications to that, relevent to having a theory of time that is explanatory in a general way of a great many events that go on in the world. Your theory of time defines time in terms of your subjective experience. It suggests solipsism.

The way things are in reality, is that in the period of time it takes you to have a subjective recognition of PRESENT-NOW, zillions of things happen, one after the other, all around you, and within you.

You lack sufficient resolution on your metric for time, because your metric for time is part of a paradigm that doesn't really work for communicating with people about time with accuracy.

Do you see how it's a bit egocentric to base your metric of time on your subjective experience?

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about "duration of the present", has it been disambiguated anywhere what this actually refers to? I know what the concept of the present refers to, abstractly and experientially, but I don't know what it means when you add the word "duration" to it. What's the duration of the present?

Quoting wonderer1

There are implications to that, relevent to having a theory of time that is explanatory in a general way of a great many events that go on in the world. Your theory of time defines time in terms of your subjective experience. It suggests solipsism.

If you read more of my posting in the last week, you'll see this is not true at all. We can discuss our differences and work out systems of compromise. Look at the way the world is divided into time zones for example. As you look around the world, the numbers assigned to the present time are different depending on location, but we have a system which works. And as I described to Luke, "the present" in general, is reduced to a point in time because this facilitates measurement. There is no suggestion of solipsism, because we wok out our differences, but truth is sometimes sacrificed to simplicity due to pragmatic forces. That is why the present is commonly represented as a point in time.

Quoting wonderer1

The way things are in reality, is that in the period of time it takes you to have a subjective recognition of PRESENT-NOW, zillions of things happen, one after the other, all around you, and within you.

This is clear evidence that what I say is true, "PRESENT-NOW" always consists of duration, and is never actually a point in time.

Quoting wonderer1

You lack sufficient resolution on your metric for time, because your metric for time is part of a paradigm that doesn't really work for communicating with people about time with accuracy.

You have this reversed. What you call "communicating with people about time with accuracy" is really communicating with people about time without accuracy. You think that since we manage to engineer complex systems, and get things done, that this implies "accuracy" in our communications about time. However, if you look at the problems, the brick walls, which scientists have run into, quantum uncertainty, multiple worlds, loop gravity, spatial expansion, etc., you'll see that accuracy is impossible with the methods currently used.

I recognize that despite what you and Luke might say, claiming that such problems are insignificant, these are very real and significant problems which have manifested due to our inability to communicate about time with accuracy. You look at human successes as evidence of perfection in our conception of time, while I look at human failures as evidence of imperfection in our conception of time. So I propose a way to get around these failures, and you say there is no need to because we already have the best, or most accurate way of measuring time that is possible.

Quoting wonderer1

Do you see how it's a bit egocentric to base your metric of time on your subjective experience?

I see that the only possible way to have a truthful and accurate metric of time is to base it in human experience, empirical evidence. Whether this is egocentric or not is irrelevant.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There are no such events which mark the beginning and ending of one's present, unless of course we make arbitrary ones. Therefore any such measurement of one's present would be completely arbitrary, and that is not a measurement at all. Without such points it is impossible to measure one's present...

What you presented from Google shows a very significant variance, between a couple hundred milliseconds and a couple seconds. Yet you claim this is not significant.

You cannot, on the one hand, claim it is impossible to measure one's present, but, on the other hand, accept the Google search results indicating that the measurement of the present is milliseconds to seconds in duration. Either one's present is impossible to measure, or else one's present can be measured but there are significant differences in those measurements. You can't say both that it's impossible to measure but then accept the ("significantly" different) measurements.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

OK, so now it's your turn. Analyze your own subjective experience, find those points which separate past/present and future/present, and describe them to me. Justify your claim that there is no overlap in your own subjective experience.

For example, each word of this post you are reading is read in the present; each word you have finished reading is now in the past; and each word you are yet to read is now in the future. You could also substitute "speaking" for "reading".

Why do you claim that this "separation" between past, present and future is inconsistent with subjective experience?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That's simple. I know there is past because of memories. I know there is future because anticipation. I can identify nothing which marks "the present" in my experience.

All of your memories are related to your actions and conscious awareness in the present. All of your anticipations of the future are made in the present. If there is no "present" in your experience, then it sounds as though you deny the present. But, until now, the present is what you have been claiming has a duration and has an overlap with the past and the future. I thought that's what was in dispute here. Now you seem to be saying there is no "present".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Analysis of sensation indicates that everything sensed is in the past, therefore memories, and analysis of anticipations indicates that these relate to things in the future.

Is this your analysis of your own sensation?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore I can conclude that my entire experience of "the present" is just an overlap of memories and anticipations, as the Venn diagram example I mentioned earlier.

Until now, you had asserted that there were no distinct points marking the beginning and end of the present. For example:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"the present" has duration, and there are no real points which mark the beginning and ending of that duration

You had implied, if not stated, that there were two overlaps: one between the past and present, and another between the present and future, thus creating the indistinct boundary around the present. Now you appear to have changed your argument to claim that there is only one overlap, and that the present is an overlapping area between the past and future. In that case, there are very "real points which mark the beginning and ending of that [present] duration", which are where the past and future (circles) intersect.

If the present is the area within the overlap of the past and future (circles) in your Venn diagram, then the present has two distinct boundary lines, which are simply the arcs of the past and future that form the boundaries of the overlapping area (i.e. the present). Those two arcs are distinct, single lines.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Personal experience needs to be subjected to relevant knowledge in order to understand it. A being looking at one's own experience without any knowledge at the outset would come away with very little. Modern science, physics and engineering, which deals with extremely short periods of time indicates very clearly that what we thought was the present experience, sensations, are really in the past by the time they are apprehended by the mind. So the mind is "ahead of", or in the future, relative to the information it gets from the senses. That information is delayed through electrical processes. This implies that if the human being itself is said to be at the present, some parts of the human being, the mind, are in the future, while other parts, the senses are in the past. This means that the whole act of sensing and apprehending what is sensed, being eventual, and requiring an extended period of time, is part past, and part future.

If all the things we thought were in the present are not in the present, then what is left in the present? Most of what you have mentioned here is not consciously experienced or else has been found to be not in the present. However, you said that the present was defined in terms of conscious experience. Therefore, I don't see how this is an updated "understanding of what being present" means.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It is not that there is no distinction, it is that they are not "distinct" in the sense of not overlapping.

There is no distinction between past, present and future in "the present" area of your Venn diagram, or in the overlapping area of past and future which creates/defines the present. That section contains all three time periods and there is no distinction between them.

Furthermore, the present is distinct in terms of its boundary, which is formed by the non-overlapping sections of the past and future (times/circles) that lie outside the present. The boundary created by the overlap distinctly defines the beginning and end points of the present that you earlier claimed were not distinct.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There really is no present time distinct from past and future time. What I said is that the present is the perspective. So it is not a part of time at all...

Once again, you appear to deny that the present is a part of time. In that case, what have we been discussing? What is it that has a duration? How can a duration exist outside of time?

Quoting Luke

You cannot, on the one hand, claim it is impossible to measure one's present, but, on the other hand, accept the Google search results indicating that the measurement of the present is milliseconds to seconds in duration.

I don't think I said it's impossible to measure one's present, only that such a measurement would be quite arbitrary. Your Google search supports this.

Quoting Luke

For example, each word of this post you are reading is read in the present; each word you have finished reading is now in the past; and each word you are yet to read is now in the future. You could also substitute "speaking" for "reading".

What are you saying, that the present is as long as it takes to read a word? That supports what I said, that the present is as long as the event which has one's attention. If doing something else was your example, the duration of the present would be defined by that activity.

Quoting Luke

Why do you claim that this "separation" between past, present and future is inconsistent with subjective experience?

I explained that already, it has to do with the "point" in time which separates past from present, and the point in time which separates present from future. Why do you keep asking me this? Are you having difficulty understanding that such a separation requires a point? Or do you find points in time in your subjective experience of time? I even asked you to explain your experience of these points which separate these parts of time?

For example, when you are reading, do you find that there is temporal points of separation between each word you read? I do not. In fact, I don't find that reading is anywhere near like how you described it. I have to understand the words in context, so I'm always reading a bunch of words at a time. Proper understanding requires that the entire sentence is present to my mind, so I often reread. I don't find these points of separation anywhere.

Quoting Luke

All of your memories are related to your actions and conscious awareness in the present. All of your anticipations of the future are made in the present. If there is no "present" in your experience, then it sounds as though you deny the present. But, until now, the present is what you have been claiming has a duration and has an overlap with the past and the future. I thought that's what was in dispute here. Now you seem to be saying there is no "present".

What's in dispute is my understanding of "the present" vs. your understanding of "the present". You have a habit of saying things like 'then there is no present for you' when what I describe as the present is contrary to your description.

Quoting Luke

Is this your analysis of your own sensation?

Yes.

Quoting Luke

Now you appear to have changed your argument to claim that there is only one overlap, and that the present is an overlapping area between the past and future.

I haven't changed my mind, I mentioned the Venn diagram example, past overlapping future, as the present, a long time ago. You are just so consumed by your intent to look for things i say which are contrary to how you understand "the present", that you didn't even try to understand my examples.

Quoting Luke

In that case, there are very "real points which mark the beginning and ending of that [present] duration", which are where the past and future (circles) intersect.

This is incorrect, because time is not static. If past and future were static, then there would by specific points of overlap. However, the relation between past and future is not static, as we know, the future slips into the past. Therefore there are no points of overlap, as the overlap is constantly changing continuously, as time is passing.

Quoting Luke

If the present is the area within the overlap of the past and future (circles) in your Venn diagram, then the present has two distinct boundary lines, which are simply the arcs of the past and future that form the boundaries of the overlapping area (i.e. the present). Those two arcs are distinct, single lines.

The Venn diagram is not a perfect example. As you can see, it consists of two static circles with an overlap, while time is not static. So what is required for a better illustration is a moving overlap. The time of the future (tomorrow for example) has to move through the period of overlap (today), and then become the time of the past (yesterday), or something like that. Supposing a point at which the overlap begins and a point at which it ends produces the very same problem as supposing that the present is one point, except the problem is doubled. So this supposition is not useful.

Quoting Luke

There is no distinction between past, present and future in "the present" area of your Venn diagram, or in the overlapping area of past and future which creates/defines the present. That section contains all three time periods and there is no distinction between them.

Again, this is incorrect. The distinction may still exist despite the overlap. For example the wavelength which constitutes green may overlap with the wavelength which constitutes yellow, and this might produce the colour blue. But that does not mean that those wavelengths are no longer there just because a different colour is created. Also, two equal and opposite forces may balance each other as an equilibrium, but that does not mean that the forces are not there. Therefore there is no problem whatsoever with conceiving of the past and future as distinct, yet overlapping at the present.

Quoting Luke

Furthermore, the present is distinct in terms of its boundary, which is formed by the non-overlapping sections of the past and future (times/circles) that lie outside the present. The boundary created by the overlap distinctly defines the beginning and end points of the present that you earlier claimed were not distinct.

This objection is based on the incorrect things you've stated, so it is not relevant.

Quoting Luke

Once again, you appear to deny that the present is a part of time. In that case, what have we been discussing? What is it that has a duration? How can a duration exist outside of time?

I don't see the problem here. Temporal things, objects, events, etc., have duration. The human experience of the present is such a thing, it has duration. Duration is not time itself, it is what is measured through the principles of a conception of time. So, what exactly is the problem you are pointing to here?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think I said it's impossible to measure one's present, only that such a measurement would be quite arbitrary.

You said:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Measurements of time rely on the determination of points which mark the moments which begin and end the measured period. Such points are not real, but arbitrary. In practise, we mark a point with the occurrence of an event, (the numbers on a clock for example). There are no such events which mark the beginning and ending of one's present, unless of course we make arbitrary ones. Therefore any such measurement of one's present would be completely arbitrary, and that is not a measurement at all. Without such points it is impossible to measure one's present.

So I know that the judgements of anyone's duration of the present vary because it is impossible to measure one's present..

See above. You very clearly said that "it is impossible to measure one's present". In fact, you said it twice. You also added that any arbitrary measurement is "not a measurement at all".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What are you saying, that the present is as long as it takes to read a word? That supports what I said, that the present is as long as the event which has one's attention.

You gave an example of an event which lasted for one hour. As I stated earlier:

Quoting Luke

I think that there probably is a "present" that represents the shortest window of consciousness or awareness for each person...

I also recognise that people use the phrase "the present" in other ways; namely, to represent longer periods such as the present day, present year or other common period. I think there are rarely any disagreements or misunderstandings over this usage.

So I thought we were discussing the possible duration of this "shortest window of consciousness" (or conscious awareness), rather than the colloquial usage denoting longer periods, such as the present hour, day, year or millennium. If it's the latter, then I don't understand what's in dispute, or what you mean by "the duration of the present", as though the colloquial usage might have only one standard duration. Your response to my Google search results did not indicate any surprise on your part of the duration being in the range of only milliseconds or seconds.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I explained that already, it has to do with the "point" in time which separates past from present, and the point in time which separates present from future. Why do you keep asking me this? Are you having difficulty understanding that such a separation requires a point? Or do you find points in time in your subjective experience of time? I even asked you to explain your experience of these points which separate these parts of time?

I don't find any "points" in my conscious experience that separate the present from the past and future. Instead, I experience the passage of time in a continuous manner. This continuity may help to explain why some people think of the present moment as having an infinitesimal duration, as it is the shortest discernible "unit" within a continuum.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

For example, when you are reading, do you find that there is temporal points of separation between each word you read? I do not. In fact, I don't find that reading is anywhere near like how you described it. I have to understand the words in context, so I'm always reading a bunch of words at a time. Proper understanding requires that the entire sentence is present to my mind, so I often reread. I don't find these points of separation anywhere.

While reading, my internal monologue "reads" the words. That is, I "hear" the words in my mind while I am reading them. Since each word is distinct in my mind, then I believe my conscious awareness while reading can be divided into individual words. SInce the present time is defined in terms of my conscious awareness, and since my conscious awareness can be divided into the reading of individual words, then the present time can be associated (or present-time-stamped) with my reading of each word, and the past and future are defined relative to the present time.

Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time? If not, then how do you reconcile this with your view that the present time is defined relative to one's conscious awareness?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You have a habit of saying things like 'then there is no present for you' when what I describe as the present is contrary to your description.

It's hard not to draw this conclusion when you say things such as:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I can identify nothing which marks "the present" in my experience.

Especially when you have also previously said:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You say that you agree with me that the present is defined by conscious experience

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Analysis of sensation indicates that everything sensed is in the past, therefore memories
— Metaphysician Undercover

Is this your analysis of your own sensation?
— Luke

Yes.

How do you find that "everything sensed is in the past"? When you are consciously aware of having a sensation, how is that sensation (and everything sensed) in the past? You said that "the present is defined by conscious experience".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

as we know, the future slips into the past. Therefore there are no points of overlap, as the overlap is constantly changing continuously, as time is passing.

In what sense is the overlap changing? The duration of the present (i.e. the shortest possible window of conscious awareness) is changing over time? Why?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The Venn diagram is not a perfect example. As you can see, it consists of two static circles with an overlap, while time is not static. So what is required for a better illustration is a moving overlap. The time of the future (tomorrow for example) has to move through the period of overlap (today), and then become the time of the past (yesterday), or something like that.

What do you mean by a "moving overlap"? How/why would the overlap change?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The distinction may still exist despite the overlap. For example the wavelength which constitutes green may overlap with the wavelength which constitutes yellow, and this might produce the colour blue. But that does not mean that those wavelengths are no longer there just because a different colour is created. Also, two equal and opposite forces may balance each other as an equilibrium, but that does not mean that the forces are not there. Therefore there is no problem whatsoever with conceiving of the past and future as distinct, yet overlapping at the present.

You consider the past and future to be additive or subtractive forces working in harmony or in opposition with each other to produce the present? How can these forces be defined by conscious experience?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There really is no present time distinct from past and future time. What I said is that the present is the perspective. So it is not a part of time at all...
— Metaphysician Undercover

Once again, you appear to deny that the present is a part of time. In that case, what have we been discussing? What is it that has a duration? How can a duration exist outside of time?
— Luke

I don't see the problem here. Temporal things, objects, events, etc., have duration. The human experience of the present is such a thing, it has duration. Duration is not time itself, it is what is measured through the principles of a conception of time. So, what exactly is the problem you are pointing to here?

It depends what you mean by "not a part of time at all". In your opinion, are "temporal things, objects, events, etc." a part of time at all? How is a duration, as a period of time, not a part of time? What is a part of time, if not this?

Lastly, I'll just note that back on page one, you were claiming:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...present is logically prior to past and future, and human beings determine past and future relative to their existence at the present. They do not determine the present from past and future

This appears to contradict your latest statements, such as:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There really is no present time distinct from past and future time. What I said is that the present is the perspective. So it is not a part of time at all, but the perspective from which time is observed. Time consists of the two aspects, past and future, and where these two are observed as overlapping is known as the present.

Quoting Luke

See above. You very clearly said that "it is impossible to measure one's present". In fact, you said it twice. You also added that any arbitrary measurement is "not a measurement at all".

To clarify what I meant, the "arbitrary" measurement is a type of measurement, but not accurate or precise. I should not have said it is not a measurement at all.

Quoting Luke

So I thought we were discussing the possible duration of this "shortest window of consciousness" (or conscious awareness), rather than the colloquial usage denoting longer periods, such as the present hour, day, year or millennium. If it's the latter, then I don't understand what's in dispute, or what you mean by "the duration of the present", as though the colloquial usage might have only one standard duration. Your response to my Google search results did not indicate any surprise on your part of the duration being in the range of only milliseconds or seconds.

Sorry, I just don't see your point. There's no such thing as "the shortest window of consciousness", that's what your google search shows. It's an arbitrary designation. That's why I said it's not a measurement at all. But to clarify now, it would be a type of measurement, but not a very accurate or precise one.

Quoting Luke

I don't find any "points" in my conscious experience that separate the present from the past and future. Instead, I experience the passage of time in a continuous manner. This continuity may help to explain why some people think of the present moment as having an infinitesimal duration, as it is the shortest discernible "unit" within a continuum.

There is no such thing as a unit within a continuum. That is the whole problem here. It is a fundamental issue with "the real numbers". The continuum is designated as divisible in any way (infinitely). This means that any division of it is purely arbitrary, and artificial, there are no natural points of divisibility within it. If there was any natural dividing points, then any true division would be constrained to follow those natural points of divisibility. But the very nature of "continuum", by definition means that there are no such points of natural divisibility, all is the same. So the assignment of points of division (real numbers on the number line for example) is completely arbitrary. There is an infinity of numbers between any two numbers.

You seem to think that the proposition of an "infinitesimal duration" could provide real dividing points. But the infinitesimal duration is itself arbitrary. You call it a "shortest discernible 'unit' within a continuum" But there are no discernible units within a continuum, that's the definition of continuum. Any units are assigned to the continuum in an arbitrary way of representation. But this "representation" is not a true representation because the units represented cannot exist within the continuum itself (by definition).

To clarify though, the assignment of units is not absolutely arbitrary, it is carried out according to some mathematical axioms which are principles of order, such as the real numbers of the number line. This is supposed to be a way of "representing" division of the continuum. That is why it was incorrect for me to say that the arbitrary measurement is not a measurement at all. It is a real measurement in the sense that it's carried out according to principles, but the axioms are not based in any thing real.

Therefore, what your refer to, "an infinitesimal duration, as it is the shortest discernible 'unit' within a continuum", is just a fictional thing. There are no discernible units within a continuum, and any representation of the continuum as "units" is an arbitrary representation, based in some axioms of pure mathematics, rather than discerning real units within the thing divided. So this proposal does nothing for us.

Quoting Luke

While reading, my internal monologue "reads" the words. That is, I "hear" the words in my mind while I am reading them. Since each word is distinct in my mind, then I believe my conscious awareness while reading can be divided into individual words. SInce the present time is defined in terms of my conscious awareness, and since my conscious awareness can be divided into the reading of individual words, then the present time can be associated (or present-time-stamped) with my reading of each word, and the past and future are defined relative to the present time.

Of course this is just arbitrary. Why not divide your conscious awareness by apprehending each letter of a word, in order, instead of by apprehending each word of a sentence in order?

Quoting Luke

Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time? If not, then how do you reconcile this with your view that the present time is defined relative to one's conscious awareness?

I think I may have said that earlier, that past and future are defined relative to present. But now I see I may have misspoke on this as well. I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future, which are defined relative to conscious experience. This means that conscious experience gives to us, past and future, as the memories and anticipations which I mentioned, and from this we derive a present. "The present" is derived from conscious experience, but from an understanding of the elements of it (past and future).

So what we call "conscious awareness", or the conscious experience of the present, is really an awareness of the difference between past and future. Since these two are radically different, yet appear to be in some way a continuum, we conclude that there must be a "present" which separates them. What I am arguing is that this separation between past and future is a misrepresentation, a misunderstanding, as the present is really a unity of the past and future. This unity would be the basis for the conception of the "unit", parts united. The "unit" you mentioned above fails as being completely arbitrary.

Quoting Luke

How do you find that "everything sensed is in the past"? When you are consciously aware of having a sensation, how is that sensation (and everything sensed) in the past? You said that "the present is defined by conscious experience".

I know from science, that there is a process within my body whereby the information, signals which are sensed, are apprehended by the consciously aware mind. That process is carried out by organs which have a spatial separation of some degree, and I know that it takes time for such information to traverse spatial separation, even at the speed of light. So I know that even by the time my consciously aware mind apprehends a sensation, the thing sensed is in the past in relation to my consciously aware mind. This is a principle which is well understood scientifically as "reflex".

Quoting Luke

In what sense is the overlap changing? The duration of the present (i.e. the shortest possible window of conscious awareness) is changing over time? Why?

As I said, "the shortest possible window of conscious awareness" makes no sense to me as your Google search supports. Different aspects of conscious awareness take different amounts of time. Check the reflex of different senses for example.

The overlap between past and future is changing because time is passing. For simplicity, the overlap is the present, and the present is changing as time passes. That's why the "now" is a moving target, by the time you say "now" it's in the past.

Quoting Luke

You consider the past and future to be additive or subtractive forces working in harmony or in opposition with each other to produce the present?

That was an example of how things can overlap, yet still be distinct. There are many different examples, each different in its own way. So you ought not take one example and assume that I think time is defined by the example.

Quoting Luke

In your opinion, are "temporal things, objects, events, etc." a part of time at all?

Strictly speaking, no. Thinking that temporal things are the parts of time produces the misconception that time is change. Temporal things, events and change, demonstrate the existence of time to us. From the existence of change we abstract the idea of time. Time, in this sense is an abstraction. The abstraction is distinct from the things which it is derived from. The things are particulars, the abstraction is universal.

I believe that the reason why people believe time and change to be one and the same thing, is that they know that "time" must represent something real, but they are not prepared to take the next step, to see that this real thing called "time" is necessarily logically prior to physical existence which we know as change. Time is what is required for change therefore is logically prior to it. This is the same problem which people have with "God". God is required for material existence, as prior to (cause of) material existence, but people are not ready to take that next step to apprehend this logical requirement. So they refuse and deny.

So temporal things are not, strictly speaking, a part of time, just like material things are not a part of God. Time, and God are prior to temporal, material, or physical things, as necessary for their existence, the cause of them. This produces a separation similar to that of the separation between cause and effect, past and future, between them. And as I explained earlier, the separation is categorical, which allows for overlap of distinct things as predicates, rather than denying them as contradictory. Cause as prior to, is not contrary to effect as posterior.

Quoting Luke

This appears to contradict your latest statements, such as:

Yes, I think I made a mistake back then. The proper representation would be that we determine a past and a future, then we deduce that we must be at the present, as described above. My apologies for the mistake. Conscious experience demonstrates that the idea of "the present" is a deduction derived from experience. The conception of "present" is based in the conscious experience which consists of past and future, as I've been saying, but "present" is not what is experienced, it is deduced logically.

This explains why we have such a wide ranging variety of claims concerning the conscious experience of "the present". No one really experiences "the present", they deduce the existence of the present, and that they must be present. That they produce this conclusion from different premises depending on how they understand "being" is the reason why you and I, and others, have different conclusions as to what the conscious experience of the present is.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

To clarify what I meant, the "arbitrary" measurement is a type of measurement, but not accurate or precise. I should not have said it is not a measurement at all.

Should you also not have said "it is impossible to measure one's present"? You failed to comment on that.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There's no such thing as "the shortest window of consciousness", that's what your google search shows. It's an arbitrary designation. That's why I said it's not a measurement at all. But to clarify now, it would be a type of measurement, but not a very accurate or precise one.

Then how could the accuracy or precision of the measurement be improved?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't find any "points" in my conscious experience that separate the present from the past and future. Instead, I experience the passage of time in a continuous manner. This continuity may help to explain why some people think of the present moment as having an infinitesimal duration, as it is the shortest discernible "unit" within a continuum.
— Luke

There is no such thing as a unit within a continuum.

Hence my use of scare quotes around "unit".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It is a fundamental issue with "the real numbers". The continuum is designated as divisible in any way (infinitely). This means that any division of it is purely arbitrary, and artificial, there are no natural points of divisibility within it.

What would a "natural point of divisibility" look like? I don't understand what you mean by non-arbitrary.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Of course this is just arbitrary. Why not divide your conscious awareness by apprehending each letter of a word, in order, instead of by apprehending each word of a sentence in order?

Because the present is defined in terms of conscious awareness, and I am conscious of reading each word, per my internal monologue, not of reading each letter of a word.

Also, because the present is commonly defined as being the time of utterance i.e., of words/statements, rather than of individual letters.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So what we call "conscious awareness", or the conscious experience of the present, is really an awareness of the difference between past and future.

Are you saying that conscious awareness has nothing to do with what we are consciously aware of (in the present)? It is merely "an awareness of the difference between past and future"?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So I know that even by the time my consciously aware mind apprehends a sensation, the thing sensed is in the past in relation to my consciously aware mind.

The present is defined in terms of your "consciously aware mind". Whenever your "consciously aware mind apprehends a sensation", it does so in the present moment. The present moment is not the time at which you are consciously aware of something plus (or minus?) the time it takes to become aware of it or for your brain/body to produce your conscious mind or anything of the sort.

For example, when we become consciously aware of the latest most distant celestial object in the universe, it does not mean that the present time is therefore located 13 billion years ago, or whatever, simply because that's how long it has taken us to become aware of it. Instead, we are consciously aware of it in the present; the present is defined in terms of our conscious awareness.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"The present" is derived from conscious experience, but from an understanding of the elements of it (past and future).

No, it is the time at which we consciously experience. Scientific understanding does not change that.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The overlap between past and future is changing because time is passing. For simplicity, the overlap is the present, and the present is changing as time passes. That's why the "now" is a moving target, by the time you say "now" it's in the past.

But the division of time into the periods of past, present and future is unchanging, so I don't see how the passage of time affects your Venn diagram, or its overlap, at all.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I said, "the shortest possible window of conscious awareness" makes no sense to me as your Google search supports.

Then I don't understand what you have been talking about when you speak about the duration of the present. Obviously, the term "present" can be used in a colloquial manner to refer to various periods of time of vastly different durations. I thought we were talking in terms of the present when defined in terms of conscious experience, and the duration of the present denoting the shortest duration of one's conscious awareness. Or, as you put it earlier:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Try to pinpoint the present, the exact point in time, which divides the future from past. Every time you say "now', by the time you say "now" it is in the past.

It is this meaning of "present" that I thought we were discussing, where uttered words become past once spoken, not longer periods such as hours or days. How can you not understand this "pinpointing" of the present?

Quoting Art48

The past doesn’t exist at the moment. Neither does the future.

Of course they do. Where else do they exist?

Quoting Art48

Excessive thought and concern about past and future takes me away from where I really am, takes me out of reality, takes me away from God.

Thinking does that, yes — it can take you out of paying attention to what you are currently doing or feeling. But it’s still reality. Not sure where “God” comes into the picture.

Quoting Luke

Then how could the accuracy or precision of the measurement be improved?

More work is required before this can be determined. If we can find natural points of division, and abide by them, measurement would be improved greatly. The problem though is that such points are not experienced by us.

Quoting Luke

What would a "natural point of divisibility" look like?

Take a look at two distinct objects, like a chair and a table. Do you not see a natural divisibility between these two? This is the foundation for counting, such natural points of divisibility allow us to count objects as distinct things. A supposed continuum has no such natural points of divisibility, therefore it can provide no principles for counting.

Quoting Luke

Because the present is defined in terms of conscious awareness, and I am conscious of reading each word, per my internal monologue, not of reading each letter of a word.

I am very sure that I am conscious of each letter in each word, or else I would misread the word. Are you sure that you are not conscious of each letter in each word?

Quoting Luke

Are you saying that conscious awareness has nothing to do with what we are consciously aware of (in the present)? It is merely "an awareness of the difference between past and future"?

No, I said that we are not consciously aware of the present. We are consciously aware of the past, through sensation and memory, and consciously aware of the future, through anticipation. And I said that since we are consciously aware of both, past and future, we come to the logical conclusion that our awareness is at the present.

Quoting Luke

The present is defined in terms of your "consciously aware mind". Whenever your "consciously aware mind apprehends a sensation", it does so in the present moment. The present moment is not the time at which you are consciously aware of something plus (or minus?) the time it takes to become aware of it or for your brain/body to produce your conscious mind or anything of the sort.

I am not at all understanding what you are saying. First, as you are well aware, "present moment" doesn't make any sense to me. And what I said, is that the consciously aware mind is in the future relative to whatever it is aware of via sensation. So in your example of the distant celestial object, the conscious mind is in the future of the past event that it becomes aware of in that celestial object.

The point is that the thing, whatever it is, which we become aware of, through sensation, is always in the past by the time we become aware of it. And, the mind which becomes aware of it is therefore always in the future relative to the thing which it becomes aware of. Furthermore, the mind is concerned with anticipating what will happen next, and it is even actively determining (as cause through freedom of choice) what will happen next.

There is no room for your "present moment" here. The mind is in the future relative to the things sensed which are in the past. So where do you think this so-called "present moment" is, where the mind apprehends the sensations? That "present moment" is just a misconception.

Quoting Luke

No, it is the time at which we consciously experience. Scientific understanding does not change that.

That is the faulty definition which is inconsistent with human experience, and which you are trying to impose on human experience. We do not experience any present moment. We experience the past and we anticipate the future. There is not anything within human experience which indicates a present moment. You assume that since past and future are "distinct", they must be separated, therefore there must be a present which separates them. You deny and refuse to accept the reality that past and future are distinct in the sense of different categories, and therefore may overlap. So there is no need to impose a "present moment" to separate them.

Quoting Luke

But the division of time into the periods of past, present and future is unchanging, so I don't see how the passage of time affects your Venn diagram, or its overlap, at all.

Again, you fall back on your misrepresentation. Time is divided into past and future. The conventional divisor is "the present". In the conventional sense, the present divides time, it is not itself a period of time. What I propose is that in reality the present unites the two parts of time, past and future. When these two are united, then the present may actually be a part of time, the part when past and future coexist. But this cannot be represented as time being divided into three periods, past present and future, that is a misrepresentation.

Quoting Luke

I thought we were talking in terms of the present when defined in terms of conscious experience, and the duration of the present denoting the shortest duration of one's conscious awareness. Or, as you put it earlier:

The problem is that you always think in terms of separate portions of time past, present, and future, as if the present is a distinct portion of time. I know that this is your preferred way of understanding "the present", but this idea is inconsistent with what I am proposing, so if you cannot dismiss it for the sake of discussion, and quit falling back on it as a crutch, you'll never be able to understand what I am proposing.

Quoting Luke

It is this meaning of "present" that I thought we were discussing, where uttered words become past once spoken, not longer periods such as hours or days. How can you not understand this "pinpointing" of the present?

What I've been arguing is that the pinpointing of the present is a mistake. That is what is at issue, I am saying it is a mistaken notion of "the present". You were willing to respect that first step, and accept the present as a duration instead of a pinpoint, but then you wanted two pinpoints, one at the beginning and one at the end of the present. So all you did was double the mistake. And then you wanted to move the two pinpoints closer and closer together, to produce a shortest period of conscious awareness, as if you were trying to get back to the original one pinpoint. You need to drop these ideas about shortest duration, pinpoints, etc. these are not what the experience of time is all about.

The idea was to remove points in time altogether, as inconsistent with the nature of time as we experience it. Until you remove from your mind, this idea of dividing points in time, you will never be able to understand "the present" as a unifier, and the paradigm of unity, rather than as a divisor.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

am very sure that I am conscious of each letter in each word, or else I would misread the word. Are you sure that you are not conscious of each letter in each word?

I'd ask you to look at the following link.

https://www.sciencealert.com/word-jumble-meme-first-last-letters-cambridge-typoglycaemia

Quoting wonderer1

I'd ask you to look at the following link.

I checked your link. Notice that each letter still needs to be there. Luke says reading occurs as a temporal order, I disagreed. Your link seems to support my position.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I checked your link. Notice that each letter still needs to be there. Luke says reading occurs as a temporal order, I disagreed. Your link seems to support my position.

Maybe we just experience it differently. It is clear to me that I have no need to be conscious of every letter in order to grasp the intended content. My brain yielded pattern recognized words, largely despite the 'brokenness" of many of the words. I can't say that I know what it is like for you though. I thought you might recognize that you didn't need to be conscious of every letter to understand the content.

Would you say that for you it was like solving a sort of logic puzzle to determine the following content?

Quoting wonderer1

Maybe we just experience it differently.

I think that's right. I think different people read in different ways. That's why some read faster than others. I myself read in different ways depending on what it is that I am reading. Sometimes I need to read carefully, sometimes i skim through.

Quoting wonderer1

I thought you might recognize that you didn't need to be conscious of every letter to understand the content.

If understanding the content is the issue, rather than simply reading, then the entire content must be respected, so Luke's claim that we read one word after the other could not be correct. We only really understand each word after reading the entire sentence, and we only really understand the sentence within the context of the entire passage.

But the issue of misreading, and misunderstanding must also be addressed. If someone reads a passage very quickly, and mixes up some words so that there is misunderstanding, can this really be called reading it?

Quoting wonderer1

Would you say that for you it was like solving a sort of logic puzzle to determine the following content?

It definitely is a sort of puzzle, but not a logic puzzle. Some words (especially the long ones) are very easy, and flow naturally, but others require thought. I would say that much thought was put into the way the presentation was made. And I do not agree that it is the positioning of the first and last letter which makes the word recognizable. Notice the double c in According, and the ch's in research, (if that is what that word is supposed to be). I am not educated in phonetics, but things like that strike me as give aways, which if they had been scrambled in a different way would have made the words much harder to recognize. If you read the article, it's all a hoax anyway, there was no such research.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If someone reads a passage very quickly, and mixes up some words so that there is misunderstanding, can this really be called reading it?

I don't see any good reason to look at it in black and white terms. I don't see reading as defined by not making any errors. Consider the varying interpretations people have of literature. Do you think all people who read a piece of literature have the same interpretation? Does it seem likely that lexical errors play a major role in the variance of interpretations?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If you read the article, it's all a hoax anyway, there was no such research.

Yes, I read it and found the additional text samples interesting as well. Regardless of the hoax, it is still interesting to consider what text samples like that can reveal to us about our thinking.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Then how could the accuracy or precision of the measurement be improved? — Luke

More work is required before this can be determined. If we can find natural points of division, and abide by them, measurement would be improved greatly. The problem though is that such points are not experienced by us.

More work is required on what? Is it possible, in principle, that we are able to experience "such points"?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Take a look at two distinct objects, like a chair and a table. Do you not see a natural divisibility between these two?

I might see that they are two different (types of) objects. I don't know what "natural divisibility" is supposed to mean.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is the foundation for counting, such natural points of divisibility allow us to count objects as distinct things. A supposed continuum has no such natural points of divisibility, therefore it can provide no principles for counting.

This sounds like little more than a complaint about infinity, or uncountable sets, but it's unclear what the complaint is exactly. I assume what you mean by "natural points of divisibility" is that we should use only a finite set of numbers? But I don't see how a reduced, finite set of numbers would give us more accurate or more precise (or non-arbitrary) measurements. We would miss out on all those "in-between" numbers/measurements, and that would make our measurements less accurate, not more. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, I said that we are not consciously aware of the present. We are consciously aware of the past, through sensation and memory, and consciously aware of the future, through anticipation.

I'm very rarely consciously aware of any of those time periods. Instead, I determine the present time in terms of when I am consciously aware and actively doing/being, and the past and future are determined relative to this.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I am not at all understanding what you are saying. First, as you are well aware, "present moment" doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't understand your complaint here. I don't care if we call it "the present" or "the present time" or "the present moment"; I see no difference between these. If it will help to prevent your complaints, I will stop using the phrase "present moment". However, if I accidentally use the phrase again in future, then please just substitute it with "the present" instead. That seems to keep you calm.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The point is that the thing, whatever it is, which we become aware of, through sensation, is always in the past by the time we become aware of it. And, the mind which becomes aware of it is therefore always in the future relative to the thing which it becomes aware of. Furthermore, the mind is concerned with anticipating what will happen next, and it is even actively determining (as cause through freedom of choice) what will happen next.

Where is the present situated in all of this? Earlier you said that sensations themselves were also in the past. If sensations themselves are in the past then what event is simultaneous with, or defines, the present? Our brain signals that produce the sensation? Light hitting the retina? Light hitting and reflecting off objects (including very distant objects)? Human evolution? The Big Bang?

If past and future define the present, as you claim, then the present could potentially have an enormous duration. Can you narrow it down at all?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So where do you think this so-called "present moment" is, where the mind apprehends the sensations?

When, not where. But yes, why not? (I mean, apart from just repeating your own argument, is there any good reason not to accept this?)

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That "present moment" is just a misconception.

Is "the present" (sans "moment") also just a misconception? If so, then why do you say that the present has a duration?

Or did you "misspeak" again, like when you said that the past and future were defined in terms of the present, or when you said that the present could not be measured, or when you said that any arbitrary measurement is not a measurement at all? Are you now arguing that the present does not have a duration and that there is no present? It's getting difficult to keep track.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We experience the past and we anticipate the future.

I agree that we anticipate the future, but how can we (now) experience the past?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There is not anything within human experience which indicates a present moment.

There needn't be anything "which indicates a present moment" except for having experiences. The present (moment) is defined in terms of when we are experiencing.

You appear to make no distinction between having a sensation and remembering having had a sensation. You appear to be saying that the only possible experience one can have is remembering things. Accordingly, you would make no distinction between (now) reading these words and only remembering reading these words. In 5 minutes time, when you think back to reading these words, would that remembering be the same as the "remembering" you are now doing while reading these words? Or are there two different types of remembering? Otherwise, we could say that we experience things in the present and remember things that we experienced in the past, and not try to change the grammar in the way you are proposing.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In the conventional sense, the present divides time, it is not itself a period of time.

I disagree. The Google search results from earlier had scientists attempting to find the duration of the present, and some people - as you have noted - think of the present as having an infinitesimal duration. I don't agree that the present is not conventionally considered as "not itself a period of time". However, I do agree that the present is conventionally thought of as separating the past from the future. And you appear to recognise that you are going against convention here.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that you always think in terms of separate portions of time past, present, and future, as if the present is a distinct portion of time. I know that this is your preferred way of understanding "the present", but this idea is inconsistent with what I am proposing...

You were proposing from the start of this discussion that the present has a duration. Have you changed your position on this?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...so if you cannot dismiss it for the sake of discussion, and quit falling back on it as a crutch, you'll never be able to understand what I am proposing.

Not if you keep changing your position, no, I agree.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What I've been arguing is that the pinpointing of the present is a mistake. That is what is at issue, I am saying it is a mistaken notion of "the present". You were willing to respect that first step, and accept the present as a duration instead of a pinpoint, but then you wanted two pinpoints, one at the beginning and one at the end of the present.

Agreeing (for the sake of argument) that the present has a duration does not require two pinpoints; it requires one larger pinpoint. Do you know that a duration has a start time and a finish time? The duration of the present is the pinpoint (or what we were earlier attempting to pinpoint). The start and finish times of that duration are not two separate pinpoints.

Quoting wonderer1

'Where you live' is in your brain's model of reality, which is generated in part based on the light that hit your retina (on the order of 100 milliseconds) earlier.

Where you live is, in part, your perception of that light right now.

Quoting Ø implies everything

Where you live is, in part, your perception of that light right now.

Right. My point was that there are complicating factors, in translating between an external world scientific reference frame and one's subjective seeming reference frame. Do you agree?

Reply to wonderer1 Yes, I agree they are complicating factors but your original comment did not make their relevance to Art's post clear. Perhaps we just have a different opinion on what's relevant enough to warrant mentioning in this thread.

Reply to Ø implies everything

Reply to Art48 and I have both been frequent posters on another forum for a long time. So I replied to him:

1) with the assumption that he had relevant background knowledge about my perspective that I didn't need to elaborate on.

2) with knowledge of his specific background that led me to think a succinct response might be sufficient.

Reply to wonderer1 I see. But for us others, could you expand on how the fact that our phenomenal reality is supposedly caused by/represents a physical reality in the past is relevant to Art's musings about only experiencing the phenomenal present, where phenomenal present is he only sensible reading of present, since no-one is experiencing anything non-phenomenal by definition.

Quoting wonderer1

Yes, I read it and found the additional text samples interesting as well. Regardless of the hoax, it is still interesting to consider what text samples like that can reveal to us about our thinking.

I think that what it reveals is that the process is noy like we think it is. And I guess that's why we have different opinions about it, no one really knows how they read.

Quoting Luke

More work is required on what? Is it possible, in principle, that we are able to experience "such points"?

More work is required on understanding what we call the passage of time, in order to establish more accurate measurement. I think that the work done in quantum mechanics indicates that it is highly likely that there actually is points in time, that's why events occur as quanta rather than continuous. If this is the case, then we probably do experience such points in time, in some way, but we do not recognize them, just like we experience molecules, atoms and electrons, but we do not recognize them as such, through sensation.

Quoting Luke

I might see that they are two different (types of) objects. I don't know what "natural divisibility" is supposed to mean.

Let me try again then. When you see two different chairs in a room, do you not see them as two distinct objects? The natural, spatial separation between them, which we apprehend through the sense of sight, represents a natural divisibility in spatial existence. We see distinct objects, and this apprehension of distinct objects is a division performed by the perceptual process, which is carried out according to a natural spatial divisibility which we perceive in our environment. It is the way that we perceive our environment, as consisting of a natural divisibility, which the perceptual process takes advantage of, to produce distinct objects of perception. This is the foundation for the concept of quantity. We need principles to distinguish one thing from another, in order that we can evaluate a multitude of distinct things, count, quantify or measure them. If there was no natural divisibility in our environment any division into discrete objects would be completely arbitrary, therefore any measurement of quantity would also be completely arbitrary.

In the case of time, we assume a continuum, therefore no natural divisibility. So to count or quantify distinct periods of time we look to repeating cycles, earth, moon, sun, quartz crystal vibrations, and now the quantum characteristics of the cesium atom. The problem is that all of these cycles are physical events, which in order to serve as measurement need to be compared to other physical events, the ones to be measured. This requires a means of determining the beginning and ending of a cycle, in relation to the event to be measured. The event to be measured is always spatially separated form the clock. The various possible features of this spatial separation are what Einstein dealt with in his special theory of relativity, where he stipulated that simultaneity is relative. This stipulation means an accurate comparison is

\ impossible, and therefore precise measurement of time impossible, because the simultaneity of the beginning and ending of the cycle of measurement, in comparison with the event to be measured, is dependent on the frame of reference. In other word the temporal measurement of the same event will differ depending on the frame of reference.

Quoting Luke

This sounds like little more than a complaint about infinity, or uncountable sets, but it's unclear what the complaint is exactly. I assume what you mean by "natural points of divisibility" is that we should use only a finite set of numbers? But I don't see how a reduced, finite set of numbers would give us more accurate or more precise (or non-arbitrary) measurements. We would miss out on all those "in-between" numbers/measurements, and that would make our measurements less accurate, not more. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean.

No, the point is that the object to be counted in any act of quantification (a count) must be a true and real object, or else any proposed count is arbitrary. To be a true and real object, it must be distinct, discrete, separate from its surroundings, or else it's just a part of another object. And if we are allowed to count parts as objects, and everything is infinitely divisible, then every count will be infinite.

That's what happens when we try to quantify something which is already assumed to be a continuum (the real number line, or time, as examples). Since there are no natural points of division we can't even start to count anything because there are no distinct objects to count. So we allow divisions and we produce a count according to the divisions. But these divisions are arbitrary, so there is no rule about how to apply them, except that they can be applied anywhere. Then any count will be a count of infinity (any random section of the number line contains an infinity of numbers, and any random section of time contains an infinite number of time durations).

So it's not a matter of choosing finite numbers over infinite numbers, it's a matter of basing "the count", which is the act of quantifying, or measuring, in something real, real divisibility as the example of distinct physical objects (mentioned above) demonstrates. Then the measurement is of something real.

The problem therefore, is the assumption of continuity, the continuum. The number line, with the real numbers is a very good example. The assumption is continuity, represented as the infinitely divisible line. That assumption is problematic when applying numbers to the divisions, because the divisions are arbitrary. Of course in most practise of measuring, things are separated by natural divisions (as explained above), and so numbers are applied in measurement according to the natural divisions. But then there is time, and we do not find natural divisions, so we assume continuity, but this creates problems.

Quoting Luke

I don't understand your complaint here. I don't care if we call it "the present" or "the present time" or "the present moment"; I see no difference between these. If it will help to prevent your complaints, I will stop using the phrase "present moment". However, if I accidentally use the phrase again in future, then please just substitute it with "the present" instead. That seems to keep you calm.

If "moment" has no meaning to you, then so be it. It has meaning to me. And, "the present" is not a moment because the present goes on and on continuously. This seems to be where we are having difficulty. You do not conceive of the present as something which goes on and on continuously, like I do. You want to mark "the present" as a very short period of time, but this cannot capture, or represent the present as we know it through experience. This is why I used that example, by the time you say "now", that point which you have tried to mark as the present, is in the past. What you do not seem to apprehend is that the present continues on after that particular "moment" has gone into the past. And no matter how many times you mark "now", the present continues through all of them, and onward.

This is why we must apprehend "the present" as having two important features. One is the feature you point to, the moment, "now", from which we base measurements, starting the stop watch, etc.. The other feature is the conjunction between past and future, which I point to, and this continues on and on, seemingly continuously, so it is indefinite. This continuity of the present is what is measured when we measure passing time. We use arbitrary points, and mark a section of the continuity of the present, as a period of time.

So it does no good for me to substitute your "present moment" with my "present", because these have completely different meanings, referring each to a different aspect of time. One is the artificial, imaginary, or fictional "point" which you wan to deem as "the present", the other is the continuous, extended passage of time, duration, which is "the present" as we experience it.

Quoting Luke

If so, then why do you say that the present has a duration?

The present continues on and on, as time passes. From this perspective, its duration may be as long as time itself.

Quoting Luke

The present (moment) is defined in terms of when we are experiencing.

There is no such thing as the moment when you are experiencing. Experience continues on and on, in a seemingly continuous and indefinite duration, just like the present, except you die. Do you not apprehend your experience in this way, as a continuous, long duration, rather than as a moment, or any sort of pin pointed duration?

Quoting Luke

Or are there two different types of remembering? Otherwise, we could say that we experience things in the present and remember things that we experienced in the past, and not try to change the grammar in the way you are proposing.

There are many different types of remembering, and many different ways of reading. So this does not look like a productive direction for the discussion, too much ambiguity and confusion. For example, do you not think that remembering is part of your experience? So this distinction you make here, between remembering things and experiencing things is not sound because remembering is a form of experiencing.

Quoting Luke

You were proposing from the start of this discussion that the present has a duration. Have you changed your position on this?

Obviously not.

Quoting Luke

Agreeing (for the sake of argument) that the present has a duration does not require two pinpoints; it requires one larger pinpoint.

Can you agree, that according to experience, the present continues on and on indefinitely, and so trying to pinpoint it is trying to represent it in a way completely opposed to how we experience it? The present is our experience of time, and the present continues indefinitely, just like time. Trying to represent it as a dimensionless point in time, as an infinitesimal point in time, or as a slightly larger point in time, is a completely futile adventure, because these points cannot represent "the present" as we know it from experience, as extended indefinitely

Quoting Luke

Do you know that a duration has a start time and a finish time? The duration of the present is the pinpoint (or what we were earlier attempting to pinpoint). The start and finish times of that duration are not two separate pinpoints.

There is a difference between "duration" in the general sense, and "a duration", as a particular. The former is how I have been describing the present, as an indefinite duration. You have been wrongly interpreting me as speaking of "a duration". If I was unclear, and that mislead you, then I apologize. However, now I have made the clarification. When I speak of the duration of the present, it is in the general sense of duration, indefinite duration.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think that what it reveals is that the process is noy like we think it is. And I guess that's why we have different opinions about it, no one really knows how they read.

Hmm. I see it is as revealing that the process is a lot like I think it is.

Trained neural nets can have a lot of 'fault tolerance', which is easy to say, but not so easy to explain. Anyway, as skilled readers we have neural nets that have been effectively trained at word recognition and automation of that recognition so that we don't need to consciously recognize each letter. I only need my trained neural nets to reveal the word in my lexicon that has the closest pattern match that also fits semantically with what I had already read.

Reply to Ø implies everything

I expect this to sound like a strange request but... Please see here for an explanation as to why, not knowing you at all, I would find it difficult to explain. There is an important sense in which I need to know my audience in order to communicate with any meaningful degree of success.

Quoting wonderer1

Trained neural nets can have a lot of 'fault tolerance', which is easy to say, but not so easy to explain.

It's not appropriate to say that a neural net is "trained". Nor is it appropriate to say that a neural net performs word recognition. So I'll just say that your post is an attempt to simplify something very complex and the result is a gross misrepresentation, and leave it at that.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It's not appropriate to say that a neural net is "trained". Nor is it appropriate to say that a neural net performs word recognition.

I don't know what you mean by "not appropriate". I take it you are expressing disapproval. However there is a large community of people in AI and neuroscience who see things differently than you do, and provided human civilization doesn't collapse, thinking in such terms is going to become more and more a matter of common knowledge.

To me it sounds like you are saying something like, "It is inappropriate to talk about riding in a car, because riding is something which is done on a horse, or in a carriage drawn by a horse.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So I'll just say that your post is an attempt to simplify something very complex and the result is a gross misrepresentation, and leave it at that.

Absolutely, it is an attempt to simplify something enormously complex. Certainly it is simplistic and open to misinterpretation by people who don't educate themselves on the subject.

Here is one way people who want to know what is going on in the 21st century can educate themselves.

Quoting wonderer1

To me it sounds like you are saying something like, "It is inappropriate to talk about riding in a car, because riding is something which is done on a horse, or in a carriage drawn by a horse.

Yes, similar to that, but not quite the same. An individual is trained, a person or some other being. We do not train a part of a person. I find that to be an absurd usage of the term to say that a person trains a part of one's body, like saying that a man trains his penis when to have an erection and when not to.

Anyway, it's off topic and I see that discussion with you on this subject would probably be pointless, as you seem to be indoctrinated.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, similar to that, but not quite the same. An individual is trained, a person or some other being. We do not train a part of a person. I find that to be an absurd usage of the term to say that a person trains a part of one's body, like saying that a man trains his penis when to have an erection and when not to.

Anyway, it's off topic and I see that discussion with you on this subject would probably be pointless, as you seem to be indoctrinated.

Dude, it's just a matter of the vocabulary used in discussion of neural networks. It has a fairly specific meaning in that context. You may be closed minded towards looking into the subject and developing an understanding of how training is used in the context of that subject, but don't mistake whatever your hangup is, for me being indoctrinated.

Reply to wonderer1
I think you equivocate. Neural networks of AI are said to be "trained". But we weren't talking AI, we were talking about biological neurons, involved in a person reading.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think you equivocate. Neural networks of AI are said to be "trained". But we weren't talking AI, we were talking about biological neurons, involved in a person reading.

Would you elaborate on how it is that you think I am equivocating?

Perhaps the article, Neuroscience: How to train a neuron will help.

Reply to wonderer1

The article is evidence of your indoctrination. There is clearly equivocation. The opening paragraph starts talking about "cellular learning", then claims a relation with how the "animal learns". And then it makes a conclusion about "learning" in general, as if these two senses of "learn" are the same. That's very deceptive use of equivocation.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That's very deceptive use of equivocation.

Unless you are able to present some evidence, that animal learning does not supervene on cellular learning it's a bit ludicrous to call it very deceptive use of equivocation.

It looks to me like you simply have a bias against science.

Quoting wonderer1

Unless you are able to present some evidence, that animal learning does not supervene on cellular learning it's a bit ludicrous to call it very deceptive use of equivocation.

More evidence of your indoctrination. The onus is on the researcher, to show the evidence, that's how science works. By giving the process the same name, "learning", the authors of this article are hinting that a direct and necessary relation has already been established. That's how the psychology of this type of deception works. Use the same word and a psychological association is made, which "implies" that a relationship has been established.

Suppose instead, we rename this process which they have named "cellular learning", calling it "laboratory manipulation of cells". Then the deception might be much more evident to you. You'd be more inclined to ask, how is this laboratory manipulation related to the actual learning process of an animal, instead of taking for granted that there is a direct and necessary relation, because of the use of the same word, "learning".

Then you might notice a few weaknesses in your assumption of a direct and necessary relation. Consider the following passage:

"Surprisingly, however, the biphasic changes occurred over a time scale five-fold longer than that anticipated from typical STDP studies in vitro (Markram et al., 2012). Using a computer model, Pawlak and co-workers showed that this temporal rescaling could result from noise in the spike timing of inputs. Such noise is to be expected in the intact brain, where there is always ongoing activity, but not in dissected brain tissue, which is relatively inactive.

It appears like the cellular responses (so-called learning) took five times longer to occur in living tissue than it took in prior studies inanimate mass, "in vitro". That is very clear evidence that the relationship between stimulus and effect, is not direct. The cause of this five-fold delay (clear evidence that there is not a direct cause/effect relation) is simply dismissed as "noise" in the living brain.

Furthermore, it is noted that the the subjects upon which the manipulation is carried out are unconscious, and so it is implied that "attention" could add so much extra "noise" that the entire process modeled by the laboratory manipulation might be completely irrelevant to actual learning carried out by an attentive, conscious subject. Read the following:

"It is important to note that these findings were obtained in anaesthetized animals, and remain to be confirmed in the awake state. Indeed, factors such as attention are likely to influence cellular learning processes (Markram et al., 2012).

Now, take note of the concluding sentence of the article:

"Despite these limitations, the elegant work of Pawlak, Kerr and colleagues provides some of the strongest evidence to date that STDP may underlie cellular learning in the intact brain."

Sure, STDP may underlie this process which they have called "cellular learning", but it's very clear that they have established no relationship between this process (more appropriately called "laboratory manipulation of cells") to actual animal learning. In fact, the exposed problem with "noise" indicates that the idea of such a relationship is rather far-fetched.

Quoting wonderer1

It looks to me like you simply have a bias against science.

It looks to me, like you are easily swayed by pseudo-science.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It appears like the cellular responses (so-called learning) took five times longer to occur in living tissue than it took in prior studies inanimate mass, "in vitro". That is very clear evidence that the relationship between stimulus and effect, is not direct. The cause of this five-fold delay (clear evidence that there is not a direct cause/effect relation) is simply dismissed as "noise" in the living brain.

Furthermore, it is noted that the the subjects upon which the manipulation is carried out are unconscious, and so it is implied that "attention" could add so much extra "noise" that the entire process modeled by the laboratory manipulation might be completely irrelevant to actual learning carried out by an attentive, conscious subject. Read the following:

"It is important to note that these findings were obtained in anaesthetized animals, and remain to be confirmed in the awake state. Indeed, factors such as attention are likely to influence cellular learning processes (Markram et al., 2012).

How is is it that you learned about these confounding factors?

From the "devious" scientists.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

More work is required on understanding what we call the passage of time, in order to establish more accurate measurement. I think that the work done in quantum mechanics indicates that it is highly likely that there actually is points in time, that's why events occur as quanta rather than continuous. If this is the case, then we probably do experience such points in time, in some way, but we do not recognize them, just like we experience molecules, atoms and electrons, but we do not recognize them as such, through sensation.

How does quanta possibly indicate that there are "points in time"? I'm guessing that you consider these "points" to be natural divisions in time. I don't see what difference they would make over and above the quanta. Couldn't we have quanta without any natural divisions in time (like we already do)? What do these "natural divisions" add?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In the case of time, we assume a continuum, therefore no natural divisibility. So to count or quantify distinct periods of time we look to repeating cycles, earth, moon, sun, quartz crystal vibrations, and now the quantum characteristics of the cesium atom. The problem is that all of these cycles are physical events, which in order to serve as measurement need to be compared to other physical events, the ones to be measured. This requires a means of determining the beginning and ending of a cycle, in relation to the event to be measured. The event to be measured is always spatially separated form the clock. The various possible features of this spatial separation are what Einstein dealt with in his special theory of relativity, where he stipulated that simultaneity is relative. This stipulation means an accurate comparison is

\ impossible, and therefore precise measurement of time impossible, because the simultaneity of the beginning and ending of the cycle of measurement, in comparison with the event to be measured, is dependent on the frame of reference. In other word the temporal measurement of the same event will differ depending on the frame of reference.

How do you plan to take a "precise measurement of time" without any sort of clock, or without making a comparison to any physical, cyclical event?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, the point is that the object to be counted in any act of quantification (a count) must be a true and real object, or else any proposed count is arbitrary. To be a true and real object, it must be distinct, discrete, separate from its surroundings, or else it's just a part of another object. And if we are allowed to count parts as objects, and everything is infinitely divisible, then every count will be infinite.

How can you tell if something is a "true and real" object or only part of a "true and real" object? Presuming it's via "natural divisibility", how does that work?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That's what happens when we try to quantify something which is already assumed to be a continuum (the real number line, or time, as examples). Since there are no natural points of division we can't even start to count anything because there are no distinct objects to count. So we allow divisions and we produce a count according to the divisions. But these divisions are arbitrary, so there is no rule about how to apply them, except that they can be applied anywhere. Then any count will be a count of infinity (any random section of the number line contains an infinity of numbers, and any random section of time contains an infinite number of time durations).

How are we going to work out these rules? We will need to use only a finite set, no doubt, with its "natural points of division". Explain to me again why a continuum does not have natural points of division? Can we not count objects using an infinite set? But wouldn't the infinite set of real numbers include a finite set of integers that we could use for counting?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So it's not a matter of choosing finite numbers over infinite numbers, it's a matter of basing "the count", which is the act of quantifying, or measuring, in something real, real divisibility as the example of distinct physical objects (mentioned above) demonstrates. Then the measurement is of something real.

Okay, but the measurement is made in numbers and what is measured is something that isn't numbers, but is objects/events. I don't see how the numbers (or the set or the continuum) has any effect on which objects/events are real or not. I can count objects using either a finite or an infinite set of numbers.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You do not conceive of the present as something which goes on and on continuously, like I do.

I do, actually.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

And no matter how many times you mark "now", the present continues through all of them, and onward.

Right. So?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

And, "the present" is not a moment because the present goes on and on continuously.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is why we must apprehend "the present" as having two important features. One is the feature you point to, the moment, "now", from which we base measurements, starting the stop watch, etc..

It's funny how you say that "the present" is not a moment, yet you consider "the moment" to be one of the "two important features" of "the present".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is why we must apprehend "the present" as having two important features. One is the feature you point to, the moment, "now", from which we base measurements, starting the stop watch, etc.. The other feature is the conjunction between past and future, which I point to, and this continues on and on, seemingly continuously, so it is indefinite. This continuity of the present is what is measured when we measure passing time. We use arbitrary points, and mark a section of the continuity of the present, as a period of time.

The feature that you say I "point to" also continues on and on continuously. There's not much that I disagree with here, except that the present is not a "conjunction" between past and future because past and future are not concurrent with the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There is no such thing as the moment when you are experiencing. Experience continues on and on, in a seemingly continuous and indefinite duration, just like the present

That's right, the present continues on and on just like your experiencing. And it's not a coincidence, because whenever you are experiencing is when the present is for you. In relation to this, those things that you've already experienced are in your past, and those things you will experience but are yet to experience are in your future. It's simple really.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Do you not apprehend your experience in this way, as a continuous, long duration, rather than as a moment, or any sort of pin pointed duration?

Yes, except we don't speak of the present as a continuous, long duration, but as a moment or point along that duration which is present for us at that moment. We typically don't consider the whole duration as "the present" or as present for us "all at once". Although, as I said earlier, we might use the adjective "present" to describe longer periods, such as the present day, year, lifetime, etc.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Or are there two different types of remembering? Otherwise, we could say that we experience things in the present and remember things that we experienced in the past, and not try to change the grammar in the way you are proposing.
— Luke

There are many different types of remembering, and many different ways of reading. So this does not look like a productive direction for the discussion, too much ambiguity and confusion. For example, do you not think that remembering is part of your experience? So this distinction you make here, between remembering things and experiencing things is not sound because remembering is a form of experiencing.

I think there is a distinct difference between having or undergoing an experience and remembering it later. Think back to any memorable event in your life. That is just a memory compared to the actual event that you lived through and experienced. I understand your reluctance to acknowledge this obvious distinction, however, given that it is simply too detrimental to your argument (that every experience is a memory).

Quoting Luke

How does quanta possibly indicate that there are "points in time"? I'm guessing that you consider these "points" to be natural divisions in time. I don't see what difference they would make over and above the quanta. Couldn't we have quanta without any natural divisions in time (like we already do)? What do these "natural divisions" add?

That's a complex issue beyond the scope of this thread, which would only serve as a distraction, but the photoelectric effect indicates that energy is transmitted as discrete units rather than as a continuous wave.

Quoting Luke

How do you plan to take a "precise measurement of time" without any sort of clock, or without making a comparison to any physical, cyclical event?

As I said, this would require determining natural points in time. Then the points can be counted as real objects, units of time.

Quoting Luke

How can you tell if something is a "true and real" object or only part of a "true and real" object? Presuming it's via "natural divisibility", how does that work?

As I explained, empirical evidence.

Quoting Luke

Explain to me again why a continuum does not have natural points of division?

There's nothing to explain. A continuum is assumed to be infinitely divisible. It can be divided in any way, and no particular way is more suited to the matter itself being divided than any other way, because there are no natural points of divisibility, proper to it. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand what "continuum" means.

Quoting Luke

Okay, but the measurement is made in numbers and what is measured is something that isn't numbers, but is objects/events. I don't see how the numbers (or the set or the continuum) has any effect on which objects/events are real or not. I can count objects using either a finite or an infinite set of numbers.

The point is not the effect of the numbers on the real, but the effect of the real on the numbers. If the entirety of reality is indivisible, then there is nothing real to count. Any count is arbitrary. If the entirety of reality is continuous, yet infinitely divisible in anyway possible way, then division is arbitrary and the count is arbitrary. Each of these produces an unmeasurable reality. But if reality has natural divisibility, then we can distinguish real objects to count and measure according to those divisions. Such a reality is measurable.

Quoting Luke

It's funny how you say that "the present" is not a moment, yet you consider "the moment" to be one of the "two important features" of "the present".

Laugh all you want. I use the quotes to signify the concept of "the present". So what was meant is that the concept of "the present" has two important features. And as I've been explaining, I believe the "present moment" is a misconception. Nevertheless, regardless of its truth or falsity, it maintains status as a very significant feature of the concept "the present".

Quoting Luke

The feature that you say I "point to" also continues on and on continuously. There's not much that I disagree with here, except that the present is not a "conjunction" between past and future because past and future are not concurrent with the present.

Explain to me how you conceive of this "present moment", that infinitesimal period of time, or shortest duration of conscious awareness, as something which continues on and on indefinitely.

You did say that you could exchange "present moment" for "present" didn't you? Now you are saying that the present continues on and on indefinitely. How do you formulate consistency between the present being an extremely short duration, yet also something which continues on and on indefinitely?

Quoting Luke

That's right, the present continues on and on just like your experiencing. And it's not a coincidence, because whenever you are experiencing is when the present is for you. In relation to this, those things that you've already experienced are in your past, and those things you will experience but are yet to experience are in your future. It's simple really.

If this is what you believe, then do you see that it is incoherent to speak about a "present moment" as if the present is a very short period of time, or a point in time? How could it be that the present continues on and on indefinitely, as if it is an infinitely long duration of time, yet it is also an infinitesimally short period of time, as "the moment". One of these must be dismissed as the cause of contradiction, and the latter, "the moment", is inconsistent with empirical evidence. That is why I say "the present moment" is incoherent to me. .

Quoting Luke

Yes, except we don't speak of the present as a continuous, long duration, but as a moment or point along that duration which is present for us at that moment.

Now, look closely at this statement. Do you see that "at that moment" has no real meaning, no real referent. It refers to nothing real. It's a convention which human beings concocted for pragmatic reasons, for the sake of measuring. "Start the clock now, at this moment". "Motion is transferred from one object to another at the moment of collision". Etc.. "At the moment" is a convenient fiction.

So, remove "at that moment" from the proposition above, as an untruthful part of the proposition. Now we have "the present as a continuous, long duration", exactly as we experience it, and all this speaking about a moment, or point along this duration, is nothing but bs.

Quoting Luke

I think there is a distinct difference between having or undergoing an experience and remembering it later. Think back to any memorable event in your life. That is just a memory compared to the actual event that you lived through and experienced. I understand your reluctance to acknowledge this obvious distinction, however, given that it is simply too detrimental to your argument (that every experience is a memory).

The problem is that all experience is completely wrapped up in memory, whether you like to admit it or not. Consider looking at an object in front of you, a chair or something. What you see is not a hundredth of a second of chair, or a half a second of chair. You are seeing the chair over a continuous duration. But the chair of two seconds ago must be only in your memory. However, that chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now,. That's how you know whether it's moving or not.

So, it's easy for you to take an event years ago, and say that's in the past, its only memory, and you can surely tell the difference between that memory and what's happening now. But when we are talking about the perception of events happening right now ("right now" being incoherent) then we are faced with having to separate what we anticipate from what we remember, as having influence over the perception. And this is much more difficult because we cannot fall back on the false premise of the "present moment". We cannot assert that our sense perceptions are at the present moment, because "the present moment" is incoherent. It's a convenient fiction created for pragmatic purposes, not consistent with reality. Look into the concept of "sensory memory" for example, it's very important to the way that we hear music.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That's a complex issue beyond the scope of this thread, which would only serve as a distraction, but the photoelectric effect indicates that energy is transmitted as discrete units rather than as a continuous wave.

Yeah, I'm aware of Einstein's Nobel Prize-winning work, but that doesn't begin to explain why you think that quanta signify any sort of "natural points" in time, or why time might possibly be naturally divisible into quanta.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I said, this would require determining natural points in time. Then the points can be counted as real objects, units of time.

I don't see how this could possibly be determined. What is the nature of these "points"? Why suppose them at all?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

How can you tell if something is a "true and real" object or only part of a "true and real" object? Presuming it's via "natural divisibility", how does that work?
— Luke

As I explained, empirical evidence.

You asserted "empirical evidence" and suggested we could tell if something is an object or only a part of an object just by looking. That's not much of an explanation. For example, is a coconut an object or a part? How about a hydrogen atom? There are many things that are parts. Which ones are the "true and real" objects and how can you tell?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Explain to me again why a continuum does not have natural points of division?
— Luke

There's nothing to explain. A continuum is assumed to be infinitely divisible. It can be divided in any way, and no particular way is more suited to the matter itself being divided than any other way, because there are no natural points of divisibility, proper to it. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand what "continuum" means.

So, unlike a continuum, only a finite set of (positive?) integers has natural points of division. Is that right? Does the set need to contain an even number of integers?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The point is not the effect of the numbers on the real, but the effect of the real on the numbers. If the entirety of reality is indivisible, then there is nothing real to count.

Wait. Chairs aren't real?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If the entirety of reality is continuous, yet infinitely divisible in anyway possible way, then division is arbitrary and the count is arbitrary. Each of these produces an unmeasurable reality. But if reality has natural divisibility, then we can distinguish real objects to count and measure according to those divisions. Such a reality is measurable.

You're saying that, unless time has natural points of division, then everything we count in reality is arbitrary and not real?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You did say that you could exchange "present moment" for "present" didn't you? Now you are saying that the present continues on and on indefinitely. How do you formulate consistency between the present being an extremely short duration, yet also something which continues on and on indefinitely?

We have a continuous succession of experiences from birth to death; we do not experience everything in our lives "all at once". As John Wheeler said, "Time is what prevents everything from happening at once." The present (moment) is when we are at any point along that continuous succession of experiences. As an indexical expression, the meaning of "the present" changes with context. So I can consistently say that "the present" is now, but (also, later) that it's now. It's comparable to saying "here" in relation to spatial location.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

How could it be that the present continues on and on indefinitely, as if it is an infinitely long duration of time, yet it is also an infinitesimally short period of time, as "the moment". One of these must be dismissed as the cause of contradiction, and the latter, "the moment", is inconsistent with empirical evidence. That is why I say "the present moment" is incoherent to me. .

This question also applies to you. If you reject the present as a short period, or moment, of time, then it must be "an infinitely long duration of time" that "continues on and on indefinitely" (since they are the only two options you have given). What, then, of the past and future? When is something past and when is it future? That is, what are the past and future relative to?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, except we don't speak of the present as a continuous, long duration, but as a moment or point along that duration which is present for us at that moment.
— Luke

Now, look closely at this statement. Do you see that "at that moment" has no real meaning, no real referent. It refers to nothing real. It's a convention which human beings concocted for pragmatic reasons, for the sake of measuring.

I don't deny this, except it's not only for the sake of measurement, because it is also relative to when one is experiencing, doing or being, and specifically, indexical to when one is speaking. I have never claimed that "the present" is something we find in nature (just as I wouldn't say that "here" is something we find in nature), but I would say that the passage of time is something we find in nature, because things age. Looking for some natural source of "the present" or for natural divisions in time is not my concern.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Now we have "the present as a continuous, long duration", exactly as we experience it, and all this speaking about a moment, or point along this duration, is nothing but bs.

That's not how I experience it; or, that is, I don't use the phrase "the present" to refer to all of time. I don't think anyone does.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that all experience is completely wrapped up in memory, whether you like to admit it or not. Consider looking at an object in front of you, a chair or something. What you see is not a hundredth of a second of chair, or a half a second of chair. You are seeing the chair over a continuous duration. But the chair of two seconds ago must be only in your memory. However, that chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now,. That's how you know whether it's moving or not.

Aren't you claiming that my "perception of it now" is also a memory?

I don't deny that my experience of the chair may include my memory of how it was two seconds ago, or that my experience is not influenced by my memories. I only deny that two seconds ago is not the present, because the present is defined in terms of when I am experiencing or perceiving which, according to your example, (was two seconds ago but) is...now.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So, it's easy for you to take an event years ago, and say that's in the past, its only memory, and you can surely tell the difference between that memory and what's happening now. But when we are talking about the perception of events happening right now ("right now" being incoherent) then we are faced with having to separate what we anticipate from what we remember, as having influence over the perception. And this is much more difficult because we cannot fall back on the false premise of the "present moment".

The issue is not what is contained in experience, and having to disentangle whether our experience consists of memories or anticipations or both or more. The issue is simply when we are experiencing.

Reply to wonderer1

I see what you mean, but I think you would be passing on higher-quality (but perhaps less) knowledge if you switched to my strategy, which involves explaining things logically (with supplements of intuitive explanations). Whenever someone doesn't understand me, I simply expand on the explanation, removing ambiguities.

And that's really what I mean about explaining things logically; remove ambiguities. (Re)define words, use simple words, make up words if you have to, so long as they are either well-defined by you, or well-defined by the relevant people. I say relevant people, because in certain contexts, the words are not well-defined for some audiences, but for others, they are (like terms from quantum mechanics for example).

If you find yourself lacking precise definitions for the words you are using, then you likely do not possess a good verbal understanding of the thing you are talking about, which means you likely do not possess a good understanding of it at all. Some things lend themselves better to non-verbal understanding, of course, but still, if you are not good at explaining something, you probably do not understand it very well.

Reply to Ø implies everything

I'm fine with waiting until I've read more of what you have to say, before deciding that I have something that I want to try to communicate to you.

Quoting Luke

Yeah, I'm aware of Einstein's Nobel Prize-winning work, but that doesn't begin to explain why you think that quanta signify any sort of "natural points" in time, or why time might possibly be naturally divisible into quanta.

Well, it's intuition, with many complicated factors involved. But I am not arguing that, am I? I am arguing continuity. So despite the fact that there are many reasons to make me intuitively believe that there are natural points in time, this is not consistent with our experience of time as continuous, and that is what I am arguing, the experience of time as continuous.

Briefly though, there is an issue with what could be called "point zero". Whenever an object at rest, or one in regular motion as per Newton's first law, begins a new motion from being acted upon by a force, there must be a point in time, or "moment" when the motion begins. In human experience, this would be self-movement. If I'm sitting on the couch, and decide to stand up, and actually move in that way, there must be a point in time when this motion begins.

Classical physics represents an object being acted on by a force, with the concept of acceleration. But there is a problem with this representation because there must be a point in time, the zero point, when the object goes from not having, to having, the new motion. At this time, the rate of acceleration must be infinite because the value goes from zero to some quantity. Conventional mathematics handles this with calculus, which treats the zero point as a limit rather than a point in time which is actually traversed. In short, the concept of acceleration cannot account for the zero point, because of the need for infinity, and a different form of this same problem manifests in quantum mechanics as the uncertainty principle.

What is intuitive though, is that there must be a real point in time, when a new motion of an object begins. This is assuming that objects have real distinct existence. If objects are not distinct, then a change in motion is just a continuation of the whole (universe) through cause and effect, and there is no need for a real point of beginning. It is intuitive because objects appear to have real distinct existence, independent from each other, and can be moved freely.

Quoting Luke

For example, is a coconut an object or a part? How about a hydrogen atom?

Your examples are concepts, "a coconut", "a hydrogen atom", universals. You are not pointing to particular aspects of the world here, so I cannot address the examples directly. Each of these named types could have particulars which exist as a separate object, or as a part of a larger object. As I said, we need to refer to empirical evidence, and this would give us the context of existence of each particular occurrence.

Naming the type usually doesn't provide for us the context of existence. However, whether the thing is a part or a whole is essential to some universals. This depends on how the named things exists within its environment. So the hydrogen atom for example cannot exist naturally as an object, it must be a part. Human beings can in some sense separate hydrogen atoms, and present it as an object. But in reality, it is not an independent object even after this separation, because the device which separates it is required for its purported separation, therefore this device is necessary to its environment, so it really just becomes a part of that device. This is why I referred to "natural" divisibility. Artificial divisibility is very deceptive, creating divisions where divisions are not naturally possible, such that the separation of the supposedly separated part is dependent on the coexistence of some device, and this renders the objective existence (existence as an object) of the part as not properly independent according to empirical evidence. Empirical evidence indicates that such a part has just changed from being a part of a natural object to being a part of an artificial object, the device which separates it from its natural place.

Quoting Luke

So, unlike a continuum, only a finite set of (positive?) integers has natural points of division. Is that right? Does the set need to contain an even number of integers?

No, numbers are conceptual, therefore divisions are fundamentally arbitrary. When I spoke of natural divisibility I was referring to material things, the empirical world which we sense. That's why theories of real divisibility are based on empirical information.

Since numbers may be divided in any way we can manipulate the divisibility of them to match the natural divisibility of the world, through the use of axioms. This in part, is what makes numbers useful. Pure mathematicians may create whatever axioms they desire, at will, but the way that the axioms conform to the empirical world is what determines how useful they are.

The problem with "the continuum" is that this is itself a stipulation, or proposition concerning the empirical world, 'space and time form a continuum'. It is very useful because it conforms to the empirical reality to a large degree. However, since we observe that natural divisibility within the empirical world is restricted, according to the spatial existence of independent objects, "continuum" is not completely appropriate. So the problems begin.

The concept of "continuum" allows for divisibility in any way, but this is not truly consistent with the empirical reality of spatial-temporal existence. However, it is consistent with a large percentage of practical applications, and it has proven itself to be extremely useful in facilitating all sorts of measurements. Because it is so extremely useful, it is the accepted convention, so it gets used even where it is not adequately suited. In these instances, we impose the principles of continuity onto aspects of the empirical world which do not properly correspond. This misleads us, leading to misunderstanding and misconception.

Take the hydrogen atom example. The assumption of continuity leads us to believe that the empirical world can be divided in any way that we want. So, the hydrogen atom must be separable from its natural environment. We produce a device to separate it, and we conclude that we have created an independent hydrogen atom. This in turn, is supposed to support, as empirical evidence that reality is continuous, and can be divided anywhere. However, the truth of the situation is that the hydrogen atom has not really been given independent existence as an object on its own, its supposed independent existence relies on the device which removed it from its natural environment, so it is now just a part of that device. Therefore the appropriate interpretation of the empirical evidence ought to be that the empirical reality is not continuous, and cannot be divided anywhere we want. This issue becomes extremely evident when the existence of massive fundamental particles like hadrons and quarks which are associated with the strong force, are considered. It becomes very clear, that the assumption of continuity, the spatial-temporal "continuum" is completely inappropriate here.

Quoting Luke

You're saying that, unless time has natural points of division, then everything we count in reality is arbitrary and not real?

I said "the entirety of reality", not strictly "time". When the entirety of reality is considered, we do find natural points of division, distinct spatial objects, as explained above. These divisions are what allow one object to move in one direction, and another in another direction. This is what allows you to take one individual away from a group, and activities like that. These natural points of division are what make a count more than arbitrary. The count is based on real, natural divisibility, as substantiated by empirical evidence.

In the case of time alone, we have identified no such natural points of divisibility. So counts of time are dependent on the repetitive motions of distinct, naturally divided objects. However, since measurement requires comparison, and with time we are comparing motions, the problem of the relativity of simultaneity arises.

Quoting Luke

We have a continuous succession of experiences from birth to death; we do not experience everything in our lives "all at once".

This is a misrepresentation. We have continuous experience, not a "succession of experiences". Any division of that continuous experience into separate experiences is arbitrary. Even during sleep we are experiencing, in dreaming etc., it's just a change in type of experience. This misrepresentation is fundamental to your insistence that "duration" must be "a duration" with beginning and end. There really is not any such natural points of divisibility in human experience which would substantiate this representation of a "succession of experiences". Therefore, "the present moment" as a point along that succession of experiences is not substantiated either.

Quoting Luke

This question also applies to you. If you reject the present as a short period, or moment, of time, then it must be "an infinitely long duration of time" that "continues on and on indefinitely" (since they are the only two options you have given). What, then, of the past and future? When is something past and when is it future? That is, what are the past and future relative to?

There is no problem here. As time continues onward, the future is always becoming the past. That's what happens at the present, as the present continues, next minute becomes last minute, next hour becomes last hour, etc.. "Future" refers to time which has not yet passed the present and past refers to time which has past the present, such that if there was a fixed amount of future at the beginning of time, the future is always getting smaller while the past is getting bigger. This is a continuous process which we experience as the continuity of the present.

Quoting Luke

I don't deny this, except it's not only for the sake of measurement, because it is also relative to when one is experiencing, doing or being, and specifically, indexical to when one is speaking. I have never claimed that "the present" is something we find in nature (just as I wouldn't say that "here" is something we find in nature), but I would say that the passage of time is something we find in nature, because things age. Looking for some natural source of "the present" or for natural divisions in time is not my concern.

OK. let's say that this type of point in time, this moment, is like the "point zero" I described above. The point in time when you are saying "now", or the point in time when you start to do X, etc.. Notice that it is better not to refer to this type of point as "the present", because it is just a designation of the relation between one physical action in the world, to another, or others. We might assign the point zero a date and a time, which relates it to the position of the earth and sun, etc.. If it's a real event, with real occurrence, then that point is in the past. If it's a designated possible future event, the point is in the future. But there is no reason to think that such a point would be exclusive to the present, so it should in no way be a defining feature of the present.

But what would it be like to conceive of such a point at the present? Suppose we can talk about a zero point in the past, and a zero point in the future. And also suppose that the present is when future points are becoming past points. Since this is a process, "the present", the process whereby future points become past points, and processes are events which take time to occur, then we must conclude that it takes time for a future point to become a past point, even while it is at the present. In this time, we might say that the point is neither past nor future, but that seems to imply that this point, when it's at the present, is right outside of time. But it's already been determined that there is time at the present because it is a process. So the point itself doesn't really go anywhere outside of time when it's said to be at the present. Therefore I think it would be better to say that the point is both future and past in this transition which is the present, rather than neither. And as I explained earlier there is no reason to think that this implies contradiction.

Quoting Luke

Aren't you claiming that my "perception of it now" is also a memory?

Right, that's why I mentioned the concept of "sensory memory". If I understand correctly, the information from the senses is put into a type of extremely short term, subconscious memory, and this memory is what the conscious mind interprets as the sense experience, and then allocates the memories to other types of memory, which the conscious mind has influence over.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercove

Well, it's intuition, with many complicated factors involved. But I am not arguing that, am I? I am arguing continuity.

It was something you said. I take it you no longer wish to defend it, especially as it is not consistent with your assertion of continuity, as you note:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I am arguing continuity. So despite the fact that there are many reasons to make me intuitively believe that there are natural points in time, this is not consistent with our experience of time as continuous...

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If objects are not distinct, then a change in motion is just a continuation of the whole (universe) through cause and effect, and there is no need for a real point of beginning.

I consider this to be more likely.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

However, whether the thing is a part or a whole is essential to some universals. This depends on how the named things exists within its environment. So the hydrogen atom for example cannot exist naturally as an object, it must be a part. Human beings can in some sense separate hydrogen atoms, and present it as an object. But in reality, it is not an independent object even after this separation, because the device which separates it is required for its purported separation, therefore this device is necessary to its environment, so it really just becomes a part of that device. This is why I referred to "natural" divisibility. Artificial divisibility is very deceptive, creating divisions where divisions are not naturally possible...

This still doesn't explain what makes something a "true and real" whole object, rather than just a part. All coconuts (that we know of) are part of the Earth, and the Earth is part of the Solar System, and so on. All of these divisions - indeed all divisions - are "artificial", because those concepts belong to our language and we divide the world up into those "objects" or concepts that we value, not according to any "natural" divisions.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

When I spoke of natural divisibility I was referring to material things, the empirical world which we sense. That's why theories of real divisibility are based on empirical information.

What is your theory?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The problem with "the continuum" is that this is itself a stipulation, or proposition concerning the empirical world, 'space and time form a continuum'. It is very useful because it conforms to the empirical reality to a large degree. However, since we observe that natural divisibility within the empirical world is restricted, according to the spatial existence of independent objects, "continuum" is not completely appropriate. So the problems begin.

But I thought you said:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I am arguing continuity.

You are complaining about the infinite divisibility of the continuum of numbers while also arguing that the empirical reality of time, or the present, is continuous. Are you arguing against yourself?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is a misrepresentation. We have continuous experience, not a "succession of experiences". Any division of that continuous experience into separate experiences is arbitrary. Even during sleep we are experiencing, in dreaming etc., it's just a change in type of experience.

If there are different types of experience, then we can sensibly speak of having one type then another, different type. Hence, we can sensibly speak of a succession of different types of experience.

Unlike a succession, a continuity (of experience) gives no indication of direction or even motion.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As time continues onward, the future is always becoming the past. That's what happens at the present...

How can the future become the past at the present, when you also claim that the present contains both the future and the past; when the past and future are inside the present?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"Future" refers to time which has not yet passed the present and past refers to time which has past the present...

How can this be, when you claim that the past and future are both inside the present?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think it would be better to say that the point is both future and past in this transition which is the present, rather than neither. And as I explained earlier there is no reason to think that this implies contradiction.

It contradicts what you said just above. This is what I've been telling you all along.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Aren't you claiming that my "perception of it now" is also a memory?
— Luke

Right, that's why I mentioned the concept of "sensory memory". If I understand correctly, the information from the senses is put into a type of extremely short term, subconscious memory, and this memory is what the conscious mind interprets as the sense experience, and then allocates the memories to other types of memory, which the conscious mind has influence over.

When is "now" (i.e. the present) in this scenario? Which event is simultaneous with the present here?

Quoting Luke

This still doesn't explain what makes something a "true and real" whole object, rather than just a part. All coconuts (that we know of) are part of the Earth, and the Earth is part of the Solar System, and so on. All of these divisions - indeed all divisions - are "artificial", because those concepts belong to our language and we divide the world up into those "objects" or concepts that we value, not according to any "natural" divisions.

I agree, that is one way of looking at things. We can class all divisions as artificial. Then we must look at the nature of divisibility itself. The assumption of the reality of continuity implies that any division imagined in theory can be carried out in practice. So the real issue now is whether some theoretical divisions are impossible in practise. If some theoretical divisions are impossible then the assumption of continuity is incorrect. I think that physicists general believe Planck units to be a boundary to divisibility. Divisions beyond this are possible in theory but not in practise. And if there are fundamental units like this, limits to divisibility, then spatial-temporal reality is not as a continuum.

Quoting Luke

You are complaining about the infinite divisibility of the continuum of numbers while also arguing that the empirical reality of time, or the present, is continuous. Are you arguing against yourself?

No, I am saying that it is highly likely that the human conscious experience misleads us in respect to the true nature of time. This way of looking at human experience is common in philosophy, dating back to Plato who said that the senses deceive, and the mind is to be trusted over the body.

So I've argued that the conscious experience provides for us a representation of a continuous spatial-temporal reality. So the assumption of continuity provided the foundation for classical physics, and along with this came the relevant mathematical axioms required to model physical activity within this continuum. However, I see that the assumption of continuity has reached the limits of its effectiveness. Quantum uncertainty has revealed that there are real problems with this assumption of continuity.

The evidence therefore ought to lead us to question, doubt, what we assume about conscious experience. This is the philosophical way, to accept the possibility that the senses mislead us, what we accept as "empirical fact", is really a deep misunderstanding. So the common example is that a serious of still frames can produce what appears to be the continuous activity of a movie. Likewise for the human experience, it may feel just like a continuity of consciousness, a continuum of space and time, but at the foundation is really a series of discrete units.

The important point is that with the assumption of continuity, points of divisibility are allowed to be anywhere within the supposed continuum, arbitrarily. But if the real underlying substratum of spatial temporal existence has within itself, natural points of divisibility, then the arbitrarily assigned points will not correspond, therefore no truth will ensue.

Quoting Luke

If there are different types of experience, then we can sensibly speak of having one type then another, different type. Hence, we can sensibly speak of a succession of different types of experience.

Unless we posit points to separate the different experiences, this would lead to an infinite regress. To be a succession, one would have to follow the other, and something would have to separate them, or else there'd be an overlap, and not a succession. The thing which separates two distinct types of experience would have to be another type of experience, and this would lead to an infinite regress of always positing another type of experience to separate one from the other. Otherwise we'd have to posit points which separate one type of experience from the other, and then we're back to the problem I described, of the "zero point", and points in general.

Quoting Luke

How can the future become the past at the present, when you also claim that the present contains both the future and the past; when the past and future are inside the present?

I don't see the problem. This is what happens "inside the present", the future becomes the past. Therefore both future and past must exist within the present, as one becomes the other inside the present. Consider the freezing point of water for example. "Inside the freezing point", water becomes ice, so both water and ice exist inside the freezing point. This process though, is also reversible, as ice becomes water inside the melting point, which is the same as the freezing point.

Quoting Luke

How can this be, when you claim that the past and future are both inside the present?

I see no problem. The present is not a point, as I've been arguing, it has breadth, or width. "Point" has been adopted by pragmaticism As the Venn diagram example shows, past and future extend outside the present, but they also overlap inside the present. When the future is inside the present it is past a part of the present, so it has already become past in relation to that part of the present, and is still future in relation to the rest of the present. This is the nature of change, it does not happen all at once, but over a duration of time.

Quoting Luke

It contradicts what you said just above. This is what I've been telling you all along.

Sorry, you've lost me. I've addressed all your concerns, so there is no reason to accuse me of contradiction, just your refusal to accept my terms.

Quoting Luke

When is "now" (i.e. the present) in this scenario? Which event is simultaneous with the present here?

There is no now, unless we change the meaning of "now", as I've been explaining. By the time you say "now" it is in the past. So the use of "now" to designate some point at the present is just a pragmatic practise to facilitate measuring and such things. There is no "now" in that scenario because there is no now in general, it's a useful fiction.

"Simultaneous with the present" makes no sense. There are events which move from future to past, at the present, and every single real event does this, but there is no sense to ask which event is "simultaneous with the present", because every event occurs at the present, yet they have different times when they are at the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

To be a succession, one would have to follow the other, and something would have to separate them, or else there'd be an overlap, and not a succession.

This is a false dichotomy. You're saying there must either be a gap between the two experiences or else there must be an overlap between them. The third option is that one experience follows the other immediately without any gap or overlap.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The thing which separates two distinct types of experience would have to be another type of experience

Why?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Otherwise we'd have to posit points which separate one type of experience from the other, and then we're back to the problem I described, of the "zero point", and points in general.

Why do we need points? Are you referring to points in experience or points in time? I don't get it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As time continues onward, the future is always becoming the past. That's what happens at the present...
— Metaphysician Undercover

How can the future become the past at the present, when you also claim that the present contains both the future and the past; when the past and future are inside the present?
— Luke

I don't see the problem. This is what happens "inside the present", the future becomes the past. Therefore both future and past must exist within the present, as one becomes the other inside the present.

Okay, at some point inside the present, the future becomes the past. But is it always at the same point inside the duration of the present that the future becomes the past? For example, supposing that the present has a duration of one second - for the sake of argument - is it always at the halfway mark that the future becomes the past, or does it vary? That is, does the future become the past sometimes a little earlier and sometimes a little later than at other times? Is there any good reason for this variation? Or is this just obfuscation?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Consider the freezing point of water for example. "Inside the freezing point", water becomes ice, so both water and ice exist inside the freezing point.

The freezing point is a temperature, not a duration of time. Regardless, I'm sure a definition could be established to measurably distinguish water from ice without the black box mystery that you propose for the present. And, while I'm no authority, it seems likely to me that the freezing point defines the distinction between water and ice.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"Future" refers to time which has not yet passed the present and past refers to time which has past the present...
— Metaphysician Undercover

How can this be, when you claim that the past and future are both inside the present?
— Luke

I see no problem. The present is not a point, as I've been arguing, it has breadth, or width. "Point" has been adopted by pragmaticism As the Venn diagram example shows, past and future extend outside the present, but they also overlap inside the present. When the future is inside the present it is past a part of the present, so it has already become past in relation to that part of the present, and is still future in relation to the rest of the present. This is the nature of change, it does not happen all at once, but over a duration of time.

Ah, but here you say that the past refers to time that has passed (or "past") the present. This means that the past is not within the present and is no longer within the present because it has passed (outside of) it. If it has passed the present, then it is not inside the present. It cannot be both inside the present and outside the present. There is your contradiction.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that all experience is completely wrapped up in memory, whether you like to admit it or not. Consider looking at an object in front of you, a chair or something. What you see is not a hundredth of a second of chair, or a half a second of chair. You are seeing the chair over a continuous duration. But the chair of two seconds ago must be only in your memory. However, that chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now,. That's how you know whether it's moving or not.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Aren't you claiming that my "perception of it now" is also a memory?
— Luke

Right, that's why I mentioned the concept of "sensory memory". If I understand correctly, the information from the senses is put into a type of extremely short term, subconscious memory, and this memory is what the conscious mind interprets as the sense experience, and then allocates the memories to other types of memory, which the conscious mind has influence over.
— Metaphysician Undercover

When is "now" (i.e. the present) in this scenario? Which event is simultaneous with the present here?
— Luke

There is no now, unless we change the meaning of "now", as I've been explaining.

If "there is no now" as you say, then what did you mean by "your perception of it now"?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There are events which move from future to past, at the present, and every single real event does this, but there is no sense to ask which event is "simultaneous with the present", because every event occurs at the present, yet they have different times when they are at the present.

I was referring to your scenario of looking at a chair in front of you. Which event is simultaneous with the present in that scenario? You used the phrase "your perception of it now". If you used "now" to mean something different than "the present", then what did you mean?

And, again, when is the present situated in that scenario?

Quoting Luke

This is a false dichotomy. You're saying there must either be a gap between the two experiences or else there must be an overlap between them. The third option is that one experience follows the other immediately without any gap or overlap.

It is incoherent to describe this as two distinct experiences, in succession, unless there is something which separates them. Otherwise you have just arbitrarily inserted a point and claim that on one side of the point is one type of experience and on the other side is another distinct type. You need something real, which distinguishes the end of one and the beginning of another, or else you are just arbitrarily asserting distinct experiences in a succession, rather than one continuous experience.

Your other questions on this matter will be answered for you, when you come to comprehend what I've said above.

Quoting Luke

Okay, at some point inside the present, the future becomes the past.

No! We have no premise for a "point". You incessantly want to insert a "point" when the unreality of such a point is my primary premise. You insert the unjustified "point" which is completely inconsistent with the justified position I am arguing, then you ask me to make sense of such a point. It cannot be made sense of because it is incompatible with what makes sense.

Quoting Luke

Ah, but here you say that the past refers to time that has passed (or "past") the present. This means that the past is not within the present and is no longer within the present because it has passed (outside of) it. If it has passed the present, then it is not inside the present. It cannot be both inside the present and outside the present. There is your contradiction.

I explained this, the present consists of duration. read the following:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

When the future is inside the present it is past a part of the present, so it has already become past in relation to that part of the present, and is still future in relation to the rest of the present. This is the nature of change, it does not happen all at once, but over a duration of time.

Of course, there is the issue of dividing the continuous into parts, the parts are arbitrary. But this is why it is so extremely difficult to distinguish the anticipatory parts of the human experience of "the present" from the memory parts. That is why I argue that the present will remain unintelligible to us until we find the real points in time. That there necessarily is real points, is demonstrated by the issue with the "zero point" of change, which I described. The problem is that we do not experience these points, so experience has misled us into modeling motions as continuous, and accepting mathematical axioms which produce a continuum. And since these premises prove to be very useful (up to a limit), we are reluctant to see them as misrepresentations. What is required to get beyond the limitations which those premises impose, is to determine the real points.

Quoting Luke

If "there is no now" as you say, then what did you mean by "your perception of it now"?

Human experience, along with the conventions employed for measurement have misled you to believe that you perceive a "now" at the present. There is no such now, as described by you, your perception of it is an illusion.

Quoting Luke

I was referring to your scenario of looking at a chair in front of you. Which event is simultaneous with the present in that scenario? You used the phrase "your perception of it now". If you used "now" to mean something different than "the present", then what did you mean?

And, again, when is the present situated in that scenario?

OK, I found the paragraph in question:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that all experience is completely wrapped up in memory, whether you like to admit it or not. Consider looking at an object in front of you, a chair or something. What you see is not a hundredth of a second of chair, or a half a second of chair. You are seeing the chair over a continuous duration. But the chair of two seconds ago must be only in your memory. However, that chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now,. That's how you know whether it's moving or not.

In this context, "now" means present, which is continuous. It is not the "now" of a point in time, which you propose, the one I argue is an illusion. The context ought to reveal this to you, " the chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now".

Your perception of anything at the present, what is called "now" above, includes memories of past (exemplified by sensory memory). The perception also includes anticipations for the future. Due to the problem described above, it is impossible to separate which aspects of your conscious perception are produced bu memory and which parts are produced by anticipation.

So for example, if you are consciously watching the chair, and something unexpected suddenly happens, you will recognize the sudden occurrence as unanticipated, but this will occur with a reaction time. That there is a reaction to sudden change indicates that anticipation is part of the conscious experience, that there is a time it takes for the reaction to occur, indicates that memory is part of the conscious experience. Therefore we can understand the conscious experience described as "the perception of it now" as a combination of past and future.

So, to answer your questions, "your perception of it now" refers to "at the present", and this is an extended duration of time, as indicated, by "the chair of two seconds ago is an integral part" of that perception now. And, as explained above, your anticipations concerning the future of that chair, 'the chair in the future' are also an integral part of that perception of the chair at the present. Your true perception of the chair now, or at the present, is as of the chair as existing through a continuous duration of time, not the illusionary point, or infinitesimal point, or anything like that, as you keep proposing for me to make sense of. What you ask me to make sense of cannot be made sense of because it is inconsistent with what makes sense.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It is incoherent to describe this as two distinct experiences, in succession, unless there is something which separates them. Otherwise you have just arbitrarily inserted a point and claim that on one side of the point is one type of experience and on the other side is another distinct type.

I was following your example of two different types of experience:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Any division of that continuous experience into separate experiences is arbitrary. Even during sleep we are experiencing, in dreaming etc., it's just a change in type of experience.

Tell me, what other experience is in between being asleep and being awake? What separates them? Must there be another experience between these? Aren't we asleep and then, at some point, awake again, in succession?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You need something real, which distinguishes the end of one and the beginning of another, or else you are just arbitrarily asserting distinct experiences in a succession, rather than one continuous experience.

Why do we need "something real" to distinguish the end of one and the beginning of another? What real thing distinguishes the end of being asleep and the beginning of being awake? Perhaps there is no distinction between being asleep and being awake and it's just "one continuous experience"? Or did you "arbitrarily assert" that being asleep and being awake were distinct types of experience?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, at some point inside the present, the future becomes the past.
— Luke

No! We have no premise for a "point". You incessantly want to insert a "point" when the unreality of such a point is my primary premise. You insert the unjustified "point" which is completely inconsistent with the justified position I am arguing, then you ask me to make sense of such a point. It cannot be made sense of because it is incompatible with what makes sense.

But there must be a point when an event is no longer present and becomes past. Otherwise, past and present are indistinguishable.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Ah, but here you say that the past refers to time that has passed (or "past") the present. This means that the past is not within the present and is no longer within the present because it has passed (outside of) it. If it has passed the present, then it is not inside the present. It cannot be both inside the present and outside the present. There is your contradiction.
— Luke

I explained this, the present consists of duration. read the following:

When the future is inside the present it is past a part of the present, so it has already become past in relation to that part of the present, and is still future in relation to the rest of the present. This is the nature of change, it does not happen all at once, but over a duration of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Instead of referring to other quotes, I'd prefer you to account for the quote in which you contradicted yourself . You said:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"Future" refers to time which has not yet passed the present and past refers to time which has past the present...

In this quote, the "point" at which what is in the present becomes past is the starting point of the present. In your terminology, this is when the past (proper) meets "the present" (the combination of past and future). There is also a second point where the future has not yet passed the present, which is the end point of "the present". In your terminology, this is when the future (proper) meets "the present" (the combination of past and future).

I know that you are trying to argue that there is some smooth, unnoticeable transition between them, but the distinct concepts won't let you. There can be a period of changing, but at some point there must be a moment of change when what is present is no longer future and what is past is no longer present; when the past is no longer combined with the future and when the future has not yet become combined with the past. Otherwise, if they are forever combined, then past, present and future are indistinguishable concepts.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But this is why it is so extremely difficult to distinguish the anticipatory parts of the human experience of "the present" from the memory parts. That is why I argue that the present will remain unintelligible to us until we find the real points in time

Do you believe that, in order to distinguish memories from anticipation, we need to discover "real points in time"? Do you truly think that the distinction between memories and anticipation is that problematic? Moreover, if the present is a combination of past and future, as you claim, then how will the discovery of "real points in time" help to disentangle this entanglement of memories and anticipation?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If "there is no now" as you say, then what did you mean by "your perception of it now"?
— Luke

Human experience, along with the conventions employed for measurement have misled you to believe that you perceive a "now" at the present. There is no such now, as described by you, your perception of it is an illusion.

I asked about your use of the word in your earlier quote.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

OK, I found the paragraph in question:

Did you have trouble finding it? I quoted it for you in my last post.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In this context, "now" means present, which is continuous.
It is not the "now" of a point in time, which you propose, the one I argue is an illusion. The context ought to reveal this to you, " the chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now".

Is "the chair of two seconds ago" in the present or in the past (according to your context)?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Due to the problem described above, it is impossible to separate which aspects of your conscious perception are produced bu memory and which parts are produced by anticipation.

Impossible? Really? If I ask you what you had for breakfast today, you wouldn't know if your recall of what you had was a memory or an anticipation? If you told me you were looking forward to your vacation, you wouldn't know if this was a memory or anticipation? Come on.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So for example, if you are consciously watching the chair, and something unexpected suddenly happens, you will recognize the sudden occurrence as unanticipated, but this will occur with a reaction time. That there is a reaction to sudden change indicates that anticipation is part of the conscious experience, that there is a time it takes for the reaction to occur, indicates that memory is part of the conscious experience. Therefore we can understand the conscious experience described as "the perception of it now" as a combination of past and future.

Only if "memory" means "past" and "anticipation" means "future". But they don't. What actually follows is “Therefore we can understand the conscious experience described…as a combination of memory and anticipation.”

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So, to answer your questions, "your perception of it now" refers to "at the present", and this is an extended duration of time, as indicated, by "the chair of two seconds ago is an integral part" of that perception now.

So "now" and "two seconds ago" both mean "at the present"?

The relevant question is "when are you perceiving?" I didn't ask what that perception consisted of, or what informs that perception, or whether that perception is true, or whether you have trouble distinguishing memories from anticipations.

Reply to Luke It seems this discussion has become rather pointless, even though you are continually trying to insert arbitrary points. This you do simply for the sake of saying that I contradict myself when I say there are no points. That's not interesting for me, so maybe the discussion has run its course.

Quoting Luke

I was following your example of two different types of experience:

It was not my example, you proposed two different types of experience. I just showed you why it wouldn't work.

Quoting Luke

Tell me, what other experience is in between being asleep and being awake? What separates them? Must there be another experience between these? Aren't we asleep and then, at some point, awake again, in succession?

Come on Luke. Don't you experience awakening, that brief period when you're half asleep and half awake? And don't you experience this 'in between period' when you are falling asleep as well?

Quoting Luke

Why do we need "something real" to distinguish the end of one and the beginning of another? What real thing distinguishes the end of being asleep and the beginning of being awake? Perhaps there is no distinction between being asleep and being awake and it's just "one continuous experience"? Or did you "arbitrarily assert" that being asleep and being awake were distinct types of experience?

I am not following you now.

Quoting Luke

But there must be a point when an event is no longer present and becomes past. Otherwise, past and present are indistinguishable.

I've been through this already. No point is required if "past" and "future" name different categories which may overlap, instead of them being opposing terms where one denies the possibility of the other by way of contradiction. And this is consistent with our experience, "future" does not name the opposite of "past", it names something categorically different. So, past and present are distinguishable from each other by their relation with the future.

I really don't see why you insist on inserting an arbitrary point all the time.

Quoting Luke

In this quote, the "point" at which what is in the present becomes past is the starting point of the present. In your terminology, this is when the past (proper) meets "the present" (the combination of past and future). There is also a second point where the future has not yet passed the present, which is the end point of "the present". In your terminology, this is when the future (proper) meets "the present" (the combination of past and future).

I don't see my use of "point" anywhere in those quotes, so I think you are constructing a contradiction from a misquote.

Quoting Luke

I know that you are trying to argue that there is some smooth, unnoticeable transition between them, but the distinct concepts won't let you.

You are treating the concepts as mutually exclusive, not as distinct. That is your failure to properly understand what I've already explained numerous times, not a contradiction by me.

Quoting Luke

There can be a period of changing, but at some point there must be a moment of change when what is present is no longer future and what is past is no longer present; when the past is no longer combined with the future and when the future has not yet become combined with the past.

This is what I called the "zero point", and the fact that we tend to think like this, intuitively, instead of the way that I proposed, is evidence that we need to seek, and find the real points in time, to substantiate our way of speaking.

But since you are having so much difficulty understanding this idea of overlap, try this image as an example. In the overlap of past and future, which I described as "the present", consider that the proportion of each, the amount of past, in relation to the amount of future, is constantly changing. So if there was a beginning of time, then at the very beginning, there was only future, and no past. At the very end of time, there will be all past, and no future. We are somewhere in between, and the past and future at our present is proportioned accordingly.

That is just an example of how such a thing could be conceived, so please do not say that it contradicts a completely different example.

Quoting Luke

Do you believe that, in order to distinguish memories from anticipation, we need to discover "real points in time"?

No you seem to misunderstand. In order to distinguish memories form anticipations within what we experience as "the present", (for example or sensations), we need such points.

Quoting Luke

Moreover, if the present is a combination of past and future, as you claim, then how will the discovery of "real points in time" help to disentangle this entanglement of memories and anticipation?

By providing a point of separation, like you've been desperately trying to do. But your points of separation are arbitrary, I'm looking for points with substance.

Quoting Luke

Is "the chair of two seconds ago" in the present or in the past (according to your context)?

Sorry, I do not follow. And I'm tired of trying to explain this point to you, it appears hopeless, just like trying to get you to quit inserting arbitrary points into my description of a continuous present.

Quoting Luke

The relevant question is "when are you perceiving?"

We are always perceiving at the present, and the present consists of past and future. We've already discussed this. Where's the problem?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It seems this discussion has become rather pointless, even though you are continually trying to insert arbitrary points. This you do simply for the sake of saying that I contradict myself when I say there are no points.

I have given you an argument for why there must be points of distinction between past, present and future. I'm not saying this for the sake of saying that you contradict yourself. However, you did contradict yourself, as I pointed out.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It was not my example, you proposed two different types of experience. I just showed you why it wouldn't work.

You introduced the example of sleep. Otherwise, show me where I introduced it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Come on Luke. Don't you experience awakening, that brief period when you're half asleep and half awake? And don't you experience this 'in between period' when you are falling asleep as well?

I'll grant you these "in between periods" of being half asleep and half awake. However, you must admit that there comes a point when you are no longer half asleep but asleep, and there comes a point when you are no longer half awake but awake.

Likewise, there comes a point where an event is no longer in the present (i.e., in combination with the future) but is fully in the past, and there comes a point where an event is no longer fully in the future but is in the present (i.e., in combination with the past).

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I've been through this already. No point is required if "past" and "future" name different categories which may overlap, instead of them being opposing terms where one denies the possibility of the other by way of contradiction.

I've never said that past and future are "opposing terms". This does not address my argument.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see my use of "point" anywhere in those quotes, so I think you are constructing a contradiction from a misquote.

I did not mean that you had said this. I meant that it was implied by what you said, or that you could not escape the fact that there are points which distinguish the past from the present and the present from the future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I know that you are trying to argue that there is some smooth, unnoticeable transition between them, but the distinct concepts won't let you.
— Luke

You are treating the concepts as mutually exclusive, not as distinct. That is your failure to properly understand what I've already explained numerous times, not a contradiction by me.

No, I understand what you have said and I acknowledge your analogy with the Venn diagram. Now picture a Venn diagram with a "past" circle on the left and a "future" circle on the right, with an overlapping section of the two circles in the middle, as Venn diagrams typically have. This overlapping section you call "the present", and it contains a combination of past and future.

The are two "points" (as you call them) in this diagram.

The first point I am referring to in this Venn diagram is where the larger, non-overlapping section of the "past" circle meets the overlapping section of the "past" circle; that is, where the pure, unadulterated past meets the combination of past and future in "the present". Or, in other words, where the past meets the present. Surely you do not deny that events which are present eventually become past; that they are at one time in the present and at a later time in the past.

The second point I am referring to in this Venn diagram is where the larger, non-overlapping section of the "future" circle meets the overlapping section of the "future" circle; that is, where the pure, unadulterated future meets the combination of past and future in "the present". Or, in other words, where the future meets the present. Surely you do not deny that events which are future eventually become present; that they are at one time in the future and at a later time in the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is what I called the "zero point", and the fact that we tend to think like this, intuitively, instead of the way that I proposed, is evidence that we need to seek, and find the real points in time, to substantiate our way of speaking.

Why must we "substantiate our way of speaking"? Why should we change "our way of speaking", in the manner you suggest, before we know? What if it turns out that there are no "real points in time" and that time is continuous in reality? Then your way of speaking, and your suggestion that we all change to your preferred way of speaking, is for nought. Therefore, you need to substantiate your way of speaking. Do you have any evidence of these "real points in time" that are being postulated only by you?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In the overlap of past and future, which I described as "the present", consider that the proportion of each, the amount of past, in relation to the amount of future, is constantly changing. So if there was a beginning of time, then at the very beginning, there was only future, and no past. At the very end of time, there will be all past, and no future. We are somewhere in between, and the past and future at our present is proportioned accordingly.

This implies that the present (the combination of past and future times) consists of all of time. In that case, I did misunderstand you. This is not your typical Venn diagram, because the "past" and "future" circles here are perfectly overlapping with each other, one directly on top of the other. Thanks for clarifying.

In that case, there is no distinction between past and future. The combination of past and future that you refer to as "the present" has the duration of all of time. Therefore, no event can precede or follow another event using these terms. If one event is in the past of another, then it is also in the future and the present of it. The present is the future is the past.

It would make just as much sense for you to say that at the very beginning of time, there was all past, and no future, and at the very end of time, there will be all future, and no past. This is because these words no longer have their conventional meanings when you define "the present" as the combination of "past" and "future" that spans all of time. There is no way to distinguish any of these concepts.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But this is why it is so extremely difficult to distinguish the anticipatory parts of the human experience of "the present" from the memory parts. That is why I argue that the present will remain unintelligible to us until we find the real points in time
— Metaphysician Undercover

Do you believe that, in order to distinguish memories from anticipation, we need to discover "real points in time"?
— Luke

No you seem to misunderstand. In order to distinguish memories form anticipations within what we experience as "the present", (for example or sensations), we need such points.

Why do we need such points in order to distinguish memories from anticipation?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Moreover, if the present is a combination of past and future, as you claim, then how will the discovery of "real points in time" help to disentangle this entanglement of memories and anticipation?
— Luke

By providing a point of separation, like you've been desperately trying to do. But your points of separation are arbitrary, I'm looking for points with substance.

You want to find the "real" distinction between past, present and future in nature somewhere? Okay. How? Where will you start looking? I'm not "desperately trying" to find points. I know where the distinctions between "past", "present" and "future" are. As I've told you several times, the present is the time at which we are consciously experiencing, doing or being. The past and future are defined relative to this time. We are not consciously experiencing all of time all at once. We experience one time after another in succession.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry, I do not follow. And I'm tired of trying to explain this point to you, it appears hopeless, just like trying to get you to quit inserting arbitrary points into my description of a continuous present.

If you don't want any "arbitrary points" in your description of a continuous present, then there will be nothing to distinguish the present from the past from the future from a turnip. These temporal terms become meaningless.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The relevant question is "when are you perceiving?"
— Luke

We are always perceiving at the present, and the present consists of past and future. We've already discussed this. Where's the problem?

The problem is that we are also always perceiving the past and the future (according to you). But, then, the difference between "past", "present" and "future" has dissolved on your view.

Is there any reason that we would choose a "way of speaking" that makes it impossible to distinguish one object or event from another? That is what your "way of speaking" without "points" gives us.

Quoting Luke

I have given you an argument for why there must be points of distinction between past, present and future. I'm not saying this for the sake of saying that you contradict yourself. However, you did contradict yourself, as I pointed out.

This is the point we've come to. We seem to be in total agreement. I agree that "there must be" such points of distinction. That is what I've called the "zero point" and I've explained why intuition provides us with the premises which make such zero points a logical necessity. However, what I argue is that experience, therefore empirical evidence, does not support these premises. Empirical evidence shows us time as continuous, and without such points of distinction. And, because we need such points of distinction for our measurement procedures, though experience does not provide them for us, we impose them arbitrarily, according to pragmatic conditions.

Quoting Luke

I'll grant you these "in between periods" of being half asleep and half awake. However, you must admit that there comes a point when you are no longer half asleep but asleep, and there comes a point when you are no longer half awake but awake.

Likewise, there comes a point where an event is no longer in the present (i.e., in combination with the future) but is fully in the past, and there comes a point where an event is no longer fully in the future but is in the present (i.e., in combination with the past).

There is no such point though, in experience. When I awaken, I can say with certainty, "now I am awake", and also say with certainty that at some temporally separated (duration of time) past time, "I was asleep", but I cannot find within my experience, the precise point which separates the two.

What you are arguing is a logical necessity for such a point, as the "zero point". You are not showing me the experience of such a point. This logical necessity which you refer to is produced from our common way of speaking about time, and this reflects our intuitions. The logic proceeds from premises derived from intuition. The problem is that the logical systems of mathematics. which are adopted by, and employed by science use premises derived from experience, these are the premises of continuity, and these premises are incompatible with your premises which produce the conclusion of a zero point.

The problem was well explained by Aristotle, as the incompatibility between being and becoming. There is an incompatibility between describing things as distinct states-of-being (what is and is not), and the process, becoming, which is the change which must occur for one state to lead to the other. I have characterized the premises of being and not being as intuitive, and the premises of becoming as empirical.

If we describe things in terms of states-of-being, 'Luke is asleep', and 'Luke is not asleep', this is what is known as predication. The one excludes the other (contradiction) if we follow the fundamental laws of logic, and there is no third possibility (excluded middle). However, if we try to describe the entirety of reality in this way, there is a very serious problem, we cannot account for how one state of being is produced from its opposite. We cannot account for how the subject 'Luke' alters from being asleep to being not asleep.

The intermediary is the process, "becoming", by means of which the subject changes to its opposite state of being, in relation to that predicate. If we try to describe becoming as an intermediary state-of-being we meet the problem of infinite regress. 'Luke is awakening' is a proposition of an intermediary state-of-being. Now we have 'Luke was asleep', 'Luke is awakening', and 'Luke will be not asleep', as three distinct states-of-being. To fully understand, we need to account for how the subject 'Luke' changes from being asleep, to being awakening, and from being awakening to being awake. If we propose further states-of-being we face infinite regress. So Aristotle proposed that becoming is incompatible with being, and the intermediary between distinct and mutually exclusive states-of-being, the process of change, cannot be understood through the terms of states-of-being.

In classical physics (modern physics) the state-of-being is represented by Newton's first law of motion. This is the continuity of experience, empirical evidence, a body at rest remains at rest, or in uniform motion remains in uniform motion continuously, unless acted upon by a force. States-of-being are represented as continuous through time, which is consistent with experience. The intermediary, the process of becoming, by which one state-of-being is changed to another, is represented as acceleration. These are the two incompatible types of description, uniform motion, and acceleration.

However, introducing a distinct and incompatible intermediary (becoming), between two contrary states-of-being does not relieve us of the inclination to assume points. You demonstrate this by insisting that there is a requirement for a point between future and present, and a point between present and past. So if the past is a continuous state 'Luke was asleep' and the future is a continuous state 'Luke will be not asleep', and the intermediary present is 'Luke is awakening' is also a sate-of being, you insist that there must be a point in time when the past state 'asleep' changes to the intermediary state 'awakening', and the intermediary state 'awakening' changes to the future state of 'not asleep'.

Notice the mistake there. The intermediary, the becoming or process of awakening has been represented as an intermediary state. This is what Aristotle showed leads to infinite regress. The intermediary "becoming" cannot be made to be compatible with states-of-being in this way because it only produces an infinite regress and stymies any true understanding which requires that becoming remains incompatible with being.

In modern physics, the intermediary is acceleration. So 'Luke is awakening' is analogous with acceleration, as the intermediary between two distinct states of uniform motion. In physics, we practise the mistake exposed above, and describe the intermediary, acceleration, the becoming, as a third distinct of state. This produces the need for two points which separate the prior state and the posterior state from the intermediary state of acceleration. The points have the characteristic of arbitrariness due to the relativity of simultaneity, and the infinite regress produced from representing the intermediary "becoming" as a state-of being, is absorbed by the concept of a "limit" in calculus.

The conclusion to that long-winded explanation above, is that modern physics represents the reality of physical existence as continuous. To be consistent with the empirical evidence, spatial-temporal reality is represented as a continuum. However, to be able to employ deductive logic, the continuum is divided into distinct states-of-being, and this produces the need for points of separation or division. The application of points is arbitrary as provided for by the axioms of "continuity". The mistake in this practise is that it does not provide for the reality, that in between distinct states-of-being lies the process of becoming which is fundamentally incompatible with states-of-being, and cannot be represented as a state-of-being. By placing points or "limits" as the divisions between states-of being instead of the incompatible process of becoming, the change between one state-of-being and another is misunderstood due to the implied infinite regress.

Quoting Luke

Why must we "substantiate our way of speaking"?

So that we are speaking truth, instead of falsity. If it turns out that there are no points in time, then we should stop speaking as if there is, and get on with understanding the true nature of time as continuous. I have substantiated my way of thinking, that's what I've been doing in this thread. I've explained the reason why we talk about points in time, and also the reason why we talk about the continuity of time

Quoting Luke

This implies that the present (the combination of past and future times) consists of all of time. In that case, I did misunderstand you. This is not your typical Venn diagram, because the "past" and "future" circles here are perfectly overlapping with each other, one directly on top of the other. Thanks for clarifying.

No they are not perfectly overlapping, you still misunderstand. At the beginning, there is all future and not past, therefore no overlap here. At the end there is all past and no future, therefore no overlap there. For all we know, these non overlapping areas could be bigger than the overlapping area. We have no way to measure this.

Quoting Luke

Why do we need such points in order to distinguish memories from anticipation?

You seem to be lost here. Suppose you are sensing (seeing) the chair. You cannot tell which part of the sensation is produced from memory, and which part is produced from anticipation. Points in time would enable a distinction to be made between the past part of the sensation and future part. This would be helpful to understanding sensation, therefore also helpful to empirical science which relies on sense evidence.

Quoting Luke

If you don't want any "arbitrary points" in your description of a continuous present, then there will be nothing to distinguish the present from the past from the future from a turnip. These temporal terms become meaningless.

We usually distinguish things from each other by reference to properties, not dimensionless points. So this is completely false.

Quoting Luke

Is there any reason that we would choose a "way of speaking" that makes it impossible to distinguish one object or event from another? That is what your "way of speaking" without "points" gives us.

Again, we generally use properties to distinguish things, not points.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that "there must be" such points of distinction. That is what I've called the "zero point" and I've explained why intuition provides us with the premises which make such zero points a logical necessity.

When you first mentioned this "zero point", you defined it as the point in time when an object begins a new motion after being acted on by a force. You are now saying it is a logical point instead of a physical point. This is fine, but please stick with one or the other.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Empirical evidence shows us time as continuous, and without such points of distinction. And, because we need such points of distinction for our measurement procedures, though experience does not provide them for us, we impose them arbitrarily, according to pragmatic conditions.

That's right.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There is no such point though, in experience. When I awaken, I can say with certainty, "now I am awake", and also say with certainty that at some temporally separated (duration of time) past time, "I was asleep", but I cannot find within my experience, the precise point which separates the two.

That's right. It's a logical or grammatical "point" which separates being "awake" from being "asleep", due to the meanings or uses of the two words. If you are one, then you cannot be the other.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

he problem is that the logical systems of mathematics. which are adopted by, and employed by science use premises derived from experience, these are the premises of continuity, and these premises are incompatible with your premises which produce the conclusion of a zero point.

There is both continuity and non-continuity in mathematics. And it's not my premises that "produce the conclusion of a zero point", but the grammar of our language.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Notice the mistake there. The intermediary, the becoming or process of awakening has been represented as an intermediary state.

I think the mistake was the idea that becoming, or a process, is a state.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The points have the characteristic of arbitrariness due to the relativity of simultaneity

Why blame the relativity of simultaneity for the arbitrariness?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

To be consistent with the empirical evidence, spatial-temporal reality is represented as a continuum. However, to be able to employ deductive logic, the continuum is divided into distinct states-of-being, and this produces the need for points of separation or division. The application of points is arbitrary as provided for by the axioms of "continuity". The mistake in this practise is that it does not provide for the reality, that in between distinct states-of-being lies the process of becoming which is fundamentally incompatible with states-of-being, and cannot be represented as a state-of-being.

To summarise:
1. Reality is represented as a continuum
2. To use logic (or grammar or language), the continuum must be divided into arbitrary states
3. Arbitrary states are incompatible with becoming (implying that becoming is continuous)
4. Reality is actually continuous, therefore we should not use logic (or grammar or language) to divide the continuum into arbitrary states

My question is: how do you intend to represent reality without dividing it into arbitrary states (i.e. without using language)?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If it turns out that there are no points in time, then we should stop speaking as if there is, and get on with understanding the true nature of time as continuous.

Are you suggesting that we should stop using all temporal concepts until we know whether there are "real" points in time? How would we ever know if there are?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No they are not perfectly overlapping, you still misunderstand. At the beginning, there is all future and not past, therefore no overlap here. At the end there is all past and no future, therefore no overlap there. For all we know, these non overlapping areas could be bigger than the overlapping area. We have no way to measure this.

Do the past and the future exceed the present? That is, do you use "the present" to represent (i) a combination of the past and the future (where past and future do not exceed the present), or do you use "the present" to represent (ii) a period of time that separates the past from the future (where past and future do exceed the present)? You earlier rejected (ii), that the present is a period of time which separates the past from the future. However, since you now say "they are not perfectly overlapping", this indicates that you accept (ii), because it implies that the past and future exceed the present. Or, do you accept both (i) and (ii)?

If your answer is (i), then I don't see how there is all future and no past at the beginning or all past and no future at the end. Surely there must be both (past and future) at the beginning and both at the end, or else there must be neither at the beginning and neither at the end.

Presumably when you say "at the beginning" and "at the end" you mean when the present is located at the beginning and at the end of time, respectively. (Or else what do you mean?) If the present is located at the beginning of time, and if (i) is true, where the past and future do not exceed the present, then there can be no future after the beginning, because then the future would exceed (would be outside) the present. The same goes for the past at the end of time.

But I don't consider the beginning or the end to be within time; they are just end-points to time. The entire span of time lies between those end-points and contains both past and future at every point in time on your view. That is, if you use "the present" to represent only (i), where the past and future are contained entirely within, and do not exceed, the present.

If your answer is (ii), then you must accept that there is a point in time where the present is exceeded by a range of past events and another point in time where the present is exceeed by a range of future events (there must be two points if we assume that the present has some duration).

If your answer is both (i) and (ii), then your use of "the present" becomes a senseless mess, meaning both a period which combines the past and the future and a period which separates the past from the future. The present cannot both separate the past from the future and also be a combination of the past and the future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Why do we need such points in order to distinguish memories from anticipation?
— Luke

You seem to be lost here. Suppose you are sensing (seeing) the chair. You cannot tell which part of the sensation is produced from memory, and which part is produced from anticipation. Points in time would enable a distinction to be made between the past part of the sensation and future part. This would be helpful to understanding sensation, therefore also helpful to empirical science which relies on sense evidence.

Perhaps I am lost, because I don't see how this is supposed to work. "Points in time" supposedly exist in reality, whereas memory and anticipation exist in my mind. How do we use real points in time to distinguish memory from anticipation? You say that the points would enable a distinction to be made between the past and future parts of a sensation, but how will that help to separate a memory from an anticipation?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We usually distinguish things from each other by reference to properties, not dimensionless points. So this is completely false.

If we distinguish past, present and future from each other by reference to properties rather than by reference to (arbitrary) dimensionless points, then why are you taking issue with arbitrary points?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Reply to Luke

I’ve been keeping up with part of the interchange between you two. I want to present the following overall thesis regarding the past, present, and future for critique, this since I currently suppose it to be in partial agreement with both of your views. Thanks in advance for any criticisms.

---------

By “entity” I here mean “an individual unit”. By “process” I here mean “continual change”. So understood, an entity is not a process, for in being an individual unit it is not continual change – and vice versa. Of note, an entity thus understood will not need to be in any way physical.

There exists a process/entity duality (which in some ways is akin to the wave/particle duality of QM) in the operations of cognition. For one example, our cognition naturally, innately, perceives physical objects, or entities, set against a background – objects that we can cognize as sometimes engaging in processes (e.g., the rock (entity) is rolling (process) down the hill (entity)).

All these experiences then result in our cognizing that everything physical is in an underlying state of flux, i.e. is process, or becoming. Yet the moment we focus on something it becomes a thing, or entity, within our cognition; and this applies to both perceived givens and concepts. For example, the concept of “running (as process)” itself becomes an entity (an individual unit) - linguistically, a noun – in the form of a specific type of process that we then can cognitively manipulate as concept.

As a generalization, then, when we don’t focus on X we know, hence cognize, X to be process - but when we focus on X it then is cognized as entity.

For cognition to in any way work, it is then absurd – or at the very least direly hypocritical – to deny either process-hood to physical reality or entity-hood to physical reality.

Applying this to past, present, and future:

-----------

In what follows, memory will be addressed as strictly signifying conscious memory – and not any form of unconscious memory which can be inferred to be required for our consciously perceiving, or consciously conceptualizing, givens.

Our experiential present (be it specious or not) consists of a duration replete with befores and afters. To account for this:

What we in any way physiologically perceive via all physiological sense will hold a certain quality as phenomena – a quality of phenomena that is by us readily distinguishable from phenomena we, for example, either recall or else perceptually imagine to occur in the future. In experience, this physiological quality of phenomena lasts for a short but immeasurable duration, a duration that is yet distinct from the phenomena of things we consciously recall and from the imagined phenomena we anticipate. This duration in which physiological phenomena are actual (visual, auditory, etc.) relative to us is then what we intuitively deem our experienced present.

For the sake of argument, presume that this experienced present is for the average human an average duration of approximately half a second to one and a half seconds.

Next, consider a conversation. We actively converse (hence listen and speak) with the other in the present. This extended present we experience can then include our replying after the other’s comment or the other replying after our comment. Generalizing from this and other possible examples: wherever there is any type of direct interaction between human minds, there will be a shared experiential present common to all minds involved – and, hence, a simultaneity of the present relative to these causally interacting minds.

Notwithstanding, relative to all minds involved, everything that is consciously known about the past will be contained within the duration of the experiential present. As will be everything that is consciously anticipated about the future.

Unlike the future, though, our recollections of past present-durations wherein we in any way interacted with other minds will always reference events commonly stored (here overlooking mistakes of memory and such) within the memory of all minds concerned. Hence, the past will be fixed relative to all minds that once partook of it when it was a (commonly shared) present duration. In contrast, the future – not having yet been presently experienced – will not be.

As an aside, I’m one to believe that such musings could (together with other principles) be applied so as to formulate a theory of presentism wherein the past is for all intended purposes perfectly fixed and the future is indeterminate – a theory of presentism that parallels the theory of relativity’s stipulation that simultaneity is always observer-dependent. But I’m here presenting all this simply to provide better general background for the current purposes, this in terms of defining the present in respect to the past and future. (In other words, though I’m aware these given premises could be further enquired into, I’m only here presenting them for the purpose of the current issue.)

We then know from experience that there is no measurable distinction between the future and the experienced present, with the latter always changing to incorporate what in the past was strict future. The same lack of measurable distinction holds between the experienced present and the past. So we know all this to be process, for it's all continuous change. Notwithstanding, we also know that the experienced present is always qualitatively distinct from all past we can recall (be it the past of two seconds ago or that of two years ago, etc.). Likewise with future present-durations which we can in part predict and thereby anticipate.

So, when we don’t focus on the past, present, and future we know that these are all aspects of an inseparable process. Yet when we focus on them, each becomes an individual unit distinct from the others.

Furthermore, when we focus on the past, present, or future, we then cognize each of these to be composed of befores and afters. For example, I am in this current duration of the experienced present writing this word before this one. Upon closer experiential examination, all these befores and afters too are perfectly devoid of measurable distinctions. Yet, when we conceptualize these processes of lived experience – such as by consciously or unconsciously ascribing causality – each before and each after will then be cognized as a distinct unit.

Then, to represent these experientially cognized units we will typically utilize definite quantity, i.e. numbers, and can furthermore represent them geometrically via points – such as a point on a line that measurably distinguishes what was before and what was after the given depicted point on some visual record of our past.

The mathematization of duration, hence of time, can of course be of vast pragmatic benefit (the theory of relativity as example; the use of seconds, minutes, hours, etc. as a more immediate example). Nevertheless, a) any such will be an abstracted representation of our lived experiences as previously addressed and b) any such will conflict with our lived experiences for the reason’s previously provided.

Where would you find disagreement?

Reply to javra

Hi Javra, welcome. Thanks for your considered post.

Quoting javra

There exists a process/entity duality (which in some ways is akin to the wave/particle duality of QM) in the operations of cognition. For one example, our cognition naturally, innately, perceives physical objects, or entities, set against a background – objects that we can cognize as sometimes engaging in processes (e.g., the rock (entity) is rolling (process) down the hill (entity)).

All these experiences then result in our cognizing that everything physical is in an underlying state of flux, i.e. is process, or becoming. Yet the moment we focus on something it becomes a thing, or entity, within our cognition; and this applies to both perceived givens and concepts. For example, the concept of “running (as process)” itself becomes an entity (an individual unit) - linguistically, a noun – in the form of a specific type of process that we then can cognitively manipulate as concept.

I agree with much of this. My only critique would be that, on my own view, it is not our focus that causes something to become a thing or entity within our cognition; instead, it is the nature of language that requires these "units" or concepts. You hint at this yourself with the concept of "running".

Quoting javra

For cognition to in any way work, it is then absurd – or at the very least direly hypocritical – to deny either process-hood to physical reality or entity-hood to physical reality.

Again, I don't see the problem as one of cognition, but as one of language. It is the constant, stable, static meanings/uses of words such as "present" which allow us to talk about it, but which does not capture the ongoing change that we perceive. You cannot step into the same river twice. The meaning of the word "river" stays the same, but the actual river is ever changing.

Quoting javra

What we in any way physiologically perceive via all physiological sense will hold a certain quality as phenomena – a quality of phenomena that is by us readily distinguishable from phenomena we, for example, either recall or else perceptually imagine to occur in the future. In experience, this physiological quality of phenomena lasts for a short but immeasurable duration, a duration that is yet distinct from the phenomena of things we consciously recall and from the imagined phenomena we anticipate. This duration in which physiological phenomena are actual (visual, auditory, etc.) relative to us is then what we intuitively deem our experienced present.

Good luck getting MU to agree that we can ever distinguish memories from anticipations, or the past from the present from the future.

Quoting Luke

My only critique would be that, on my own view, it is not our focus that causes something to become a thing or entity within our cognition; instead, it is the nature of language that requires these "units" or concepts.

Quoting Luke

Again, I don't see the problem as one of cognition, but as one of language. It is the constant, stable, static meanings/uses of words such as "present" which allow us to talk about it, but which does not capture the ongoing change that we perceive. You cannot step into the same river twice. The meaning of the word "river" stays the same, but the actual river is ever changing.

I think I understand what you mean. All, or at least nearly all, concepts we entertain are language dependent. The concept of “animal” is specified by the word, as one example, and this is an inter-agential construct: both as word and as the concept the word specifies. And our conceptual cognition makes use of language to manipulate concepts, sometimes to extremely abstract extents.

With this I fully agree. The impact language has upon our cognition is overwhelming.

Yet, I’m thinking that maybe there’s a difference in the way we understand “cognition” within the contexts I previous addressed. I intended it as the noun form of “to cognize”, with the latter here intending “to hold an awareness of” among with the term’s other meanings. So interpreted, conscious perception is then a form of cognition, for we cognize (gain awareness of) physical objects via our perception of them.

I don’t find it credible that perception will of itself be fully contingent on language; though, of course, the language-specified concepts we hold will significantly influence that which we consciously perceive. If we in no way hold the concept of “a house” we will not be able to perceive a house when looking at something that is otherwise known as a house; we would perceive shapes and colors (etc.) that stand apart from their background but would not recognize these to be houses. I fully grant this. But consider that objects which we commonly perceive with lesser animals are nevertheless perceived as background-independent objects by all organisms concerned. Both a human and a dog, for example, will perceptually recognize a fleshy bone, and will deal with it accordingly to their own benefit. This though lesser animals are languageless creatures.

I infer from this that very rudimentary, likely unthought of, concepts can be held in the complete absence of language: For, just as a wild dog will likely not be able to perceive, and hence recognize, houses (or, even more so, spaceships) due to not having any conceptual understanding of what these background-independent shapes and colors are, so too, I argue, would a dog not be able to perceive and thereby recognize a bone were it have no conceptual understanding of what bones are. In much simpler lesser animals, such as insects, one can then well assume that physical objects are perceived via species-specific rudimentary concepts that are fully inherited genetically. Again, this in the utter absence of language. I’m, for example, guesstimating that a spider doesn’t in any way learn what a fly is via some trial and error in the process of growing to maturity. This as a dog can be said to do in gaining cognizance of what a bone is – and thereby being able to perceive bones.

If one deems the just mentioned to hold, then: To perceive X is to necessarily discern, or cognize, a unit – this, for lack of better words, within one’s focal point of conscious awareness. And language will not be essential to this process of perceiving. So, for one example: some more developed lesser animals (greater apes for instance) could then perceive, and thereby recognize, rivers as individual units (rather than processes) despite having no language by which to refer to the concept of "river".

(BTW, this is to say that lesser animals will necessarily experience units (to which processes, such as running, can then apply). But it takes a human to infer that all of physical reality is in flux.)

Don’t know if you’d find general agreement in this, but, if not, I’d like to better understand why not.

p.s. Thanks for the critique.

Quoting Luke

Good luck getting MU to agree that we can ever distinguish memories from anticipations, or the past from the present from the future.

:grin: Fingers crossed, there might not be significant differences between the given description and what MU experiences. But whatever differences there might be, I'm sure he'll inform me of them.

Quoting javra

I don’t find it credible that perception will of itself be fully contingent on language; though, of course, the language-specified concepts we hold will significantly influence that which we consciously perceive.

That's a fair criticism to my response, although I wonder if it may be taking us off the track of the preceding discussion.

I think it's very difficult to say what other animals may or may not "think" or what "concepts" they might use. I use scare quotes because the words "think" and "concepts" typically apply to our human thinking and concepts, with which we are familiar, but I don't know if other animals have the same sort of thing or something completely different, especially when you are proposing that they may have non-linguistic thoughts and concepts. Therefore, I am reluctant to apply what we have, and apply those terms that usually mean human cognition and human concepts, to other animals.

Quoting javra

But consider that objects which we commonly perceive with lesser animals are nevertheless perceived as background-independent objects by all organisms concerned.

Popular science tells us that many other species have different perceptual capacities than we do. Therefore, I wouldn't uncritically assume that other species perceive the world the same way as us, or perceive the same objects as us, or perceive the same objects that we perceive as objects, or value the same things as us, or have any sort of "mental map" of the world (or of their immediate environment) at all.

Although it does seem likely that those species closest in makeup to humans would have similar sensory apparatus to us, it's hard to know how much of a difference language makes when comparing human cognition to the non-linguistic "cognition" of other animals. Non-verbal drivers of behaviour such as instinct, mimicry and habit are also common to both humans and other species, so it might look like other animals have the same sort of cognition as us, even though they may not, in fact, have the same.

However, this is just a lot of guesswork on my part. I'm not well versed on any scientific research into these matters.

Quoting Luke

When you first mentioned this "zero point", you defined it as the point in time when an object begins a new motion after being acted on by a force. You are now saying it is a logical point instead of a physical point. This is fine, but please stick with one or the other.

It's both, I explained. We determine logically that there must be a point in time when a change begins. So it's as I explained, we see logically that there must be such points, and these ought to be supported by physical evidence, but we have not been able to find the physical evidence. So we employ the mathematics of limits, and this hides the fact that we can't find or are simply not looking for, the real points.

Quoting Luke

There is both continuity and non-continuity in mathematics. And it's not my premises that "produce the conclusion of a zero point", but the grammar of our language.

Logical conclusions require premises. If you want to characterize your premises as "the grammar of our language", then I will assume that your principle premise is "the way we speak". The problem with this premise of course is that we often speak falsely and deceptively. So it makes for an unsound argument. Such and such is the truth, because we say it's the truth.

Do you recognize the distinction between being "correct", meaning according to convention, and being "true", meaning according to reality? And do you acknowledge that a statement might be correct but false, according to that distinction?

Quoting Luke

Why blame the relativity of simultaneity for the arbitrariness?

The arbitrariness to the points in time, at which acceleration begins and ends is due to differences in the frame of reference. This arbitrariness is known as the relativity of simultaneity.

Quoting Luke

To summarise:
1. Reality is represented as a continuum
2. To use logic (or grammar or language), the continuum must be divided into arbitrary states
3. Arbitrary states are incompatible with becoming (implying that becoming is continuous)
4. Reality is actually continuous, therefore we should not use logic (or grammar or language) to divide the continuum into arbitrary states

You got #4 wrong. Remember, I argue for real zero points. I also said that I believe sense experience misleads us into thinking that reality is continuous, when it really is not. The reason I spent so long arguing the continuity of time was to get a good understanding of exactly what sense experience gives us as an experience of time as continuous.

Quoting Luke

My question is: how do you intend to represent reality without dividing it into arbitrary states (i.e. without using language)?

What I proposed already, is that we need to find the real points of division, then we can avoid the arbitrariness of the current way of dividing.

Quoting Luke

Are you suggesting that we should stop using all temporal concepts until we know whether there are "real" points in time?

No, I said if we get conclusive proof that there are not points in time then we ought to stop talking as if there is points.

Quoting Luke

Do the past and the future exceed the present?

I don't know the answer of this. Remember, that was an example of how such an overlap could be real, and I cautioned you not to take it as necessarily the way I would conceive of time, just an example.

Quoting Luke

That is, do you use "the present" to represent (i) a combination of the past and the future (where past and future do not exceed the present), or do you use "the present" to represent (ii) a period of time that separates the past from the future (where past and future do exceed the present)? You earlier rejected (ii), that the present is a period of time which separates the past from the future. However, since you now say "they are not perfectly overlapping", this indicates that you accept (ii), because it implies that the past and future exceed the present. Or, do you accept both (i) and (ii)?

I think I would choose (i), with a change, that past and future exceed the future. A combination of past and future where past and future exceed the present. So not all of past, or all of future are combined at present, only some of each, in the way I described already. "Union" does not imply that all the parts of the things united are equally united to each other. But I do not think that experience gives me what is required to answer with any certitude, as to exactly how past and future overlap, and exactly how the parts exist outside the overlap.

Quoting Luke

Perhaps I am lost, because I don't see how this is supposed to work. "Points in time" supposedly exist in reality, whereas memory and anticipation exist in my mind. How do we use real points in time to distinguish memory from anticipation? You say that the points would enable a distinction to be made between the past and future parts of a sensation, but how will that help to separate a memory from an anticipation?

Your mind is part of reality. Determining the real points within the mind would allow for application outside the mind, because both are part of the same reality.

What I argued is that the experience of sensation, which is an activity we do at the present, must consist of both past and future. The past part consists of memory and the future part consists of future. Real points of "present" would allow a separation between these two, for a better understanding, instead of having them conflated into one activity, sensation.

Quoting Luke

If we distinguish past, present and future from each other by reference to properties rather than by reference to (arbitrary) dimensionless points, then why are you taking issue with arbitrary points?

Many people, including you it seems, claim that we distinguish past, present, and future by dimensionless points, when in reality we distinguish these by description. It is "the grammar of our language", which makes people think like that, but it is a misrepresentation of how we really understand the difference between these three. It's done for simplicity to facilitate ease of speaking. Since our descriptions of past, present, and future are so thoroughly underdeveloped and vary from person to person, yet the need to separate past from future in discussion is very commonplace, it's much easier just to talk as if there is a point in time, present, which separates past from future.

Quoting javra

There exists a process/entity duality (which in some ways is akin to the wave/particle duality of QM) in the operations of cognition. For one example, our cognition naturally, innately, perceives physical objects, or entities, set against a background – objects that we can cognize as sometimes engaging in processes (e.g., the rock (entity) is rolling (process) down the hill (entity)).

All these experiences then result in our cognizing that everything physical is in an underlying state of flux, i.e. is process, or becoming. Yet the moment we focus on something it becomes a thing, or entity, within our cognition; and this applies to both perceived givens and concepts. For example, the concept of “running (as process)” itself becomes an entity (an individual unit) - linguistically, a noun – in the form of a specific type of process that we then can cognitively manipulate as concept.

I would say, that traditionally the background is of entities. The entity is what is static, and changes occur to it. This is the traditional logic of predication, the subject accepts changing predications. The static aspect is representative of what does not change as time passes, what is continuous, and this is matter in ancient philosophy, and matter is the background. It is only in the modern world view, that energy has taken the place of matter, as the continuous. But energy is fundamentally a predicate, the capacity which a moving thing has, to do work. So now movement, which really ought to be predicated to something, as that which is moving, is allowed to be the background, or substratum itself, hence your background of flux. But this is inherently problematic, because without the ether we have wave motion with no substance which the waves are the waves of.

Quoting javra

All these experiences then result in our cognizing that everything physical is in an underlying state of flux, i.e. is process, or becoming. Yet the moment we focus on something it becomes a thing, or entity, within our cognition; and this applies to both perceived givens and concepts. For example, the concept of “running (as process)” itself becomes an entity (an individual unit) - linguistically, a noun – in the form of a specific type of process that we then can cognitively manipulate as concept.

What makes a thing a thing, is temporal continuity. Anything which displays temporal extension is given thinghood. So for example, in Newton's first law, uniform motion is given thinghood. It will continue to persist through time, as it has, unless ended by a force.

Quoting javra

Unlike the future, though, our recollections of past present-durations wherein we in any way interacted with other minds will always reference events commonly stored (here overlooking mistakes of memory and such) within the memory of all minds concerned. Hence, the past will be fixed relative to all minds that once partook of it when it was a (commonly shared) present duration. In contrast, the future – not having yet been presently experienced – will not be.

As an aside, I’m one to believe that such musings could (together with other principles) be applied so as to formulate a theory of presentism wherein the past is for all intended purposes perfectly fixed and the future is indeterminate – a theory of presentism that parallels the theory of relativity’s stipulation that simultaneity is always observer-dependent. But I’m here presenting all this simply to provide better general background for the current purposes, this in terms of defining the present in respect to the past and future. (In other words, though I’m aware these given premises could be further enquired into, I’m only here presenting them for the purpose of the current issue.)

If you define the past as absolutely fixed, and the future as absolutely unfixed, then we run into the same problem that I was showing with Luke's arguments when past and future are mutually exclusive contraries. There cannot be any overlap of past and future. Then, the nature of "the present" becomes extremely problematic. Since the present has to be a process (it cannot be a dimensionless point when a predicate changes to is contrary because this requires a duration of becoming), this time, "the present" must be completely distinct from past and future. But then we need to account for the process whereby the past becomes the present, and the present the future, and I think we'd have to posit some other form of time for this. It may become an infinite regress.

Quoting javra

So, when we don’t focus on the past, present, and future we know that these are all aspects of an inseparable process. Yet when we focus on them, each becomes an individual unit distinct from the others.

I think that these points of distinction are imposed pragmatically, depending on the purpose. For example, you intentionally qualified "past" with what is consciously remembered as past. That is just for the purpose of having a clear division. If we allow all past, then we have to deal with things like "sensory memory", which I brought up earlier. So sure, you can say that we can make clear and distinct divisions between memories (past), and anticipations (future), so long as you restrict your definitions of memories and anticipations to those which we recognize clearly and distinctly as memories and anticipations. That's a sort of confirmation bias, defining terms to support a bias. These things defined by that bias are further back in the past, and things further ahead in the future. But if you include things in the very immediate future and past, bringing your perspective narrower than the conscious perspective, to consider the relations of the constituent parts of the conscious perspective, then we cannot distinguish between memory aspects and anticipatory aspects in this way.

Quoting javra

We then know from experience that there is no measurable distinction between the future and the experienced present, with the latter always changing to incorporate what in the past was strict future. The same lack of measurable distinction holds between the experienced present and the past. So we know all this to be process, for it's all continuous change. Notwithstanding, we also know that the experienced present is always qualitatively distinct from all past we can recall (be it the past of two seconds ago or that of two years ago, etc.). Likewise with future present-durations which we can in part predict and thereby anticipate.

So, when we don’t focus on the past, present, and future we know that these are all aspects of an inseparable process. Yet when we focus on them, each becomes an individual unit distinct from the others.

Furthermore, when we focus on the past, present, or future, we then cognize each of these to be composed of befores and afters. For example, I am in this current duration of the experienced present writing this word before this one. Upon closer experiential examination, all these befores and afters too are perfectly devoid of measurable distinctions. Yet, when we conceptualize these processes of lived experience – such as by consciously or unconsciously ascribing causality – each before and each after will then be cognized as a distinct unit.

Here is where the problems present themselves. When you say "focus on", I consider this to be conscious effort. The process which we know as experiencing the present, if it were purely experiencing, without applying any conscious effort, perhaps in meditation or something like that, would not consist of any differentiation between past and future. Maybe dreaming is like this, no discernible difference between past and future. But dreaming is completely removed from sensation. When sensation is active, then it actually takes conscious effort to remove a sort of natural distinction between past and future which inheres within, or underpins our consciousness.

What I think is the case, is that what you call the "measurable distinction" between past and present, and also future and present, is so deeply inherent within the conscious experience of the present, or prior to it, as foundational to it, that to say that there is no such measurable distinction without conscious effort, is somewhat incorrect. This is why it actually requires conscious effort to remove the influence of this distinction from the conscious experience. For example, practises like meditation which are designed to put oneself into a purely experiential mode of being without the influence of memories and anticipations, actually require great effort.

This would imply that most or all life forms, even those which have not evolved enough to be fully conscious, would have some process for distinguishing between memories and anticipations, as fundamental to their experience of being present. That is implied by the fact that it requires great effort, and is actually impossible, to remove the difference between memory and anticipation from the experience of being present.

The issue here is that consciousness has developed a method of cognizing and recognizing memories and anticipations, through conscious effort, which is most likely completely distinct, and different from the underlying "natural way" of distinguishing memories from anticipations, which underpins, and forms the foundation of the conscious experience. I propose that there are two distinct ways involved, one being the way of continual process and the other being the way of distinct states-of-being, what you call entities.

I believe that the crux of the matter is the use of symbols or signs. If we take Luke's proposed "grammar of our language" for example, we see that language is fundamentally conformed to the entities, or states-of-being type of temporal reality. But there is always a part of the conscious experience of being present, which language cannot get at, or is ill-formed for describing. This is the underlying, background of process which you refer to. So the underlying experience of being conscious at the present appears to consist of a continuous process, and the conscious effort to distinguish past memories and future goals as objects or entities, is somewhat inconsistent with this natural background.

What I propose is that even the underlying experience of continuity is constructed from an even more primitive way of recognizing distinct past and future entities or states-of-being. And what has happened is that the living system for pragmatic reasons has produced a synthesis which creates the appearance of continuity. This type of synthesis is the very same type that we find in modern physics. The underlying grammar of language provides an understanding of temporal reality in terms of entities, objects which are states-of-being. This representation is supposedly supported by strong philosophical principles, metaphysics and ontology, so theology and religion have enforced this usage for centuries, as best representative of the truth. However, all the entities we find in the physical temporal reality are in flux, so we move to represent the entities as active, Newton's first law for example. This law represents continuity as a uniform motion. And this representation is supported by the underlying experience, which is itself an experience of continuous process. Since the fundamental inner experience is apprehended as continuous process, we move to represent the entire outer universe as continuous process. This is done for pragmatic reasons, but it is claimed as truth, because it is supported by the underlying inner experience, which is apprehended as a continuous process.

So I have exposed four levels of representation in the preceding paragraph. At the upper levels of consciousness we have the entire universe represented as continuous process. This is a synthesis of of the distinct entities which are the substance of the layer below that, in the more base levels of consciousness, the common language. The synthesis is carried out for pragmatic purposes of understanding the motions and activities of the entities represented in the more base level of consciousness. Below this base level of representing performed by consciousness is the conscious experience itself. The conscious experience is apprehended as a continuous process and the base level representation of it, with entities, which is derived from ancient metaphysics is seen as a faulty representation. However, what I've proposed is that this presumed foundational level, the continuity of the conscious experience at the present, is really itself a synthesis, produced by the evolution of the living being for pragmatic reasons, and that underlying this apparent continuity is further, more base, entities, or states-of-being, which have been synthesized into the continuity evident as the conscious experience of the present.

In summary, what I say is that the representation of entities is more real, more truthful in its correspondence with temporal reality, than is the representation of the continuum. But temporal reality is extremely complex and very far from understood by any living beings on earth. So as our understanding of temporal existence progresses, it proceeds through an evolution of representing entities, synthesizing them into a continuity of existence, which is guided by pragmatic reasons, until the synthesis reaches the limits of its usefulness. At this time, a whole new level of representation of entities is required, so that the cycle starts over again.

Therefore I can propose a fifth level to the four described above. The representation of modern physics, as a synthesized space-time continuum has pretty much reached the limits of its usefulness. Quantum physics has presented us with the reality of fundamental quanta, entities which underly the spatial-temporal reality. The space-time continuum as currently synthesized cannot provide comprehension of these fundamental entities because it has reached the limits of its usefulness. So we need to identify a whole new level of entities, as foundational to spatial-temporal reality, and renew the cycle on a new level.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Logical conclusions require premises. If you want to characterize your premises as "the grammar of our language", then I will assume that your principle premise is "the way we speak". The problem with this premise of course is that we often speak falsely and deceptively. So it makes for an unsound argument. Such and such is the truth, because we say it's the truth.

The grammar of our language is not synonymous with "the way we speak". It involves the logic of our language and the meaning of words, e.g. why you cannot be both asleep and awake, but you can be both asleep and dreaming. It is also why the past and future cannot both exceed the present and not exceed the present. It does not concern any propositions or theories about the world, so neither does it concern truth or falsity in the manner you suggest.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The arbitrariness to the points in time, at which acceleration begins and ends is due to differences in the frame of reference.

How can differences in the frame of reference cause the arbitrariness to the points in time? This makes no sense to me.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

4. Reality is actually continuous, therefore we should not use logic (or grammar or language) to divide the continuum into arbitrary states
— Luke

You got #4 wrong. Remember, I argue for real zero points.

You said:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The mistake in this practise [of dividing the continuum into arbitrary states] is that it does not provide for the reality, that in between distinct states-of-being lies the process of becoming which is fundamentally incompatible with states-of-being, and cannot be represented as a state-of-being.

So "the reality [is] that in between distinct states-of-being lies the process of becoming" which is not compatible with states (or arbitrary points). I don't believe I got #4 wrong.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

My question is: how do you intend to represent reality without dividing it into arbitrary states (i.e. without using language)?
— Luke

What I proposed already, is that we need to find the real points of division, then we can avoid the arbitrariness of the current way of dividing.

I'm asking: what are we meant to do in the meantime, until we find them?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Are you suggesting that we should stop using all temporal concepts until we know whether there are "real" points in time?
— Luke

No, I said if we get conclusive proof that there are not points in time then we ought to stop talking as if there is points.

In that case, until we get "conclusive proof" that there are not points in time, then we ought to continue talking as if there are points.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know the answer of this. Remember, that was an example of how such an overlap could be real, and I cautioned you not to take it as necessarily the way I would conceive of time, just an example.

I'm asking how you are using the words "past", "present" and "future". I'm not asking whether past and future exceed the present or not in reality. I thought you were making an argument one way or the other. But your argument appears to be along the lines of "let's blur the distinctions between the concepts and make it as unclear as possible".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think I would choose (i), with a change, that past and future exceed the future. A combination of past and future where past and future exceed the present.

Then that's both (i) and (ii). (i) is where past and future do not exceed the present. (ii) is where past and future do exceed the present. You are arguing for both, which is a contradiction.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I would say, that traditionally the background is of entities. The entity is what is static, and changes occur to it. This is the traditional logic of predication, the subject accepts changing predications. The static aspect is representative of what does not change as time passes, what is continuous, and this is matter in ancient philosophy, and matter is the background.

I'm in general agreement. There was, however, the ancient philosophy of Heraclitus.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What makes a thing a thing, is temporal continuity.

True. I didn't want to define it by temporality, though, since it's temporality that we're trying to understand.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If you define the past as absolutely fixed, and the future as absolutely unfixed, then we run into the same problem that I was showing with Luke's arguments when past and future are mutually exclusive contraries. There cannot be any overlap of past and future. Then, the nature of "the present" becomes extremely problematic. Since the present has to be a process (it cannot be a dimensionless point when a predicate changes to is contrary because this requires a duration of becoming), this time, "the present" must be completely distinct from past and future. But then we need to account for the process whereby the past becomes the present, and the present the future, and I think we'd have to posit some other form of time for this. It may become an infinite regress.

To be clear about what I meant, I qualiified the perfect fixedness of the past with "for all intended purposes". Meaning that the past is not, as I interpret it, absolutely fixed.

That said, I do hold that the future, not having yet been experienced as a present duration by any mind, is distinct from and in a sense contrary to the past, which was once experienced as a present duration by all minds concerned - such that, generally speaking, interacting minds will not agree on what the future will be but will agree on what the past was. Making the details of the past equally real to all, but not the details of the future.

But I'm having trouble understanding how the past could ever become the present, or how the present could become the future. To my mind, the newer portions of the present duration perpetually incorporate the most proximal aspects of the future; likewise, the older portions of the present duration perpetually transmute into the past. Yet the present duration always remains the present duration: that duration of befores and afters which we experience with physiological phenomena. (I should here add, during waking states of being.)

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think that these points of distinction are imposed pragmatically, depending on the purpose. For example, you intentionally qualified "past" with what is consciously remembered as past. That is just for the purpose of having a clear division. If we allow all past, then we have to deal with things like "sensory memory", which I brought up earlier.

I prioritize the conscious experience of the present duration (or "moment" in the sense of a short duration) because I take the conscious experience to be the sole source of all epistemological givens of which we can be aware: including, for example, all knowledge regarding the unconscious operations of our minds, hence including our knowledge of sensory memory. And this ontological source for all givens we can be aware of, which is our consciousness, I take to hold regardless of purpose.

So I so far don't find this epistemological prioritization to be a matter of confirmation bias.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Here is where the problems present themselves. When you say "focus on", I consider this to be conscious effort.

Not typically. Our vision, as one example, always holds a focal point (more technically, a "focal zone"), i.e. some given area of vision upon which we visually focus, which is itself surrounded by peripheral vision we don't focus on, itself surrounded by non-vision. Maybe obviously, without any sharp distinction between these three zones of visual awareness, so to speak. And all this occurs, typically, in manners fully devoid of conscious effort. When we're very attentive visually, this focal point becomes smaller bringing more details into visual focus; when we "zone out" this focal point can become so disperse so as to virtually blend everything into our peripheral vision; nevertheless, most of the time, our visual focal point, or that which we visually focus on, will occur without any conscious effort. The same, I believe, can be generally held for all other senses (with tactile perception potentially holding two or more focal points as the same time) as well as for our overall awareness in general. But getting into all this would be quite a chore. So I'll just let it be for now.

Nevertheless, you bring up good points. My tentative, overall understanding of what you've written is that it addresses the issue of time by prioritizing physical matter over conscious experience. (I say "physical matter" so as differentiate it from the Aristotelian notions of, for example, individual ideas being the constituent matter - or material substrate - of a paradigm (with neither ideas nor paradigms being physical matter)).

If so, our metaphysical outlooks will then get in the way of our agreeing upon the nature of time.

But if I'm not misinterpreting you with the just mentioned, I'd be interested to know how you would address time in regard to prime matter? This given that prime matter, from which all matter as individual units develops, is understood to be completely undifferentiated in all ways.

And thank you for the criticisms.

Quoting Luke

The grammar of our language is not synonymous with "the way we speak". It involves the logic of our language and the meaning of words, e.g. why you cannot be both asleep and awake, but you can be both asleep and dreaming. It is also why the past and future cannot both exceed the present and not exceed the present. It does not concern any propositions or theories about the world, so neither does it concern truth or falsity in the manner you suggest.

To me, what you describe here is simply the way we speak. That it makes no sense to say that a person is asleep and awake, both at the same time, is simply a feature of the way we speak. That there is logic which supports the way we speak requires that there are premises as well. In this case the premise would be the law of noncontradiction. Therefore "the grammar of our language" does involve propositions and theories about our world, such as the fundamental laws of logic. But, we also speak about awakening, and this is understood as a process which is neither being asleep nor awake. So despite the fact that the way we speak, or "the grammar of our language" discourages us from claiming that we are both asleep and awake at the same time, it does allow us to say that we are neither asleep nor awake.

That we understand awakening as neither being awake nor asleep is the result of the rule established by Aristotle, that becoming violates the law of excluded middle. Aristotle's logical structure resulted in the convention, that becoming, which is now expressed as processes like awakening are neither one nor the other of the two opposing predications. In modern times, there are some who following Hegel, like the dialectical materialists, think that becoming ought to be expressed as a combination of both the opposing predications, in violation of the law of noncontradiction.

Quoting Luke

How can differences in the frame of reference cause the arbitrariness to the points in time? This makes no sense to me.

According to the relativity of simultaneity, two events which are simultaneous from one frame of reference (the specific time on a specific clock, and another event), are not simultaneous from another frame of reference. Therefore the point in time at which the specified event occurred is arbitrary, depending of the choice of frames of reference.

Quoting Luke

So "the reality [is] that in between distinct states-of-being lies the process of becoming" which is not compatible with states (or arbitrary points). I don't believe I got #4 wrong.

You are still not understanding. The "becoming" which lies between particular states-of-being is real, but so are the states-of-being real. Both are real, and this is contrary to your #4 which states that reality is continuous. Reality is not continuous, by what I am arguing, it consists of states-of-being and a process of becoming which lies between the states of being. Hence the need for real points, and the conclusion that continuity is not real.

Quoting Luke

I'm asking: what are we meant to do in the meantime, until we find them?

Look for them, obviously.

Quoting Luke

In that case, until we get "conclusive proof" that there are not points in time, then we ought to continue talking as if there are points.

Sure, why not? As long as it serves the purpose. But when we get to the limits of any specific representation we need to switch to another, rather than trying to force the reality to fit the representation, when it does not. That is known figuratively as trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Quoting Luke

Then that's both (i) and (ii). (i) is where past and future do not exceed the present. (ii) is where past and future do exceed the present. You are arguing for both, which is a contradiction.

No, it's not contradiction, your options were just not well formulated. My perspective takes parts from each. You did not give the proper option, past and future being unified at the present, and also each of them exceeding the present. As I said, unification does not imply that all properties of the things unified overlap with each other, or are unified, only that some are unified or overlap.

Quoting Luke

That's a fair criticism to my response, although I wonder if it may be taking us off the track of the preceding discussion.

I think it's very difficult to say what other animals may or may not "think" or what "concepts" they might use. I use scare quotes because the words "think" and "concepts" typically apply to our human thinking and concepts, with which we are familiar, but I don't know if other animals have the same sort of thing or something completely different, especially when you are proposing that they may have non-linguistic thoughts and concepts. Therefore, I am reluctant to apply what we have, and apply those terms that usually mean human cognition and human concepts, to other animals.

I can very much respect this. Just so its said, the way I look at this subject is that, just as we can infer that lesser animals have minds, with some lesser animals giving all indications of themselves having a theory of mind, so too can we infer that lesser animals can in some ways hold non-linguistic concepts. But your are quite right in saying that further discussing this would take the thread off its current course.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, it's not contradiction, your options were just not well formulated. My perspective takes parts from each.

Allow me to put it another way.

What do you call that part of the future which lies outside the present? You call that “the future”, right?

But what do you call that part of the future that lies inside the present? Do you call that “the future” or do you call that “the present”?

Now, does the future exceed the present? If so, then it is distinct from the present.

You are trying to use “the future” in two different ways.

And same for “the past”.

Quoting javra

To be clear about what I meant, I qualiified the perfect fixedness of the past with "for all intended purposes". Meaning that the past is not, as I interpret it, absolutely fixed.

I agree that the past is fixed, and the future is not, but this creates enormous, seemingly unsurmountable problems for understanding the nature of the present. The first question is, what happens at the present, which could cause such a change? The unfixed future must consist of possibilities, and the past must consist of the results of some sort of selection process. The selection process is often referred to as the Will of God, and in this way we meet the subject of the op head on.

The deeper question is how does the unfixed future relate to the fixed past, how is the selection process allowed to be carried out? This is why I like to assume a present which consists of an overlap of past and future. The human being has a fixed presence, by its physical body, sharing in the principles of continuity of Newton's first law, which states that the fixedness will continue into the future in a fixed way, unless caused to change. But in the mental world of intelligible objects, the mind partakes of the future, full of possibilities. So the human being as a whole, at the present, must be partly in the fixed world of the past, and partly in the unfixed world of the future. The overlap allows that the mind, in the future, can have influence over, and the capacity to change the continuity of the fixed body, in the form of free will choices.

Quoting javra

So I so far don't find this epistemological prioritization to be a matter of confirmation bias.

Let me say then, that it is a limitation you impose. The problem with this limitation, limiting your understanding of time to conscious experience, is that if you adhere to it strictly, you get a solipsist position. But you do not accept the solipsist position, you allow conscious experiences other than your own to have an influence on your understanding of time.

By taking this step, you must allow for the reality of a whole lot of other things, beginning with the separation which makes another's conscious experience distinct from your own. And by your own description, you allow a lengthening of the duration which you call "present", to allow for human beings to communicate. Strictly speaking, this lengthening of the present is not consistent with conscious experience, it is an adaptation you must make to allow for the reality of other individuals, and the separation between individuals. So now, you have allowed right here, that logic, along with premises derived from observation of the external world, infringes on your stated limitation, strict adherence to conscious experience.

In reality, once you leave the world of solipsism, to allow that the experience of others has any influence over your principles, you no longer adhere to the strict epistemic principle of conscious experience. Then allowing a specific type of alteration to your principles, as the result of your interaction with others, while disallowing others because you claim to adhere only to conscious experience, is a sort of bias.

Quoting javra

Not typically. Our vision, as one example, always holds a focal point (more technically, a "focal zone"), i.e. some given area of vision upon which we visually focus, which is itself surrounded by peripheral vision we don't focus on, itself surrounded by non-vision.

I don't think this is a good example. I think that vision is always dependent on conscious effort, it requires attention. So i do not see any argument from you, which would persuade me that the focus of vision can be carried out without conscious effort.

Quoting javra

And all this occurs, typically, in manners fully devoid of conscious effort. When we're very attentive visually, this focal point becomes smaller bringing more details into visual focus; when we "zone out" this focal point can become so disperse so as to virtually blend everything into our peripheral vision; nevertheless, most of the time, our visual focal point, or that which we visually focus on, will occur without any conscious effort.

I think we must have differing ideas as to what constitutes "conscious effort". Do you for example, find that you point your head toward that which you are looking at? Isn't this a matter of conscious effort? And suppose you are not even pointing your head, isn't moving your eyes a matter of conscious effort? In general, when you direct your attention toward something, anything, don't you consider this a matter of conscious effort? How do you believe that you could focus on anything, in any way, without conscious effort? Isn't that exactly what "focusing" is, to direct your attention at something? And directing your attention is making conscious effort.

Quoting javra

Nevertheless, you bring up good points. My tentative, overall understanding of what you've written is that it addresses the issue of time by prioritizing physical matter over conscious experience. (I say "physical matter" so as differentiate it from the Aristotelian notions of, for example, individual ideas being the constituent matter - or material substrate - of a paradigm (with neither ideas nor paradigms being physical matter)).

If so, our metaphysical outlooks will then get in the way of our agreeing upon the nature of time.

But if I'm not misinterpreting you with the just mentioned, I'd be interested to know how you would address time in regard to prime matter? This given that prime matter, from which all matter as individual units develops, is understood to be completely undifferentiated in all ways.

The answer to this question is complex and layered. I'll be brie but probably hard to understand. The Aristotelian conception of matter characterizes matter as potential, just like the modern conception of energy is as potential. "Matter" also provides for temporal continuity, that which persists through a change of form. And for Aristotle matter is proposed as the possibility for a substrate to reality. But it fails in its capacity to meet the requirements of this position due to its nature as potential. The cosmological argument demonstrates that ultimately there must be an actuality as the substrate.

So "prime matter" is shown by the cosmological argument to be a concept whose physical reality is impossible due to the reality of the physical world we inhabit. Aristotle shows how the form of any particular thing must precede in time, the material existence of that thing, in order that when it comes to be the thing which it is, it is that thing and not something else, which it must be, as dictated by the law of identity. By this fact of reality, prime matter cannot be a true concept. Individual units come to be by the form which determines what they will be and this is an actuality, not the potential of matter.

Quoting Luke

But what do you call that part of the future that lies inside the present? Do you call that “the future” or do you call that “the present”?

You can call it either one, or both, depending on the context and what you are trying to say. What do you call those animals who are also human beings? Do you call them human beings, or do you call them animals? Obviously, either one, or both, depending on the context and what you are trying to say.

Quoting Luke

Allow me to put it another way.

What do you call that part of the future which lies outside the present? You call that “the future”, right?

But what do you call that part of the future that lies inside the present? Do you call that “the future” or do you call that “the present”?

Now, does the future exceed the present? If so, then it is distinct from the present.

You are trying to use “the future” in two different ways.

And same for “the past”.

Sorry Luke, I just can't see your point. Look, "animal" exceeds "human being", and "animal" is distinct from "human being". However, there is overlap because some animals are human beings. In a similar way, "the future" exceeds "the present", and is distinct from the present, yet there is overlap because some of the future is at the present. That is not a case of using "animal" in two different ways, nor is it a case of using "future" in two different ways. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that the past is fixed, and the future is not, but this creates enormous, seemingly unsurmountable problems for understanding the nature of the present. The first question is, what happens at the present, which could cause such a change? The unfixed future must consist of possibilities, and the past must consist of the results of some sort of selection process.

I would address this by incorporating the both conscious and unconscious, intention-driven free will of all co-occurring minds in the cosmos. Not that easy to explain though in forum format.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Let me say then, that it is a limitation you impose. The problem with this limitation, limiting your understanding of time to conscious experience, is that if you adhere to it strictly, you get a solipsist position.

First off, what I expressed was about “prioritizing” and not “limiting” one’s understanding of time. Makes a world of difference.

Second off, I think it should have been lucidly clear from my previous posts that I was addressing conscious experience in general: the conscious experience of all co-occurring minds in the cosmos that are so endowed. Such as via my addressing the present duration during conversations between two or more minds necessarily resulting in a simultaneity of the present relative to all minds concerned. Each of these (need I say, “separate”?) consciousnesses will then hold their own conscious experience to be epistemically primary as I previously described. Not because I so declare or impose but because that’s the way consciousness works: Even though it’s not infallible, can you think of a more robust certainty then that of “I am”? Yet this in no way then logically translates into the ontological primacy of one’s own consciousness over everything else. Self requires world in order to be in the first place. More specifically, it requires a world in which one is not the sole self.

But I’m not here to debate this.

Quoting Art48

It has always been so. I have always been in the present. The present is where I am now and where I’ve been my entire life. The present never ends. I am always in the present, even if my mind is elsewhere.

Does what’s present change?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But what do you call that part of the future that lies inside the present? Do you call that “the future” or do you call that “the present”?
— Luke

You can call it either one, or both, depending on the context and what you are trying to say. What do you call those animals who are also human beings? Do you call them human beings, or do you call them animals? Obviously, either one, or both, depending on the context and what you are trying to say.

Obviously what I meant was: in the context of your argument, do you call it "the future" or "the present"?

I'll try another way. Do you agree with the following definitions?

(1) "The present" is the temporal region in which the past and the future are combined.
(2) "The past" is the temporal region which is not combined with the future.
(3) "The future" is the temporal region which is not combined with the past.

Can you see that there are two different definitions of "the past" and "the future" here?

If the past is not combined with the future as per (2), then how can the present be a region in which the past and the future are combined, as per (1)? Seems like you have two definitions of "the past".

If the future is not combined with the past as per (3), then how can the present be a region in which the past and the future are combined, as per (1)? Seems like you have two definitions of "the future".

Presumably, you will say that I have it all wrong, and that it instead should be:
(4) "The past" is the temporal region which is both combined with the future and not combined with the future; and
(5) "The future" is the temporal region which is both combined with the past and not combined with the past.

Then what becomes of (1)? It follows that "the present" is the temporal region in which (4) and (5) are combined. Therefore, "the present" spans all of time, as do the past and the future.

Perhaps we could define it a bit better and say:
(6) "The past" is the temporal region which is both combined with the future (in the present) and not combined with the future (in the future?); and
(7) "The future" is the temporal region which is both combined with the past (in the present) and not combined with the past (in the past?).

Hopefully, you can see that these definitions are circular.

Put more simply, you are attempting to say that:
(8) "The past" is the temporal region which combines the past and the present. And:
(9) "The future" is the temporal region which combines the future and the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry Luke, I just can't see your point. Look, "animal" exceeds "human being", and "animal" is distinct from "human being". However, there is overlap because some animals are human beings.

That analogy would hold only if you were arguing that a human being is a combination of an animal and something else.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Quoting javra

First off, what I expressed was about “prioritizing” and not “limiting” one’s understanding of time. Makes a world of difference.

The issue I explained, is that I can conclude from a logical process, that my conscious experience of the present must consist partly of past. I went through this at the beginning of my posting in this thread. I only supported it with the evidence of sensory experience later in the thread because Luke would not accept the logic.

By the time I say "now" it's in the past. But I sense activities, motions, at the present. This means that the present must consist of duration. Also any duration can be divided into before and after. And before and after in relation to my experience of the present are past and future. Therefore I can conclude that this duration of time which I experience as the present consists of future and past, which are inherent within my experience of the present, as memories and anticipations. My experience of the present consists of memories and anticipations.

Your way of "prioritizing" limits "memory" to conscious memory,. Therefore it excludes these memories which are inherent within my conscious experience of the present. That's why I called this type of prioritizing a bias.

Quoting Luke

Obviously what I meant was: in the context of your argument, do you call it "the future" or "the present"?

In that context it is very clearly both. You do not see it as that, because you enforce a mutual exclusion between these terms which is unwarranted.

Quoting Luke

I'll try another way. Do you agree with the following definitions?

(1) "The present" is the temporal region in which the past and the future are combined.
(2) "The past" is the temporal region which is not combined with the future.
(3) "The future" is the temporal region which is not combined with the past.

Can you see that there are two different definitions of "the past" and "the future" here?

Of course, 2 contradicts 1, and is not part of my conception.

Quoting Luke

If the past is not combined with the future as per (2), then how can the present be a region in which the past and the future are combined, as per (1)? Seems like you have two definitions of "the past".

I already explained all this, it is explained by parts, like the Venn diagram example.

Quoting Luke

If the future is not combined with the past as per (3), then how can the present be a region in which the past and the future are combined, as per (1)? Seems like you have two definitions of "the future".

It is not two definitions of "future". Look at my example of "animal". It does not require two definitions of " "animal" to have some animals which are human beings and some which are not. Nor does it require two definitions of "future" to have some of the future combined with the past, and some not.

Quoting Luke

That analogy would hold only if you were arguing that a human being is a combination of an animal and something else.

Yes, "human being" traditionally is a combination of "animal" and "rational". that part of the realm of animality which overlaps with rationality is known as "human being". That is the way that conceptualization works.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

(1) "The present" is the temporal region in which the past and the future are combined.
(2) "The past" is the temporal region which is not combined with the future.
(3) "The future" is the temporal region which is not combined with the past.

Can you see that there are two different definitions of "the past" and "the future" here?
— Luke

Of course, 2 contradicts 1, and is not part of my conception.

Then what is your conception? How do you define "the past" and "the future"?

There is "the past" which is not part of "the present" (call this P1), and "the past" which is part of the present (call this P2). There is also "the future" which is not part of "the present" (call this F1), and "the future" which is part of the present (call this F2).

Can we not distinguish P1 from P2 and F1 from F2? Most people call only P1 "the past" and only F1 "the future", with "the present" as its own distinct third period of time that contains neither P2 or F2 (inside it) and to which P1 and F1 (outside it) are relative. I think you sometimes revert to this common usage, too.

I think this common usage is apparent in your claim that at the beginning of time there is all future and no past, and that at the end of time there is all past and no future. For what are "the past" and "the future" relative to in this scenario?

In your argument, the past and future are not defined relative to the present, as it is per common usage; instead you define the present relative to the past and future, as an overlapping region containing parts of each.

So why would there be all future and no past at the beginning of time on your view? This appears to be defining past and future relative to the present, with the present presupposed at the beginning, and all of time as F1 outside it.

Quoting Luke

Then what is your conception? How do you define "the past" and "the future"?

"Present" is defined by conscious experience, the presence of being. Past and future are defined by before and after in relation to a duration of time which is the present. Before and after are defined by the order observed in temporal duration.

Quoting Luke

There is "the past" which is not part of "the present" (call this P1), and "the past" which is part of the present (call this P2). There is also "the future" which is not part of "the present" (call this F1), and "the future" which is part of the present (call this F2).

Yes, you seem to be finally getting it.

Quoting Luke

Can we not distinguish P1 from P2 and F1 from F2?

Right, we cannot make these distinctions, now you're catching on. Due to the problems already discussed, we cannot establish such points of division. These points are arbitrarily assigned, not distinctions based on anything real.

Quoting Luke

Most people call only P1 "the past" and only F1 "the future", with "the present" as its own distinct third period of time that contains neither P2 or F2 (inside it) and to which P1 and F1 (outside it) are relative. I think you sometimes revert to this common usage, too.

Right again, the way we speak displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the present, and of time in general. I discussed the reasons for this. The fact that I sometimes speak in the conventional way does not lessen my claim that I think this is incorrect. It's like a bad habit.

Quoting Luke

I think this common usage is apparent in your claim that at the beginning of time there is all future and no past, and that at the end of time there is all past and no future. For what are "the past" and "the future" relative to in this scenario?

That was not a claim, it was an example to help you understand the nature of the overlap, and that it is not necessary that all past overlaps with all future in such an overlap. You didn't seem to understand so I gave you an example. Notice I said "if" there was a beginning in time, then this would have been the case at that time. If the example confused things more, then forget it. You seem to be understanding now without it.

I am not making any claims of necessity about the relation of P1 to P2, and F1 to F2. Since we cannot determine the points of division, it may be the case that all past overlaps all future, in the way of proportions, like I suggested. Conscious experience gives the appearance that there are such divisions, but conscious experience may be misleading us.

Quoting Luke

In your argument, the past and future are not defined relative to the present, as it is per common usage; instead you define the present relative to the past and future, as an overlapping region containing parts of each.

I don't think that this is quite right. Convention defines "present" relative to past and future. We have conscious memories, and conscious anticipations, as you and javra assert, and these represent past and future. By recognizing that there is past and future, we posit a "present" which is now, the centre of the conscious experience of the living being, as the separation, or division between the past and future which we are consciously aware of. So conventionally, we have started with past and future, which we are consciously aware of, and have defined "present" accordingly.

My proposition is to start with the conscious experience of the present, and define "present" according to the conscious experience of being present, directly. Then we move from this definition of "present" to define "past" and "future". This is opposite to the conventional way which derives "present" from a recognition pf past and future.

And what we notice in our experience of being present, is that we observe activities, motions. From this we can conclude that there is a duration of time at the present because motion requires the passing of time. And, we can say that any length of time is divisible into a before part and an after part. In relation to the present we can call the before part "past" and the after part "future".

Would you find it more acceptable to say that the future part is before the past part?

Quoting Luke

So why would there be all future and no past at the beginning of time on your view? This appears to be defining past and future relative to the present, with the present presupposed at the beginning, and all of time as F1 outside it.

Right, I define past and future relative to the present, and the present relative to conscious experience, as I've said numerous times. This is different from the conventional way, which defines present relative to the past and future, and past and future relative to conscious experience. Does that make things clearer for you?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover
I may respond more fully later, but I wanted to note the following for now:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I define past and future relative to the present

Reply to Luke
Right, I think that what is really the case, is that "the present is defined relative to the past and the future". That is the conventional definition, as I explained in my last post, It is "what is really the case". What I am proposing is something other than the conventional definition. My proposition is that we ought to define past and future relative to the present. This is not "what is really the case" it is what I believe ought to be. Notice in the following paragraph that I characterized the separation between past and future, which results from the conventional way of defining present as a misrepresentation, a misunderstanding.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What I am arguing is that this separation between past and future is a misrepresentation, a misunderstanding, as the present is really a unity of the past and future.

You are quite correct to say that I revert to common usage at times, and that is because I make much effort to explain common usage, to reveal its faults. That is what I am arguing, that our way of speaking, our grammar of language, from which you derive your temporal conceptions, is misleading, because it is based in some fundamental misunderstandings concerning the present and the nature of time in general.

What you need to do in order to understand what I am saying, is to pay close attention to the difference between what I am criticizing and what I am promoting. This is very important in philosophy. It is a common mistake here at 'The Forum' for people to take quotes from philosophers, Plato especially, but also other greats like Aristotle, completely out of context. They present these out-of-context quotes as representing something which is being promoted, without recognizing the reality of the context, that the author is being critical of that perspective.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Right, I think that what is really the case, is that "the present is defined relative to the past and the future". That is the conventional definition, as I explained in my last post, It is "what is really the case". What I am proposing is something other than the conventional definition. My proposition is that we ought to define past and future relative to the present. This is not "what is really the case" it is what I believe ought to be.

This is evidently false. You have it backwards. The past and future are conventionally defined in terms of the present.

You, on the other hand, are proposing that the present is defined in terms of the past and future, because you define the present as an overlap between the past and future.

Here is more of your earlier quote, by the way. From page 3 of the discussion:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time? If not, then how do you reconcile this with your view that the present time is defined relative to one's conscious awareness?
— Luke

I think I may have said that earlier, that past and future are defined relative to present. But now I see I may have misspoke on this as well. I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future, which are defined relative to conscious experience. This means that conscious experience gives to us, past and future, as the memories and anticipations which I mentioned, and from this we derive a present. "The present" is derived from conscious experience, but from an understanding of the elements of it (past and future).

So what we call "conscious awareness", or the conscious experience of the present, is really an awareness of the difference between past and future. Since these two are radically different, yet appear to be in some way a continuum, we conclude that there must be a "present" which separates them.

Quoting Luke

This is evidently false. You have it backwards. The past and future are conventionally defined in terms of the present.

I gave a complete explanation. The past is defined as what has gone by in time, and this is substantiated by memory. The future is defined as what will come in time, and this is substantiated by anticipations. The present is defined by now, which is supposed to be neither past nor future.

Quoting Luke

You, on the other hand, are proposing that the present is defined in terms of the past and future, because you define the present as an overlap between the past and future.

I do not define the present as an overlap between the past and future. That there is such an overlap is a logical conclusion which is produced from defining present by conscious experience, instead of defining it in relation to past and future as is the conventional way. You really don't pay attention to what I write sometimes Luke.

Quoting Luke

Here is more of your earlier quote, by the way. From page 3 of the discussion:

Yes, that post of mine is consistent with what I am saying. You can see, that is the conceptualization I am critical of. Your post is a little incomprehensible to me though, so I might not have addressed your question.

Conventionally, the present is defined relative to the past and future, and this what I am arguing is a mistake. The present ought to be defined relative to conscious experience, and from this we'd derive the conclusion of an overlapping past and future. It took me a while at the beginning of the thread to realize that the problem with the conventional conception is that "present" is defined relative to past and future rather than conscious experience. That is why my understanding of "present" which is based directly in conscious experience is so different from the conventional. Making the present the separation between the mutually exclusive past and present, instead of defining it in a way which is based directly on experience, creates the problem I've been talking about.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Are you will to start with your conscious experience of being at the present, experiencing the passing of time, without reference to measurement?

Is this the core of your thesis?

How do you counter-argue the claim "experiencing the passing of time," is measuring time?

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

I'm trying to get clear on your position. Back on page 1, you said:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I say that the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present.

Then, on page 3, you said:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think I may have said that earlier, that past and future are defined relative to present. But now I see I may have misspoke on this as well. I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future

I note that you were not referring to convention here, but to your own opinion. You made a correction to what you had said earlier. You said that you "misspoke on this". You were responding to my question about reconciling your views.

Then recently, on page 5, you said:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I define past and future relative to the present

So I'm left wondering:
Did you misspeak when you said "the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present" on page 1? Or:
Did you misspeak when you said ""the present" is defined relative to past and future" on page 3? Or:
Did you misspeak when you said "I define past and future relative to the present" on page 5?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The past is defined as what has gone by in time

The past is defined as what has gone by what (or gone by when) in time?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The future is defined as what will come in time

The future is defined as what will come to what (or come to when) in time?

The answer to both of these questions is: the present. Past and future are defined relative to the present. The past could be defined as what has "gone by" the present and the future could be defined as what will "come to" the present (or 'come to pass' the present).

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I do not define the present as an overlap between the past and future.

Again, this contradicts what you said earlier:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The overlap is the true nature of what the present is, and what time is.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Time consists of the two aspects, past and future, and where these two are observed as overlapping is known as the present. Refer back to my Venn diagram explanation. There are two overlapping categories, past and future, and where these two overlap is called the present.

This could not be misconstrued as anything but you defining the present as an overlap between past and future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That there is such an overlap is a logical conclusion which is produced from defining present by conscious experience, instead of defining it in relation to past and future as is the conventional way.

To define the present relative to the past and future is not "the conventional way". As I stated in my previous post, it is conventionally the past and future that are defined relative to the present.

I don't disagree with your claim that the past and future are defined relative to the present, because that is how they are conventionally defined. That's not controversial. What's controversial is your belief that you are going against convention in this respect.

You are, however, going against convention with your argument that the present is defined as a combination of the past and future. This definition is unconventional. Furthermore, this does not define the past and future relative to the present, as per convention, but the opposite; you are defining the present relative to the past and future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You really don't pay attention to what I write sometimes Luke.

It's hard to keep up when you keep changing your argument.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The present ought to be defined relative to conscious experience, and from this we'd derive the conclusion of an overlapping past and future. It took me a while at the beginning of the thread to realize that the problem with the conventional conception is that "present" is defined relative to past and future rather than conscious experience. That is why my understanding of "present" which is based directly in conscious experience is so different from the conventional. Making the present the separation between the mutually exclusive past and present, instead of defining it in a way which is based directly on experience, creates the problem I've been talking about.

I agree that the present is defined relative to experience or being, but I disagree that it is not conventionally defined this way. The present is conventionally defined in relation to (or as the time of) being, existing or happening, and the past and future are conventionally defined relative to this, with the past as what has been, has existed or has happened, and the future with what will be, will exist or will happen.

Your confusion stems from your belief that "past", "present" and "future" refer to psychological events instead of time periods. Memories are not the past, and anticipations are not the future. Memories are of (or about) the past, and anticipations are of (or about) the future.

What is relevant is when you are actively thinking, remembering or anticipating. Or, when you are actively doing anything, or just being. The time at which you are doing any of these things, that any of these things are happening, is the present. The past and future are defined relative to this.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Don't you experience awakening, that brief period when you're half asleep and half awake? And don't you experience this 'in between period' when you are falling asleep as well?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"the grammar of our language" discourages us from claiming that we are both asleep and awake at the same time, it does allow us to say that we are neither asleep nor awake.

Can you accept, as another representational example of your above claims, the lap dissolve, a scene transition mechanism essential to the continuity of motion pictures?

As you probably know, the lap dissolve occurs when one scene, nearing its conclusion, becomes imposed upon by a new scene of translucent density. The ghostly density of the new scene allows the viewer to continue viewing the conclusion of the concluding scene. As the lap dissolve progresses, the concluding scene dematerializes into translucency (and, finally, transparency) as the new scene materializes into an opaquing density that ultimately makes the concluding scene disappear.

Given that the two scenes can be in different places at different times, the temporary simultaneity of the composite image of the lap dissolve in progress presents us with an ambiguity that is existentially intriguing.

If we imagine a lap dissolve from Scene A, the present to Scene B, the future, and if we allow the temporary, transitional composite of the two scenes to be an ambiguous interval neither present nor future but rather, unspecifiable, then we seem to have a temporal-phenomenal puzzle.

The trick consequently resides in working out how this ambiguity expresses itself in three dimensions.

My goal herein is elaboration of some ramifications of your thesis concerning passing time.

Quoting ucarr

How do you counter-argue the claim "experiencing the passing of time," is measuring time?

Measurement is of quantify. And we do not experience any distinct points, or quanta of time, which would provide for such a quantification. That is central to this discussion.

So our experience of time, in itself, does not provide what is necessary for measuring time. Therefore we end up measuring time by comparing physical activities, usually cyclical activities.

Quoting Luke

I note that you were not referring to convention here, but to your own opinion.

Yes I was referring to the convention, and I really think that's obvious. I also think it's very childish of you to be arguing in this way.

It is my opinion, of the convention, read through it. It continually refers to "us", and how we have produced these conceptions. It is a correction of what I said earlier, because earlier I said that I could see no coherent way to define the present by reference to past and future. But then I realized that this is actually the convention for defining time, and it is coherent. It is coherent, but as I argue from that point onward, mistaken. It is mistaken because it is not properly grounded with true premises (it divides future and past instead of uniting them) but it is still logically coherent.

So, I was definitely referring to convention at that point, not to my opinion of how "Present" ought to be defined. Also, I said that I was mistaken earlier, in reference to having said that I could think of no coherent way to define present by reference to past and future. That was my mistake, because I later realized that this is the conventional way, and it actually is logically coherent, just flawed in premises

Quoting Luke

Did you misspeak when you said "the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present." on page 1?

Yes, as above, I misspoke because at that time, I did not recognize that it could be coherent to define present relative to past and future. I then recognized that it was coherent, but a misunderstanding, and misleading.

Quoting Luke

The answer to both of these questions is: the present.

No, the present does not go by, nor is it yet to come. Both of these refer to time, as what goes by. But the present is the perspective from which it is observed to go by. That's why I said earlier, that this conception, the conventional one, gives us "the present" as a perspective, a view point, and it does not provide for a "present" which is a part of time. And I criticized you when you separated yourself from reality.

Quoting Luke

Past and future are defined relative to the present.

We'd be better off to yo say what "present is defined "in reference to", rather than "relative to", because "relltive to" is ambiguous. Every definition is "relative to" a human perspective, or view point. But the view point, or perspective from which a definition is made, does not necessarily enter into the definition. We do not commonly include that, though it is implied as necessary, because there is a person making the definition. So when past and future are defined as what has gone by, and what is yet to go by, this refers directly to time itself, as that which is passing us. This definition refers to time gone by, and time not gone by. However, it is implied that there is a human perspective, from which this judgement is made. The definition is "relative to" the human perspective, which we might call "the present", but the perspective does not enter the definition by way of reference. That is not necessary, a human perspective is always implied in all definitions. The definition does not include the "us", as not a required part of it, though it truly is "relative" to us. By not including the "us" which the definition is relative to, we produce the illusion of an objective definition.

Most supposed "objective" definitions are like this, and it creates fodder for philosophical discussion. We can define "red" for example, as a specific range of wavelength, creating the illusion that there is no observer necessary for there to be the colour red. But there is a problem here, because most incidents of naturally occurring light, judged to be "red" are combinations of different wavelengths. The convention in definition, is to remove the need for a point of observation, from the definition, to create an objective definition, but such definitions are always somewhat lacking, therefore open to philosophical criticism. Hence the proverbial philosophical question, "If a tree falls in the forest with no one there, does it make a sound?"

So, yes, past and future are defined "relative to" the present, because the present is taken as the subjective view point, and every definition is made relative to a subjective view point. But from here onward, I'll say that in the conventional definition "present" is defined in reference to past and future, but what I propose is that past and future be defined in reference to the present. That both of these definitions are created from, and therefore relative to, the subjective view point which we know as "the present", is irrelevant.

Quoting Luke

Again, this contradicts what you said earlier:

I see no contradiction. A definition is not the same as a description, you ought to know this Luke.

Quoting Luke

This could not be misconstrued as anything but you defining the present as an overlap between past and future.

Again, you are confusing the description, which is posterior to the definition, with the definition, which is prior to the description.

Quoting Luke

I agree that the present is defined relative to experience or being, but I disagree that it is not conventionally defined this way. The present is conventionally defined in relation to (or as the time of) being, existing or happening, and the past and future are conventionally defined relative to this, with the past as what has been, has existed or has happened, and the future with what will be, will exist or will happen.

I've never seen "the present" defined like this. But I've discussed time enough to know that there are many differing and even contradicting conventions. So it does not surprise me to see that this is the convention that you are familiar with, and that it is different from the convention I am familiar with.

Since we are in agreement about the way that "the present" ought to be defined, we can get back to the points of my argument. Now, we have only a definition of "present", and we have no definition of past or future, because they are to be defined in reference to the present. That we agree on. Do you see that "being", "existing", and "happening" are all verbs, referring to activity. And you seem to agree, earlier, that such activity must occur in a duration of time. So we have a temporal duration, within which activity occurs, and we call this "the present". Are we agreed so far? How do you propose that we proceed to define "past" and "future" in reference to this duration of time as being or existing at the present?

Quoting ucarr

Can you accept, as another representational example of your above claims, the lap dissolve, a scene transition mechanism essential to the continuity of motion pictures?

I suppose, the "lap dissolve" seems analogous.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...this conception, the conventional one, gives us "the present" as a perspective, a view point, and it does not provide for a "present" which is a part of time

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

...the conventional definition "present" is defined in reference to past and future, but what I propose is that past and future be defined in reference to the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, the present does not go by, nor is it yet to come. Both of these refer to time, as what goes by. But the present is the perspective from which it is observed to go by.

I understand your above quotes to be claims emanating from the core of your thesis.

My preliminary takeaways (subject to revision or rejection): a) the present is outside of time; b) the present is the standard of reference against which past/future are defined; c) events evolve over past/future through the lens of the present which is outside of time.

Quoting ucarr

a) the present is outside of time;

This is not what I am arguing for, it is what I called the "conventional" perspective, which I am arguing against as a misconception.. What I called "the conventional definition" (which Luke took exception to because it is inconsistent with what he thinks of as "the conventional definition) , puts the present outside of time. It puts the present outside of time as a derivation of the perspective from which the passing of time is observed. I am arguing that this is a misunderstanding of time, and that we ought to conceive of "the present" as a feature of time itself.

Quoting ucarr

b) the present is the standard of reference against which past/future are defined;

That's what I propose, to define past and future with reference to the present. But I argued that the convention makes past and future the reference against which "present" is defined. (again, Luke disputed that this is conventional). The convention, I say, is based in the distinction between memories and anticipations, events which have passed and those not yet come, and this distinction produces the conclusion of a "present moment" which separates these two distinct aspects of our experience. So this convention, I have claimed, defines "the present", as the separation or distinction between past and future.

If you are wondering how this puts the present outside of time as per my response to your (a) above, it is because this separation becomes, in practise, an arbitrary application of a non-dimensional point. The non dimensional point has no temporal extension, and cannot be understood as a part of passing time. So this, what I call "the conventional definition" (disputed by Luke, as not really the convention), cannot include "the present" as a part of time, because anytime we try to insert this observational perspective into the passing of time, whether as non-dimensional, infinitesimal, a short duration, etc., it requires arbitrarily placed points of separation between the present, and the rest of time, past and future. Therefore this "present", what I call the conventional one, is always incompatible with a true understanding of the passing of time.

Quoting ucarr

c) events evolve over past/future through the lens of the present which is outside of time.

This is what the conventional definition (again with the appropriate qualifications on "conventional") provides us with. We employ "the present", as we would employ a point in space, for the purpose of measurement. The so-called "lens" is the mode of employment. Depending on the purpose, the point which marks "the present", when we start the stopwatch (or whatever device of measurement), varies in precision and other features of arbitrariness.

The employment of "the present" thus described, is always an attempt to put the observational perspective (the present of the conscious being) into the thing being observed (the passing of time). However, what I've argued is that this does not provide us with a representation of "the present" which is consistent with "the passing of time", because of this assumed separation between observer and thing observed.

What I have been arguing, is that to properly understand time, we need to proceed from a different starting point. We ought to start with a conception of "the present", which allows for the flow of time within the present, therefore past and future within the present. Then there would be no incompatibility between the present, and the flow of time, because we would not start with the assumption that the present is a separate observational point, from which we observe the passing of time. The passing of time would be understood as occurring within the observational point, which we call "the present".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I note that you were not referring to convention here, but to your own opinion.
— Luke

Yes I was referring to the convention, and I really think that's obvious. I also think it's very childish of you to be arguing in this way.

Please see the full quote from page 3:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time? If not, then how do you reconcile this with your view that the present time is defined relative to one's conscious awareness?
— Luke

I think I may have said that earlier, that past and future are defined relative to present. But now I see I may have misspoke on this as well. I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future, which are defined relative to conscious experience. This means that conscious experience gives to us, past and future, as the memories and anticipations which I mentioned, and from this we derive a present. "The present" is derived from conscious experience, but from an understanding of the elements of it (past and future).

So what we call "conscious awareness", or the conscious experience of the present, is really an awareness of the difference between past and future. Since these two are radically different, yet appear to be in some way a continuum, we conclude that there must be a "present" which separates them. What I am arguing is that this separation between past and future is a misrepresentation, a misunderstanding, as the present is really a unity of the past and future. This unity would be the basis for the conception of the "unit", parts united. The "unit" you mentioned above fails as being completely arbitrary.

My question and your original reply will provide greater context for my responses below.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It is my opinion, of the convention, read through it. It continually refers to "us", and how we have produced these conceptions. It is a correction of what I said earlier, because earlier I said that I could see no coherent way to define the present by reference to past and future. But then I realized that this is actually the convention for defining time, and it is coherent. It is coherent, but as I argue from that point onward, mistaken. It is mistaken because it is not properly grounded with true premises (it divides future and past instead of uniting them) but it is still logically coherent.

My question to you was whether you agreed that past and future are defined relative to the present time. I did not ask you about what you had said earlier, that "the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present". I did not ask what is "coherent" to you, or whether you find it coherent to define the terms this way. I find it odd, then, that this is how you understood my question about whether you agreed that past and future are defined relative to the present time. I find your present explanation - that your response to my queston was a correction to what you said on page 1 about coherency - dubious at best.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So, I was definitely referring to convention at that point, not to my opinion of how "Present" ought to be defined. Also, I said that I was mistaken earlier, in reference to having said that I could think of no coherent way to define present by reference to past and future. That was my mistake, because I later realized that this is the conventional way, and it actually is logically coherent, just flawed in premises

You expect us to believe that, on page 3, you were expressing the conventional view of how "past",
"present" and "future" are generally used or defined? In that case, I find it incredible that the conventional view you presented there was exactly the same as your own view, that "the present" is defined relative to past and future, which are defined relative to conscious experience. As you originally went on to explain, "This means that conscious experience gives to us, past and future, as the memories and anticipations which I mentioned, and from this we derive a present."

Obviously, you didn't need to give your opinion of how "present" should be defined, because the conventional view you are now pretending to have expressed on page 3, and your own argument or opinion, were both 100% identical. But I think we both know that expressing the conventional view is not what you were trying to do.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The past is defined as what has gone by in time
— Metaphysician Undercover

The past is defined as what has gone by what (or gone by when) in time?

The future is defined as what will come in time
— Metaphysician Undercover

The future is defined as what will come to what (or come to when) in time?The answer to both of these questions is: the present.
— Luke

No, the present does not go by, nor is it yet to come.

I never said that the present goes by or is yet to come. In case it was unclear, I asked:

What is it that the past goes by in time?
What is it that the future will come to in time?

The answer to both these questions is: the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that the present is defined relative to experience or being, but I disagree that it is not conventionally defined this way. The present is conventionally defined in relation to (or as the time of) being, existing or happening, and the past and future are conventionally defined relative to this, with the past as what has been, has existed or has happened, and the future with what will be, will exist or will happen.
— Luke

I've never seen "the present" defined like this.

Presentism defines the present in terms of existence. Most conventional/dictionary definitions define the present in terms of things happening or occurring now or at this time. In philosophy and grammar, it is common for the present to be defined in terms of the time of an utterance.

I've never seen "the present" defined in terms of your argument, despite your dubious claim that you were presenting the conventional view on page 3.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

How do you propose that we proceed to define "past" and "future" in reference to this duration of time as being or existing at the present?

I've already answered this. The present is what is happening or occurring; the past is what did happen or occurred; and the future is what will happen or occur.

If the present is a flowing stream of time that commingles with the past on one side & the future on the other side, most we conclude logically that past/future, like the present, are flowing streams of time?

Quoting ucarr

If the present is a flowing stream of time that commingles with the past on one side & the future on the other side, most we conclude logically that past/future, like the present, are flowing streams of time?

Only one “stream of time” is required.

If we say that “the present” indexically refers to the time at which you are aware, and that the past and future are determined relative to the present, then I think it can be considered in 3 ways:

(1) Time is flowing by you. The past is the time that has flown by you (already) and the future is the time that will flow by you (later).

(2) You are moving/flowing through time. The past is the time you have passed through (already) and the future is the time that you will pass through (later).

(3) A combination of (1) and (2).

Quoting Luke

Only one “stream of time” is required.

Quoting Luke

...“the present” indexically refers to the time at which you are aware...

From your above quotes I understand (tentatively) that the present streaming of time is a directory that gives a person overview of and access to the tripartite structure of time.

If there is only one stream of time, the present streaming of time, must we conclude that the past streaming of time can only stream as the present streaming of the past; it cannot stream as the past streaming of the past? In a similar fashion, must we conclude that the future streaming of time can only stream as the present streaming of the future; it cannot stream as the future streaming of the future?

If these restrictions hold, must we conclude that past/future are tricks of perspective emanating from an insuperable present streaming of time? Another way of saying this is to say past/future exist only within the neural networks of the brain whereas, in the material world outside of the brain, past/future have no existence?

Quoting Luke

My question to you was whether you agreed that past and future are defined relative to the present time. I did not ask you about what you had said earlier, that "the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present". I did not ask what is "coherent" to you, or whether you find it coherent to define the terms this way. I find it odd, then, that this is how you understood my question about whether you agreed that past and future are defined relative to the present time. I find your present explanation - that your response to my queston was a correction to what you said on page 1 about coherency - dubious at best.

As I said, your original question was incomprehensible to me. The part which followed "if not..." was a very poor representation (straw man) because the "view" I am arguing is how I think "present" ought to be defined, not how I think it is defined. The difference between these two is the point of this discussion. So I just addressed the first part, which was to answer "not", and explain my answer. The question after "if not..." made not sense.

Furthermore, I don't see any point to pursuing this issue. When we are discussing the writing of a third party, like we've discussed Wittgenstein in the past, it is often useful to compare different interpretations, the author not being there to answer our questions. In this case, I am the author, so I can explain what I meant by any particular passage. It's ridiculous for you to think that you can interpret what I meant better than I can myself, and then claim that what I meant was to contradict myself. Some other authors might be insulted by your behaviour, but I just find it very childish and silly

Quoting Luke

Presentism defines the present in terms of existence. Most conventional/dictionary definitions define the present in terms of things happening or occurring now or at this time. In philosophy and grammar, it is common for the present to be defined in terms of the time of an utterance.

In my understanding, presentism is inconsistent with the conventional definition of "present", because presentism treats past and future as unintelligible, which is clearly not the common convention.

Quoting Luke

I've already answered this. The present is what is happening or occurring; the past is what did happen or occurred; and the future is what will happen or occur.

We have no reference for "what did happen", or "what will happen". Based on what we agree on, we have only "the present", defined in terms of being and existing. How does "did happen", or "will happen" enter your conception?

Quoting ucarr

If the present is a flowing stream of time that commingles with the past on one side & the future on the other side, most we conclude logically that past/future, like the present, are flowing streams of time?

I would say that if the present is analogous to a flowing stream, then the future is the part flowing toward you, and the past is the part flowing away from you.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I would say that if the present is analogous to a flowing stream, then the future is the part flowing toward you, and the past is the part flowing away from you.

If the arrow of time has only one direction (forward), as seems to be the case, does it make sense to say the past flows towards (not away from) the present? Time flowing away from the present towards the increasingly distant past, reverse time, supposes the arrow of time has two directions.

Reply to ucarr
I'm sorry ucarr, I did not make myself clear. I cannot conceive of the present itself as a flowing stream. It would have to be the perspective from which the stream is observed. The changes we see all around us are evidence of the flowing time. Time is flowing from future to past, as the date of tomorrow, which is in the future, will become the date of yesterday. Death is a case of being forced by the flow of time, away from your observational point of the present, into the past.

If we want to give "present" an objective referent, as something other than the subjective point of view, Then it would be the process which is the future becoming the past. This is what we observe at the present, as change. It is a feature of the flow of time, yet not the flow of time itself.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

a) the present is outside of time;
— ucarr

This is not what I am arguing for, it is what I called the "conventional" perspective, which I am arguing against as a misconception.. What I called "the conventional definition" (which Luke took exception to because it is inconsistent with what he thinks of as "the conventional definition) , puts the present outside of time. It puts the present outside of time as a derivation of the perspective from which the passing of time is observed. I am arguing that this is a misunderstanding of time, and that we ought to conceive of "the present" as a feature of time itself.

How I understand the above quote: One of the main objectives of your thesis is to establish the present within the flowing stream of time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If you are wondering how this puts the present outside of time as per my response to your (a) above, it is because this separation becomes, in practise, an arbitrary application of a non-dimensional point. The non dimensional point has no temporal extension, and cannot be understood as a part of passing time. So this, what I call "the conventional definition" (disputed by Luke, as not really the convention), cannot include "the present" as a part of time, because anytime we try to insert this observational perspective into the passing of time, whether as non-dimensional, infinitesimal, a short duration, etc., it requires arbitrarily placed points of separation between the present, and the rest of time, past and future. Therefore this "present", what I call the conventional one, is always incompatible with a true understanding of the passing of time.

How I understand the above quote: The crux of your correction of the misconception of present time is the show that the present, being rooted within the flowing stream of time, differs existentially from a notion of the present as a static POV artificially demarcated by non-dimensional points.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I cannot conceive of the present itself as a flowing stream. It would have to be the perspective from which the stream is observed.

How I understand the above quote: You have flipped your position to coincide with the conventional conception of the present as a non-flowing i.e., static perspective. Henceforth, one can only conclude you've renounced you earlier plan to correct the convention.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The changes we see all around us are evidence of the flowing time. Time is flowing from future to past, as the date of tomorrow, which is in the future, will become the date of yesterday. Death is a case of being forced by the flow of time, away from your observational point of the present, into the past.

How I understand the above quote: We're inhabiting a temporal universe running in reverse. If our universe has a finite lifespan, it began (inexplicably) at its endpoint and now runs backwards toward its beginning and, presumably, will continue beyond its conception into non-existence. I'm pondering whether that means our reverse-temporal universe is a one-cycle only universe. Also, I observe that our reverse-temporal universe is rigidly deterministic. Everything populating the present was always assured of existing exactly according to its current manifestation with the proviso that the evolving present keeps transitioning to younger manifestations of all existing things.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If we want to give "present" an objective referent, as something other than the subjective point of view, Then it would be the process which is the future becoming the past. This is what we observe at the present, as change. It is a feature of the flow of time, yet not the flow of time itself.

How I understand the above quote: You have flipped your position back to positing the present as a flowing stream, albeit a reverse-temporal flowing stream that, paradoxically, you claim is a feature of the flow of time, yet not the flow of time itself.

Can you explain how the reverse-temporal flowing of present time is not the flow of time itself?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I said, your original question was incomprehensible to me.

Before now, I don't believe you ever said my question was incomprehensible. When did you say this? What do you find incomprehensible about the question: "Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time"? Your original response did not express any incomprehension.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time? If not, then how do you reconcile this with your view that the present time is defined relative to one's conscious awareness?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The part which followed "if not..." was a very poor representation (straw man) because the "view" I am arguing is how I think "present" ought to be defined, not how I think it is defined.

Yet, you now claim to have been providing the conventional definition of "the present" in your initial response. It's quite a coincidence that the "conventional" definition you provided there was identical to how you thought it ought to be defined.

Also, how was my question a straw man? I was seeking clarification of your position.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I am arguing is how I think "present" ought to be defined, not how I think it is defined. The difference between these two is the point of this discussion.

Hence my questions seeking clarification of where your position differs from the conventional view.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In this case, I am the author, so I can explain what I meant by any particular passage. It's ridiculous for you to think that you can interpret what I meant better than I can myself, and then claim that what I meant was to contradict myself. Some other authors might be insulted by your behaviour, but I just find it very childish and silly

I don't believe that you were providing the conventional view on page 3, as you now assert in defence of your contradictory statements. If that were the case, then why was the conventional view that you provided there precisely the same as your argument (at that time)? If you have been arguing for an unconventional definition from the outset, then how is it that the conventional definition you provided was exactly the same as your unconventional definition (at that time)?

What's childish and silly are the obvious lies you have given to account for your contradictory statements, rather than acknowledging that your shifting position has been a result of my questioning and that your argument cannot support your attempts to overturn conventional grammar.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In my understanding, presentism is inconsistent with the conventional definition of "present", because presentism treats past and future as unintelligible, which is clearly not the common convention.

The definition of "present" is independent of the definitions of "past" and "future". The present is defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc; not in terms of the past and future. As I have repeatedly told you, it is the past and future which are defined in terms of the present, not the other way around.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Based on what we agree on, we have only "the present", defined in terms of being and existing. How does "did happen", or "will happen" enter your conception?

I've explained this several times and it's not difficult. If "the present" is defined in terms of being and existing, then "did happen" is synonymous with "has been" or "did exist" and "will happen" is synonymous with "will be" or "will exist". The past is what was present. The future is what will be present.

Quoting ucarr

How I understand the above quote: One of the main objectives of your thesis is to establish the present within the flowing stream of time.

The flowing stream of time is a specific description from the perspective of the human presence. This is the perspective which gives us the continuous time. What I argue is that this is really an illusion and not a true representation, so I apologize for accepting it initially, and misleading you. What I argued is that to put the present within time itself requires that we conceive of the conscious experience as being within time. This produces the conclusion that past and future must inhere within the conscious experience of being present.

So to model the present as an independent feature, instead of being a feature of the observer, requires that we find real substantial points in time which can be employed to distinguish past features from present features within the conflated unity of what we experience as "the present" As Luke argued, points or boundaries are a logical necessity to distinguish distinct parts. But the convention of continuity is to arbitrarily place a point at any time. This is what marks the difference between conceiving of the present as outside of time, and the present as inside time.

Quoting ucarr

How I understand the above quote: The crux of your correction of the misconception of present time is the show that the present, being rooted within the flowing stream of time, differs existentially from a notion of the present as a static POV artificially demarcated by non-dimensional points.

From the "static POV" of "the present", time appears to be a continuous flow., into which we can arbitrarily insert points of separation. From the "active POV", the continuous flow is replaced by an interaction of past aspects with future aspect. The need for "interaction" is the result of a mix of causal determination form the past, and freely willed selections from future possibilities. This implies that within any arbitrarily placed point of "the present", there are spatial aspects which are already determined (necessarily past), and also spatial aspects which are possibilities (still in the future). So the distinguishing features (points) appear to be spatial features.

Quoting ucarr

How I understand the above quote: You have flipped your position to coincide with the conventional conception of the present as a non-flowing i.e., static perspective. Henceforth, one can only conclude you've renounced you earlier plan to correct the convention.

No, as explained above, the "continuous flow" of time is what I believe to be the mistaken representation. When "the present" is the external perspective, or POV, sense observation appears to imply a continuous flow. But when the present is conceived of as within time, then there appears to be interaction between past and future. It is the need to account for the reality of interaction which inclines me to reject the "continuous flow".

Quoting ucarr

How I understand the above quote: We're inhabiting a temporal universe running in reverse. If our universe has a finite lifespan, it began (inexplicably) at its endpoint and now runs backwards toward its beginning and, presumably, will continue beyond its conception into non-existence. I'm pondering whether that means our reverse-temporal universe is a one-cycle only universe. Also, I observe that our reverse-temporal universe is rigidly deterministic. Everything populating the present was always assured of existing exactly according to its current manifestation with the proviso that the evolving present keeps transitioning to younger manifestations of all existing things.

I don't understand this at all. Why do you understand this as reverse? How do you orient yourself? Do you think that facing the future is facing forward, or do you think that facing the past is facing forward? If you think like I, then facing the future is facing forward. Do you see that the (apparently) continual onslaught of the future, is a force against you, which you always have to be thinking about to avoid mishaps? We spend our time thinking about what is coming at us in the future, trying to find the ways and means for making better lives for ourselves. This is what I mean by the flow of time being the future coming at us, and passing into the past, when you try to put the "static POV" into the "flow of time". However, when you consider that we make actions within this position, to change what is coming at us, we must take the "active POV".

Quoting ucarr

How I understand the above quote: You have flipped your position back to positing the present as a flowing stream, albeit a reverse-temporal flowing stream that, paradoxically, you claim is a feature of the flow of time, yet not the flow of time itself.

As explained, I think the flow of time is an illusion, which coexists with, and supports the idea of positing arbitrary points. Both of these are actually inappropriate, so I'm sorry to have misled you by initially accepting it.

Quoting ucarr

Can you explain how the reverse-temporal flowing of present time is not the flow of time itself?

I really don understand this "reverse-temporal flowing" stuff.

Quoting Luke

What's childish and silly are the obvious lies you have given to account for your contradictory statements, rather than acknowledging that your shifting position has been a result of my questioning and that your argument cannot support your attempts to overturn conventional grammar.

I'm sorry Luke, but I see no point in trying to explain anything to anyone who simply disputes my explanation, insisting that I'm being dishonest. When you ask for an explanation, please be prepared to accept it, otherwise you reduce the discussion to disrespectful bickering.

Quoting Luke

The definition of "present" is independent of the definitions of "past" and "future". The present is defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc; not in terms of the past and future. As I have repeatedly told you, it is the past and future which are defined in terms of the present, not the other way around.

I agree that "the present" ought to be defined like this. Where we disagree is whether this is the convention. I do not think that it is the common practice. Maybe just some philosophers think that way. I think it is more common to define "the present" as "now", where "now" signifies the division between past and future. However, there are numerous different conventions in practise, so I think we could both support what we believe as "the convention", or "conventional".

Since we both agree that "present" ought to be defined this way, we can take it as a starting point for discussion.

Quoting Luke

I've explained this several times and it's not difficult. If "the present" is defined in terms of being and existing, then "did happen" is synonymous with "has been" or "did exist" and "will happen" is synonymous with "will be" or "will exist". The past is what was present. The future is what will be present.

What I ask for is how are these terms conceived. We have the present, as being and existing. The question is how is "has been" different from "will be"? You cannot say that one is past and the other future, because these are what we are trying to define, so that would be circular. What I proposed earlier is that we refer to memory and anticipation, as what distinguishes past and future. Do you agree?

But then we see that "being and existing" gets defined in terms of having memories and anticipations, so the present is then actually defined in terms of past and future, because being and existing are described as having memories and anticipations. So what I proposed earlier is to describe being and existing in terms of sensing, which is the more immediate activity of being present. This leads to the conclusion that the present consists of a duration of time. Still, we are within the present, and have not yet found the means to define past and future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The definition of "present" is independent of the definitions of "past" and "future". The present is defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc; not in terms of the past and future. As I have repeatedly told you, it is the past and future which are defined in terms of the present, not the other way around.
— Luke

I agree that "the present" ought to be defined like this. Where we disagree is whether this is the convention. I do not think that it is the common practice. Maybe just some philosophers think that way. I think it is more common to define "the present" as "now", where "now" signifies the division between past and future.

I don't see any difference. It follows from the definition of "the present" as that time when things are happening, etc., that the past is what has happened and the future is what is yet to happen. Therefore, the present does signify the division between past and future. What difference do you see?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What I ask for is how are these terms conceived. We have the present, as being and existing. The question is how is "has been" different from "will be"? You cannot say that one is past and the other future, because these are what we are trying to define, so that would be circular.

The past and future are both defined in terms of the present, and the present is not defined in terms of either the past or the future, so there is no circularity. I already explained how they are different: "has been" was present and "will be" will be present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What I proposed earlier is that we refer to memory and anticipation, as what distinguishes past and future. Do you agree?

I agree that we remember the past and anticipate the future. I don't agree that memory and anticipation distinguish the meanings or definitions of the terms "past" and "future".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But then we see that "being and existing" gets defined in terms of having memories and anticipations

How does that follow? You said in the first quote above that you agreed the present should be defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc. Why do you now say that "being and existing" get defined in terms of memories and anticipations?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

so the present is then actually defined in terms of past and future, because being and existing are described as having memories and anticipations.

I don't agree that "being and existing" gets defined in terms of having memories and anticipations. But neither do I see how it follows from this that the present is actually defined in terms of past and future. Memories are not the past and anticipations are not the future. We experience both memories and anticipations in the present; they are about the past and the future, but they are not the past and the future. Furthermore, when are "being" and "existing" described as having memories and anticipations?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So what I proposed earlier is to describe being and existing in terms of sensing, which is the more immediate activity of being present.

I might agree if you mean sensations that we are consciously aware of.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Still, we are within the present, and have not yet found the means to define past and future.

What was wrong with the definitions of "past" and "future" that I gave?

Quoting Luke

The past is what was present. The future is what will be present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What I argued is that to put the present within time itself requires that we conceive of the conscious experience as being within time. This produces the conclusion that past and future must inhere within the conscious experience of being present.

You want to put the present within time itself. When this is accomplished, past and future are essential parts of the conscious experience of being present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So to model the present as an independent feature, instead of being a feature of the observer, requires that we find real substantial points in time which can be employed to distinguish past features from present features within the conflated unity of what we experience as "the present"

You want to model the present as an independent feature, not as a feature of the observer. Doing this requires points in time that distinguish past features from present features within the conflated unity of what we experience as “the present.”

You acknowledge boundaries are necessary to distinguish distinct parts. Conventional wisdom about how to perceive the present introduces a distortion into the conventional perception of time: boundaries marking the separation of past/present/future receive an arbitrary placement. The randomness of the placement of the boundaries proceeds from a false premise: the present is outside of time, and thus boundary placements are inconsequential in the manner of zeroes placed to the right of the decimal point marking the value of a number: 1.0 = 1.0000; the placement of the zeroes, being inconsequential, have no effect on the number. The effect of this false randomness of boundary placement is to render the present an abstraction whereas, per your thesis, the present is an existential flowing of time no less than past/future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

From the "static POV" of "the present", time appears to be a continuous flow., into which we can arbitrarily insert points of separation. From the "active POV", the continuous flow is replaced by an interaction of past aspects with future aspect. The need for "interaction" is the result of a mix of causal determination form the past, and freely willed selections from future possibilities. This implies that within any arbitrarily placed point of "the present", there are spatial aspects which are already determined (necessarily past), and also spatial aspects which are possibilities (still in the future). So the distinguishing features (points) appear to be spatial features.

You take us into the weeds of your thesis with some details of exactly how the tripartite structure of time is jointed together, with past/future being akin to the two human arms attached to the present which is akin to the human thorax. The upshot of your correction seems to be your understanding that past/present/future are permanently entangled. This means the present can’t be rendered a mental abstraction without introducing distortion into the perception of the existential reality of time.

I’m wondering if you’re thesis might find support within the concept of quantum entanglement.

Quoting ucarr

How I understand the above quote: We're inhabiting a temporal universe running in reverse.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand this at all. Why do you understand this as reverse?

My interpretation of your thesis as a reverse-temporal universe is my reaction to you saying,

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Time is flowing from future to past, as the date of tomorrow, which is in the future, will become the date of yesterday. Death is a case of being forced by the flow of time, away from your observational point of the present, into the past.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If we want to give "present" an objective referent, as something other than the subjective point of view, Then it would be the process which is the future becoming the past. This is what we observe at the present, as change. It is a feature of the flow of time, yet not the flow of time itself.

In the above you seem to be signed on to the arrow of time having only one direction. For you, per your above statement, that direction is from the future to the past. That claim caused my reverse-temporal universe statements.

Quoting Luke

I don't see any difference. It follows from the definition of "the present" as that time when things are happening, etc., that the past is what has happened and the future is what is yet to happen. Therefore, the present does signify the division between past and future. What difference do you see?

We need a premise concerning the passing of time, to get from the present as what is happening, to "what has happened" and "what is yet to happen". In the case of "what has happened" we have memory to refer to. In the case of "what is yet to happen", it is much more difficult because of the way that we look at the future in terms of possibility. So as much as we like to think of the past as what has happened, we cannot think of the future as you propose. Therefore we cannot describe the relationship between past and future, nor the passing of time, until we have a better premise about the future.

Quoting Luke

The past and future are both defined in terms of the present, and the present is not defined in terms of either the past or the future, so there is no circularity. I already explained how they are different: "has been" was present and "will be" will be present.

Again, the future cannot be defined in terms of what will be, because that is not how we relate to the future as conscious beings. We act to cause what we want to happen, and prevent what we do not want to happen. So as much as we might truthfully say that we think of the past in the terms of what has happened, we cannot truthfully say that we think of the future in terms of what will happen. This is because we have some degree of choice about what will happen. And that creates all sorts of dilemmas and anxiety about what one can and cannot do, and what one ought and ought not do, etc.. Because of this, "the future" is not simply an opposing term to "the past".

Quoting Luke

I agree that we remember the past and anticipate the future. I don't agree that memory and anticipation distinguish the meanings or definitions of the terms "past" and "future".

The issue though, is that we've agreed that "present" ought to be defined in terms of conscious experience. So when we move forward now to define past and future in reference to "the present" we need to maintain this status of "the present" as the definition provided by conscious experience, which we agreed was being, or existing. From this position of existing as conscious beings who experience "the present", we can only have an indication of anything which we might call "the past", through memory. Memory is the only thing which indicates to us that there is anything distinct from the present, as the past, so we have no choice but to define "the past" with reference to memory. And defining future is similar, but somewhat different.

How else would you propose that we could define "past" and "future" in terms of the present, when "present" is defined in this way? Without reference to memory we have no way to derive a "has been" because all that can be present to the mind would be what is happening. And the future would be a similar situation, we'd have all sorts of activity occurring, but no premonitions about what might be about to happen, or what was needed. So I don't see how we can bring our minds to the bigger picture of "has been", and "may be" (or something like that) without referring to these other parts of our experience of being present.

Quoting Luke

How does that follow? You said in the first quote above that you agreed the present should be defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc. Why do you now say that "being and existing" get defined in terms of memories and anticipations?

To be perfectly clear to you, so that there is no misunderstanding, I will reproduce the rest of the context here. Prior to this I had said the following:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that "the present" ought to be defined like this.

This is how I believe that "the present" should be defined, as you propose, with reference to conscious experience, being, and existing. Notice the use of "ought". However, as I've been saying, I do not believe that this is the convention, I believe that in convention, present actually gets defined in reference to past and future, not vise versa, as it should be.

So, as I proceeded, the text you quoted appeared:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But then we see that "being and existing" gets defined in terms of having memories and anticipations, so the present is then actually defined in terms of past and future, because being and existing are described as having memories and anticipations.

Would you please take notice that I proceeded from saying that the present "ought to be defined like this", to later saying "but then we see that...", and this implies that what ought to be the case is not what we actually see, or what actually is the case. In other words, I believe that the convention is to define "the present" in a way other than how it ought to be defined.

Quoting Luke

I don't agree that "being and existing" gets defined in terms of having memories and anticipations. But neither do I see how it follows from this that the present is actually defined in terms of past and future. Memories are not the past and anticipations are not the future. We experience both memories and anticipations in the present; they are about the past and the future, but they are not the past and the future. Furthermore, when are "being" and "existing" described as having memories and anticipations?

This is where we disagree. You seem to think that "has been", and "past" can be derived from the conscious experience of existing, or being present, without reference to memory. And the same for future. I do not see how this is possible, if we adhere to "the present" as being defined in the way we both agree it ought to be defined.

And, the only way to explore the problem I am describing, is to address the means by which these conceptions are derived from each other. Then we can see the difference between defining the present with reference to memories of past, and predictions of future, and defining the past and future with reference to the present. Pretending that these are both the same is no solution.

But we cannot even approach this problem until you provide some propositions, or a description of how you would like to make "past" and "future" something intelligible to a conscious being existing at the present.

Quoting ucarr

The effect of this false randomness of boundary placement is to render the present an abstraction whereas, per your thesis, the present is an existential flowing of time no less than past/future.

A slight correction here. The "flowing of time" is an appearance, how time appears to us. And, it is from this appearance of time, as a continuous flow, that the idea of placing points of division in any random, or arbitrary place, is derived. So, as per my thesis, the existential, or ontic present, is not to be conceived as a "flowing of time". The "flowing of time" is an illusion created by the deficiencies in the living being's ability to produce a true representation of time. We tend to think of human beings as being so far advanced in comparison to other animals in this respect, but in reality we're all very primitive in our capacity to apprehend the nature of time.

Quoting ucarr

This means the present can’t be rendered a mental abstraction without introducing distortion into the perception of the existential reality of time.

I would say that perhaps you have this backward, though I'm not quite sure what you meant. I think that the present is a mental abstraction, and it cannot be anything other than an abstraction for human beings. This is better explained in theological texts, by the fact that the human soul is inextricably united to the material body as a result of the original sin. This, being united with a physical body renders the soul's understanding of the immaterial, and all that side of the present which consists of the immaterial, which is the future, as limited to abstraction and conjecture.

So I would rather say, that we have an abstraction of "the present" which can be and is useful, but we have no perception of the existential reality of time. And since we cannot have a perception of it, it will always be an abstraction rather than a perception, and this leaves us limited in our capacity to obtain truth.

Quoting ucarr

In the above you seem to be signed on to the arrow of time having only one direction. For you, per your above statement, that direction is from the future to the past. That claim caused my reverse-temporal universe statements.

I now see why you think of this as "reverse-temporal". You see the present as what is flowing, not time as what is flowing. So you see time as a sort of number line of order, with the present as moving along that line. We might say that the present is flowing through all the dates. But this cannot be realistic because we would need a strong propellant to move us temporally through a static universe, and we see no evidence of the present being propelled. Instead, the evidence indicates that all events, and even things around us get moved into the past, and this is the result of the energy of the universe.

If we conceive of time as flowing, doesn't it have to be flowing from future to past? As time passes, isn't the past growing larger and the future growing smaller? How could the flow be the other way. Again, you might think that there is more time behind us, and less time in front of us, because we are being propelled. But in reality, all the force is experienced as being from the other side, so this does not make sense.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We need a premise concerning the passing of time, to get from the present as what is happening, to "what has happened" and "what is yet to happen".

Why do we need an argument or premise for the passage of time? How about this: time passes such that what is yet to happen becomes what is happening becomes what has happened.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In the case of "what has happened" we have memory to refer to. In the case of "what is yet to happen", it is much more difficult because of the way that we look at the future in terms of possibility.

Yes, we think about it this way until it becomes what is happening, and then the possibilites are reduced to one actuality.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So as much as we like to think of the past as what has happened, we cannot think of the future as you propose. Therefore we cannot describe the relationship between past and future, nor the passing of time, until we have a better premise about the future.

I don't see the problem.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We act to cause what we want to happen, and prevent what we do not want to happen.

The future is what will happen regardless of, or including, our expectations of what will happen. If I plan and book an overseas holiday, I might end up taking it, but something unforeseen might prevent me from going. We'll see what happens.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So as much as we might truthfully say that we think of the past in the terms of what has happened, we cannot truthfully say that we think of the future in terms of what will happen. This is because we have some degree of choice about what will happen. And that creates all sorts of dilemmas and anxiety about what one can and cannot do, and what one ought and ought not do, etc..

The future is not the plans or anticipations, but the reality of what will come to pass. Just as we can have false memories, we can make false predictions.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The issue though, is that we've agreed that "present" ought to be defined in terms of conscious experience.

The present is not a psychological event, and neither are the past or future. They are periods or divisions of time. What is defined in terms of conscious experience is the time of the present; when the present is.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Without reference to memory we have no way to derive a "has been" because all that can be present to the mind would be what is happening.

The past is that period of time when events have already happened. This is not limited to what anyone remembers, because there is a period of the past that happened before there were any conscious beings. How do you account for the period of the past that nobody was around to remember? Do you consider that as part of the past?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

How else would you propose that we could define "past" and "future" in terms of the present, when "present" is defined in this way? Without reference to memory we have no way to derive a "has been" because all that can be present to the mind would be what is happening. And the future would be a similar situation, we'd have all sorts of activity occurring, but no premonitions about what might be about to happen, or what was needed. So I don't see how we can bring our minds to the bigger picture of "has been", and "may be" (or something like that) without referring to these other parts of our experience of being present.

I don't deny that we remember the past and anticipate the future, but memories are not the past and anticipations are not the future. The past, present and future are those periods of time when real events have happened, are happening and will happen.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Your ambiguous model looks like this:

Quoting Luke

Past-----------------------Future

------------------------

P----R----E----S----E----N----T

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Here's something to think about. Try to pinpoint the present, the exact point in time, which divides the future from past. Every time you say "now', by the time you say "now" it is in the past. So the present cannot be a point in time which separates past from future, because that point will always be in the past.

This argument claims the present is a limit towards which we forever approach towards and recede from, never actually arriving there.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Now consider the way you sense things in your existence, or being at the present. We always sense things happening, activity, motions. And all activities and motions require a period of time during which the activity occurs. So if we sense things at the present, and we sense activities, then the present must consist of a duration of time rather than a point in time.

This argument claims the present, as experienced by humans in the physical realm of everyday experience, never exists as a point in time, a theoretical abstraction. Instead, the present, as experienced, is always a continuum of spacetime of positive value.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

But if the present consists of a duration of time, then some of that duration must be before, the other part which is after. So if the present separates future from past, and it consists of a duration of time, then part of the present must be in the future, and part of it in the past.

This argument states the crux of MU's thesis: time as we experience it in the physical realm of everyday experience, as distinguished from time understood as a theoretical construction of the mind, presents itself as a tripartite structure: past/present/future. At issue in this thesis is the question how, exactly, are the three parts joined together? What is the nature of the joint, or conjunction linking them to each other?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Any proposed period of time is actually indefinite, having an imprecise beginning and ending

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The "present", as described, is a period of time, not a point in time. Any, and every period of time has one part before the other part which is after, as explained. In relation to the present, the before is called "past", and the after is called "future". Therefore when we talk about this period of time which we call "the present", part is in the past and part is in the future.

The above two arguments present a description (with some degree of abstraction) of how, exactly, the three parts are joined. 180 Proof provides a useful clarification:

Quoting 180 Proof

Only the present is real.
— Art48
A nonsensical statement due to the fact that neither past nor future are escapable in – separable from – the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This year, 2023, is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Today, July 2, is the present. Part is in the past, part is in the future. This minute is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Etc..

The above argument presents an example from everyday experience that illustrates the connections between the three parts.

My interpretation of MU's crux tries to restate what he states using different words: The human experience of time within the physical realm of everyday experience consists in passing through a continuum of moments that are, roughly speaking, parsed into incidents characterized by a past/present/future inter-related through quantum entanglement.

Of particular pertinence to MU's thesis is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

[i]In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle (also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the accuracy of [sic] the values for certain related pairs of physical quantities of a particle, (such as position, x, and momentum, p). Both values cannot be predicted simultaneously from initial conditions. Instead, measurement is limited to an accurate measurement of one or the other in a trade-off between them.

Such paired-variables are, therefore, known as complementary variables or canonically conjugate variables; and, depending on interpretation, the uncertainty-principle limits to what extent such conjugate properties maintain their approximate meaning, as the mathematical framework of quantum physics does not support the notion of simultaneously well-defined conjugate properties expressed by a single value. The uncertainty principle implies that it is, in general, not possible to predict the value of both paired variables’ quantities with arbitrary certainty beyond a certain limit, in which a trade-off (frequency-position trade-off) between both appears, even if all initial conditions are specified and known.

Introduced first in 1927 by German physicist Werner Heisenberg, the uncertainty principle states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be predicted from initial conditions, and vice versa.[/i]
– Wikipedia –

I think this is the science underlying what MU has been debating with Luke. Luke’s arguments, consisting of linguistic abstractions pertaining to past/preset/future, exhibit sound logic and should therefore be taken seriously as guardrails limiting MU’s claims. In the end, however, I conclude Luke’s language-based logic, like the abstract point, a theoretical construct pinpointing paired-variables such as position and momentum, do not apply precisely to empirical experience of (physical) time within the physical realm.

Assessment – MU’s thesis has something new to say about time and quantum entanglement within the macro-space of everyday human experience.

In the wake of my weigh-in upon the debate, Luke’s graphic gets modified into the following isotope:

Past------------------------Future

-----------------------

P------R------E-----S-----N-----T

?? ?? ??

P------A------S------T

?? ?? ??

F-----U-----T-----U-----R-----E


Some people, like Luke, will balk at the implications of what MU is telling us: we humans cannot know simultaneously and precisely where we are and where we’re going in time, as past/present/future, being quantumly entangled like the wave and the particle, individually exhibit simultaneously all three properties.

Quoting Benj96

What separates you as a 7 year old with you now but space and time.

I think it might be the case that experience is special.

Quoting Luke

Why do we need an argument or premise for the passage of time? How about this: time passes such that what is yet to happen becomes what is happening becomes what has happened.

It's called "justification". Such propositions are meaningless if not supported by experience or evidence. I could propose this: time passes such that what has happened becomes what is happening, becomes what will happen. Why would your proposition be more acceptable than mine?

Quoting Luke

The future is what will happen regardless of, or including, our expectations of what will happen.

As I told you, this is incorrect. The future consists of possibilities, not of "what will happen". That is the mistake of determinism. If the future consisted of what will happen, rather than possibilities, there would be no point in deliberation concerning one's actions. Since there is usefulness in such deliberation, because we can make choices and act accordingly, it is clear that the future consists of possibilities rather than of what will happen.

Quoting Luke

f I plan and book an overseas holiday, I might end up taking it, but something unforeseen might prevent me from going. We'll see what happens.

Exactly as you say, the future consists of "we'll see what happens" (meaning numerous possibilities), not "what will happen".

Quoting Luke

The future is not the plans or anticipations, but the reality of what will come to pass

This is a false representation, a misconception. There is no such thing as "the reality of what will come to pass", the reality of the future is possibility. What comes to pass only becomes real when it comes to pass. This is why Aristotle argued that we need to provide exemption from the law of excluded middle to allow for the reality of the future. His famous example is the possibility of a sea battle tomorrow. There is neither truth nor falsity to the proposition "there will be a sea battle tomorrow", because it has not been decided. That was Aristotle's argument for exceptions to the law of excluded middle. Propositions concerning the future are neither true nor false. And it does not matter that you can look back after the fact, and suppose that before the fact that proposition would have been true, because the nature of reality is that before the fact it could have gone either way. In other words, there is no such thing as the reality of what will come to pass in this matter. After tomorrow has come to pass, there is such a reality, and a truth to that question, but that's only when it's in the past. Prior to the even there really is no truth or falsity to the matter.

Quoting Luke

I don't deny that we remember the past and anticipate the future, but memories are not the past and anticipations are not the future.

I didn't say that memories are the past, nor that anticipations are the future. I said that we have defined the present according to conscious experience. Now if we want to give past and future positions relative to the present, we must refer to conscious experience as well, as this is what defines "present". And, conscious experience gives us memories and anticipations which we can use to position past and future relative to the present.

Quoting ucarr

Assessment – MU’s thesis has something new to say about time and quantum entanglement within the macro-space of everyday human experience.

Thanks ucarr, you've provided a satisfactory explanation of what I've been arguing. In relation to the uncertainty principle, I will say that the issue is the way that we have come to represent points, mathematically as limits, through calculus. As we approach the limit, the margin of error approaches infinity. So if in the case of time, the limit is a point in time, known as "the present", then as we approach that limit uncertainty is maximized.

Quoting ucarr

I think this is the science underlying what MU has been debating with Luke.

As far as I'm aware, "past", "present" and "future" are not terms that have any technical scientific meaning, and are not terms that are commonly used for any precise scientific measurements.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Why do we need an argument or premise for the passage of time? How about this: time passes such that what is yet to happen becomes what is happening becomes what has happened.
— Luke

It's called "justification". Such propositions are meaningless if not supported by experience or evidence. I could propose this: time passes such that what has happened becomes what is happening, becomes what will happen. Why would your proposition be more acceptable than mine?

According to what you say here, my proposition would be more acceptable because it's supported by experience.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The future is what will happen regardless of, or including, our expectations of what will happen.
— Luke

As I told you, this is incorrect. The future consists of possibilities, not of "what will happen". That is the mistake of determinism.

If this is a "mistake" of determinism, then it must also be a "mistake" of free will. I do not exclude our free choices from influencing what will be. Moreover, it must equally be a "mistake" that reality is the actualisation of only one outcome.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

f I plan and book an overseas holiday, I might end up taking it, but something unforeseen might prevent me from going. We'll see what happens.
— Luke

Exactly as you say, the future consists of "we'll see what happens" (meaning numerous possibilities), not "what will happen".

Only one outcome will happen. You may note that I do not preclude the (very likely) possibility that my planning and booking an overseas holiday will lead to me actually going on it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There is no such thing as "the reality of what will come to pass", the reality of the future is possibility. What comes to pass only becomes real when it comes to pass.

Something must come to pass in the future one way or another. This is not irrespective of our efforts and decisions, but because of them (at least, to the degree that we can influence those outcomes).

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I said that we have defined the present according to conscious experience. Now if we want to give past and future positions relative to the present, we must refer to conscious experience as wel

I can agree to this: that we define the present time relative to the time we are consciously experiencing, that we define past and future times relative to the present time, and that we remember the past and anticipate the future. What I don't agree to is your recent statement that what follows from this is that the present time is therefore defined relative to past and future times. For example:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

the present is then actually defined in terms of past and future, because being and existing are described as having memories and anticipations.

Quoting Luke

According to what you say here, my proposition would be more acceptable because it's supported by experience.

Sure Luke, but until you provide the support your proposition is unsupported. And what experience provides the support, other than memories and anticipations? That's the point!

Quoting Luke

I can agree to this: that we define the present time relative to the time we are consciously experiencing, that we define past and future times relative to the present time, and that we remember the past and anticipate the future. What I don't agree to is your recent statement that what follows from this is that the present time is therefore defined relative to past and future times. For example:

OK, so we've advanced in our agreement here. present, past, and future, are all defined by experience. Now the issue is the way that these are related to each other. What I proposed, which you expressly do not agree with, is that the convention is to take past and future as the real defining features of time, and position the present relative to these. Evidence of this, is that "the present" is often understood as the divisor between past and future, and that "the present" is relative, according to the relativity of simultaneity.

Also you provide evidence of this convention by insisting that future consists of "what will be" instead of as "possibility". The latter is how the future actually appears to us from our experience of being present, while the former, which is your proposal is how you contrive "the future", in order to facilitate your position of "the present" as a divisor between the two.

I do acknowledge though, that there is more than one conventional way as to how present, past, and future are all related to each other, and that there are conventions which make "the present" the defining feature, and then position past and future relative to the present. This is the way I say that these terms ought to be defined.

Defining the terms in this way helps us to properly understand and represent the difference between past and future. Acknowledging this difference makes us recognize the discontinuity between past and future, and this indicates that the representation of time as a continuity cannot be true. The discontinuity is exposed by properly understanding the future as consisting of possibility rather than making "the present" a continuity between what has been and what will be.

Quoting Luke

If this is a "mistake" of determinism, then it must also be a "mistake" of free will. I do not exclude our free choices from influencing what will be. Moreover, it must equally be a "mistake" that reality is the actualisation of only one outcome.

You deny the possibility of free will by saying that the future consists of "what will be". As I explained.

Quoting Luke

Only one outcome will happen. You may note that I do not preclude the (very likely) possibility that my planning and booking an overseas holiday will lead to me actually going on it.

Sure, only one outcome will happen, but the future does not consist of that one outcome because there are many possibilities of what may happen. Therefore the future does not consist of that one outcome, it consists of the many possibilities, because that there are many possibilities as to what may happen is the truth of the matter..

Quoting Luke

Something must come to pass in the future one way or another.

Again, I agree, something will come to pass, but what that is, is undetermined. Therefore what the future consists of is something undetermined. It does not consist of "what will happen", because there is no such thing as what will happen; that is undetermined.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

OK, so we've advanced in our agreement here. present, past, and future, are all defined by experience. Now the issue is the way that these are related to each other. What I proposed, which you expressly do not agree with, is that the convention is to take past and future as the real defining features of time, and position the present relative to these.

I do not see that as being the convention at all. I don't know where you get this idea from. Once again: in that case, the past and the future would then be in the past and the future of what? You can't start with the past and future and determine the present from there, because the past and the future are in the past and in the future of the present, by definition.

The convention is to locate "the present" in terms of one's temporal location, (e.g. when one is experiencing, when things are happening) much like we locate "here" in terms of one's spatial location. If you do not define the present in terms of one's conscious experience or when events are happening or when one is acting or speaking, then what is the determining factor in deciding when the present is situated between the past and the future?

If you agree - as you state above - that the present is defined relative to experience in this way, then why do you also claim that the present is defined relative to the past and the future? The present cannot be defined relative only to the past and future, as I argue above, because then there is no reason to narrow down the duration of the present to less than a millennium. That is hardly the convention.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Evidence of this, is that "the present" is often understood as the divisor between past and future, and that "the present" is relative, according to the relativity of simultaneity.

The relativity of simultaneity tells us that two events that appear simultaneous for one observer may not appear simultaneous for another observer. When each observer experiences these observations is their present time. It does not follow from this that the present is defined by the past and future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Also you provide evidence of this convention by insisting that future consists of "what will be" instead of as "possibility". The latter is how the future actually appears to us from our experience of being present, while the former, which is your proposal is how you contrive "the future", in order to facilitate your position of "the present" as a divisor between the two.

I reject your presupposition that "past, "present" and "future" must be defined in terms of how things "actually appear to us from our experience". There is nothing necessitating that all words must be defined or used this way.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I do acknowledge though, that there is more than one conventional way as to how present, past, and future are all related to each other, and that there are conventions which make "the present" the defining feature, and then position past and future relative to the present. This is the way I say that these terms ought to be defined.

That is how they are conventionally defined. Otherwise, what would the past and future be in the past and future of?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Defining the terms in this way helps us to properly understand and represent the difference between past and future. Acknowledging this difference makes us recognize the discontinuity between past and future, and this indicates that the representation of time as a continuity cannot be true. The discontinuity is exposed by properly understanding the future as consisting of possibility rather than making "the present" a continuity between what has been and what will be.

I don't follow how the conventional definition does any of this.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You deny the possibility of free will by saying that the future consists of "what will be". As I explained.

A compatibilist free will is entirely consistent with "what will be".

Quoting ucarr

I think this is the science underlying what MU has been debating with Luke.

Quoting Luke

As far as I'm aware, "past", "present" and "future" are not terms that have any technical scientific meaning, and are not terms that are commonly used for any precise scientific measurements.

With your above statement you cast yourself in a role that parallels an early twentieth century commentator responding to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity: "As far as I'm aware, 'space,' 'time' and 'gravity' are not terms that are commonly understood to be conjoined and therefore subject to scientific measurements.

In my opinion, the status quo of conventional wisdom is not (and should not be) an obstacle to discovery and new understanding.

Moreover, your claim can be refuted. You say, in part, that the "past", "present" and "future" are not terms commonly used for any precise measurements:

Caesium atomic clocks are one of the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the second in the International System of Units (SI) (the modern form of the metric system). By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, ??Cs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz. That value was chosen so that the caesium second equalled, to the limit of human measuring ability in 1960 when it was adopted, the existing standard ephemeris second based on the Earth's orbit around the Sun.[2] Because no other measurement involving time had been as precise, the effect of the change was less than the experimental uncertainty of all existing measurements.
-- Wikipedia --

The above description conveys a precise, scientific measurement of the unit of time known as "one second." By inference it follows that the details elaborated above bear upon the transition from one second of time to the next and so on. The duration of measured units of time and the transition between these measured units have been under discussion and debate here for more than a month.

Regarding my application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to MU's claims about the everyday experience of the present as a positive duration rather than as a theoretical and dimensionless point, it should be clear to the observant that it is self-evidently true (from MU's proffered claims and my proffered scientific support for them) we are, acting individually, attempting to do the work of science and philosophy. Such efforts at this website should come as no surprise.

In your role as guardian at the gate, protector of the integrity and authority of the scientific and philosophical establishment, your work is important. By warring against the specious claims of eager aspirants, you render a service to them. It won't do, however, to merely recite boilerplate from the pages of conventional wisdom. You must search those pages and discover cogent arguments that refute with specificity the attempts made by would-be theoreticians.

Quoting ucarr

The above description conveys a precise, scientific measurement of the unit of time known as "one second."

Where are the terms "past", "present" or "future" used in that description?

Quoting Luke

The above description conveys a precise, scientific measurement of the unit of time known as "one second."
— ucarr

Where are the terms "past", "present" or "future" used in that description?

Everywhere. The science elaborated in the quotation supplies the means for their state-of-the-art measurement. Readers incapacitated in the use of inference will, however, fail to perceive them.

Quoting Luke

I do not see that as being the convention at all. I don't know where you get this idea from. Once again: in that case, the past and the future would then be in the past and the future of what? You can't start with the past and future and determine the present from there, because the past and the future are in the past and in the future of the present, by definition.

The convention is to locate "the present" in terms of one's temporal location, (e.g. when one is experiencing, when things are happening) much like we locate "here" in terms of one's spatial location. If you do not define the present in terms of one's conscious experience or when events are happening or when one is acting or speaking, then what is the determining factor in deciding when the present is situated between the past and the future?

We are talking about defining terms, which is completely different from locating places. You can locate a place with "here", but "here" will not serve to define the location because it is completely subjective, and we normally seek objectivity in definitions. Likewise with the present, "now". So to define a place, we refer to the surroundings, and to define the present we refer to past and future. This is because of the desire for objectivity.

So take "here", and say there is up and there is down relative to here, also there is right and left relative to here. However, "here does not serve to define up and down, nor can it serve to define right and left. To define these, we turn to something else, to give the meaning of these terms, in order to have objectivity for universal application. Likewise, you can say that there is past and future relative to now, or present, but this does not serve to define past and future. To give past and future objective meaning we turn to something else.

I think you and I will never find agreement as to what "the convention" is with respect to defining these temporal terms. And as I said, there is a number of conventions, so I think this course of discussion is pointless.

Quoting Luke

If you agree - as you state above - that the present is defined relative to experience in this way, then why do you also claim that the present is defined relative to the past and the future?

Luke, I agree that the present ought to be defined this way, but I do not believe that it actually is defined this way, in conventional usage. I've repeated this so many times now, why can't you understand the difference between what I think ought to be the case, and what I think is the case? It doesn't matter that you do not agree with my assumption as to what is the case, the differentiation is within what I believe. You cannot conclude that since this differentiation is false, it therefore does not exist as my belief, and proceed to act as if I have not explained this difference which I believe in

Quoting Luke

I reject your presupposition that "past, "present" and "future" must be defined in terms of how things "actually appear to us from our experience". There is nothing necessitating that all words must be defined or used this way.

I did not say that they must be defined in this way, I just pointed out that there is consistency to this way.

Quoting Luke

A compatibilist free will is entirely consistent with "what will be".

I don't think we can make any progress here either. I do not believe that it is possible to have a coherent form of compatibilism, so we are on completely different ground here.

Quoting ucarr

Regarding my application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to MU's claims about the everyday experience of the present as a positive duration rather than as a theoretical and dimensionless point, it should be clear to the observant that it is self-evidently true (from MU's proffered claims and my proffered scientific support for them) we are, acting individually, attempting to do the work of science and philosophy. Such efforts at this website should come as no surprise.

The important issue comes into sight when you place this premise of the present as a duration, alongside the premise of the substantial difference between past and future. From our experience, we see the past as determined, and the future as indeterminate (consisting of unselected possibilities), therefore a substantial difference. If the present is itself a duration, yet it is also the period of change between indeterminate and determined, this conception allows that some aspects of the world become determined (go into the past) prior to other aspects, in a sense of "prior" determined by their relative positions within the width of the present rather than the traditional linear time. This makes the duration of the present a second dimension of time, rather than a segment of linear time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We are talking about defining terms, which is completely different from locating places. You can locate a place with "here", but "here" will not serve to define the location because it is completely subjective, and we normally seek objectivity in definitions.

Are you suggesting that the word "here" cannot be defined and has no definition/use because of its subjectivity? It seems to me that the word "here" is very commonly used in our language. If we normally seek objectivity in definitions, then why doesn't this objectivity apply to the word "here"? The word "here" has its definitions and uses.

Given your assertion that the present is defined in reference to the past and future, you have once again failed to answer my questions. If we start with only the past and the future and attempt to derive the present from them, then what is the past in the past of, and what is the future in the future of? What determines the location of the present in between the vast temporal regions of the past and the future? And what determining factor(s) can we find within the past and the future that might help us to narrow down the present to less than the duration of a millennium?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Likewise with the present, "now". So to define a place, we refer to the surroundings, and to define the present we refer to past and future. This is because of the desire for objectivity.

Provide an example of how you can define the present with reference to the past and future. Since you have acknowledged that past and future are not synonymous with memories and anticipations, I trust that your example will indeed demonstrate how the present is defined with reference to the past and future and not with reference to memories and anticipations.

You should have no trouble if this is the conventional definition, as you claim. You could probably just look it up somewhere.

Quoting Luke

Are you suggesting that the word "here" cannot be defined and has no definition/use because of its subjectivity? It seems to me that the word "here" is very commonly used in our language. If we normally seek objectivity in definitions, then why doesn't this objectivity apply to the word "here"? The word "here" has its definitions and uses.

I am not making any statements of necessity, so I am not suggesting anything about how any word "must be defined", or "cannot be defined". That's why I talked about how I think "the present" ought to be defined, and how it actually is defined, by common convention. So subjectivity does not equate with impossibility.

Quoting Luke

Given your assertion that the present is defined in reference to the past and future, you have once again failed to answer my questions. If we start with only the past and the future and attempt to derive the present from them, then what is the past in the past of, and what is the future in the future of? What determines the location of the present in between the vast temporal regions of the past and the future? And what determining factor(s) can we find within the past and the future that might help us to narrow down the present to less than the duration of a millennium?

As I explained earlier, there is always a human perspective implied, in any definition, but in the case of a so-called objective definition the perspective does not enter as a defining feature. The definition refers outward toward features of a larger world, not inward toward th subjective perspective. So "up" and "down" are not defined in relation to a spot, "here", they are defined with reference to higher and lower elevation. And right and left are not defined by the perspective of the individual, who might say "here", they are defined with reference to north south east west; 'stand facing north, and to the east is right. The same is the case with past and future. They are not defined objectively with reference to the present, the objective definition refers to time which has gone past and time which has not gone past. The reference is the passing of time, not "the present". This is the conventional way, as I've argued.

Quoting Luke

If we start with only the past and the future and attempt to derive the present from them, then what is the past in the past of, and what is the future in the future of?

As I said above, the reference is time, "the past" refers to the past part of time, and "the future" refers to the future part of time. That is the convention. This is very straight forward, and I'm quite surprised by your need to ask.

Quoting Luke

What determines the location of the present in between the vast temporal regions of the past and the future? And what determining factor(s) can we find within the past and the future that might help us to narrow down the present to less than the duration of a millennium?

The convention is that "the present" signifies a point, moment, or duration, "now", which separates past from future. You see, the convention, which is to look for objective definitions rather than subjective, defines "the present" with reference to the past and future. And "past" and "future" are defined with reference to the passing time. As I said earlier, there is of course, a human perspective implied, as is the case with all objective definitions, because human beings make the definition, but the perspective is not referred to in the definition, because the definition is intended to be objective. Like up and down, right and left, always imply a human perspective, but the definitions refer to something outward, objective, rather than inward to the subjective perspective.

Quoting Luke

Provide an example of how you can define the present with reference to the past and future.

That's done, above. The present is the point, or moment, or duration, which divides or separates the past from the future.

Quoting Luke

You could probably just look it up somewhere.

Good idea, here is https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/present

"the period of time that is happening now, not the past or the future:"

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We are talking about defining terms, which is completely different from locating places. You can locate a place with "here", but "here" will not serve to define the location because it is completely subjective, and we normally seek objectivity in definitions.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Are you suggesting that the word "here" cannot be defined and has no definition/use because of its subjectivity? It seems to me that the word "here" is very commonly used in our language. If we normally seek objectivity in definitions, then why doesn't this objectivity apply to the word "here"? The word "here" has its definitions and uses.
— Luke

I am not making any statements of necessity, so I am not suggesting anything about how any word "must be defined", or "cannot be defined". That's why I talked about how I think "the present" ought to be defined, and how it actually is defined, by common convention. So subjectivity does not equate with impossibility.

Okay then. In response to your previous post, the word "present" does not serve to define the time either, because it is completely subjective. Just like "here".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

And right and left are not defined by the perspective of the individual

My right and left or your right and left?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

And right and left are not defined by the perspective of the individual, who might say "here", they are defined with reference to north south east west; 'stand facing north, and to the east is right.

I disagree that "right" and "left" are defined with reference to the cardinal directions, but that's not the important issue here. This is:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

They are not defined objectively with reference to the present, the objective definition refers to time which has gone past and time which has not gone past.

The objective definition refers to time which has gone past what and time which has not gone past what?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The reference is the passing of time, not "the present". This is the conventional way, as I've argued.

How do you define the past and future from the passing of time? As shown above, this requires you to use phrases like "gone past" and "not gone past", but then you must specify what it is that these have gone past and not gone past. The past has gone past what? The future has not gone past what? The obvious, and only possible, answer is: the present time. What else could it be?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You could probably just look it up somewhere.
— Luke

Good idea, here is https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/present

"the period of time that is happening now, not the past or the future:"

The goal was to provide a definition of the present in terms of the past and the future; to derive the present from the past and the future. I don't see how this example fulfils that goal. I don't agree that this definition of the present is given in terms of the past and the future. There are innumerable things which are not the past or the future.

Quoting Luke

The objective definition refers to time which has gone past what and time which has not gone past what?

Past the human observer I suppose. As I said, definitions always have an implied subjective perspective which if it enters into the definition would lessen its objectiveness. Sound for example is waves, but ones that are heard. That's why the proverbial question, 'if a tree falls in the forest with no one there, does iy make a sound?'.

The issue that you point to here, is part of the reason why I argue that the conventional definition is not good. There is a pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective by referencing "time" instead of the observer, but it is really not very successful. Unless the passage of time is conceived of independently from the human perspective, and "the present" is independent from that perspective, the subjectivity cannot be avoided. An independent, objective "present" is the way I proposed, as how "the present" ought to be defined. Start with the human perspective, produce a definition of "the present" whichas much as possible, is independent from that perspective, then proceed toward understanding past and future from there.

Quoting Luke

How do you define the past and future from the passing of time? As shown above, this requires you to use phrases like "gone past" and "not gone past", but then you must specify what it is that these have gone past and not gone past. The past has gone past what? The future has not gone past what? The obvious, and only possible, answer is: the present time. What else could it be?

No, your supposed "obvious", and "only possible" conclusion is not correct, and completely illogical. These phrases, "gone past", and "not gone past" imply a relationship with an observer. As I said, there is always an implied observer in so-called objective definitions. "Sound" is the vibrations which are detected by the ear. "Colour" is the electromagnetism detected by the eyes. There is much electromagnetism not detected by the eyes, and that does not qualify as "colour".

That is exactly the problem with the conventional definition. "Past" and "future" are defined in relation to an implied human observer. Then, to define "present" we simply turn around and replace, or exchange the observer with "the present". From here, we can extend the past indefinitely, far beyond the observer. But this is an inaccurate and invalid exchange, because the two (observational perspective, and present) are not truly equivalent.

Therefore, what I argued is that we ought to start from the observational perspective, and produce a definition of "the present" which recognizes the difference between the observational perspective, and the true independent "present". This allows us to understand that the conscious experience of being present provides us with a faulty representation of "the present", as I explained already.

Quoting Luke

The goal was to provide a definition of the present in terms of the past and the future; to derive the present from the past and the future. I don't see how this example fulfils that goal. I don't agree that this definition of the present is given in terms of the past and the future. There are innumerable things which are not the past or the future.

OK, you do not agree that "not the past or the future" fulfills the goal of defining the present in terms of the past and the future. So be it. That's why you are so difficult to hold discourse with. When you can't somehow twist and contort the words in some equivocal interpretation, to misrepresent, in order to support what you are arguing (that the other person is contradictory for example), you simply deny the obvious. Do you not see, within the words of the single sentence of the provided definition ""the period of time"? That there are innumerable things "not the past or the future" is irrelevant, because the definition refers to "the period of time" which is not the past or the future.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The objective definition refers to time which has gone past what and time which has not gone past what?
— Luke

Past the human observer I suppose.

Yes, past the human observer at the present, for that is always the temporal location of the human observer, when all observations are made.

You propose that we ought to define "the present" in terms of the human observer. Coincidentally, I also consider this to be how "the present" is conventionally defined. The present is the time when things are happening, when one is consciously experiencing, when one is acting or making an utterance.

What you call "past the human observer", I would call "past the present", because the present is when each person makes their observations. The present is defined in terms of conscious experience, or the time at which one is consciously experiencing, which is how you believe it ought to be defined.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The issue that you point to here, is part of the reason why I argue that the conventional definition is not good. There is a pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective by referencing "time" instead of the observer, but it is really not very successful.

I don't see any "pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective". "The present" is subjective, as much as "here" is subjective. You seem to be have been disagreeing with this. My only disagreement is your thinking that many people believe the present is not subjective or that it's independent of human observers.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Unless the passage of time is conceived of independently from the human perspective, and "the present" is independent from that perspective, the subjectivity cannot be avoided. An independent, objective "present" is the way I proposed, as how "the present" ought to be defined.

You said previously that the present ought to be defined in terms of conscious experience. Do you no longer belive this? Otherwise, how is this independent and objective?

Also, you just complained above that there was a "pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective" wrt the present, but now you want to avoid it?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

That is exactly the problem with the conventional definition. "Past" and "future" are defined in relation to an implied human observer.

You've been arguing for the past few pages that the present is conventionally defined in terms of the past and future. Now you state (and complain) that the past and future are conventionally defined in terms of the present. Make up your mind. You're all over the place.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Then, to define "present" we simply turn around and replace, or exchange the observer with "the present". From here, we can extend the past indefinitely, far beyond the observer. But this is an inaccurate and invalid exchange, because the two (observational perspective, and present) are not truly equivalent.

They're not equivalent, that's right. One is a person and one is a time designation. The only so-called equivalence they have is that the observational perspective is temporally located at the present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore, what I argued is that we ought to start from the observational perspective, and produce a definition of "the present" which recognizes the difference between the observational perspective, and the true independent "present".

What makes you think there is a "true independent present"? You've been saying for the last few pages that the present ought to be defined in terms of the human perspective; of conscious experience. Now you say that we ought to start from there to produce some other definition? Please.

I've had enough. You can't keep track of your own argument and I always get the sense that you're just taking the piss.

Quoting Luke

Yes, past the human observer at the present, for that is always the temporal location of the human observer, when all observations are made.

This is your mistake then, you equate the human temporal perspective with "the present". I explained in the last post, and a number of times earlier, how this is a mistake. The conscious experience does not give us an adequate representation of the present. Therefore these cannot be equated.

Quoting Luke

"The present" is subjective, as much as "here" is subjective.

That's a faulty assumption as well.

Quoting Luke

You said previously that the present ought to be defined in terms of conscious experience. Do you no longer belive this? Otherwise, how is this independent and objective?

Also, you just complained above that there was a "pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective" wrt the present, but now you want to avoid it?

I think you misunderstand. Defining "the present" in terms of conscious experience does not mean equating the two. It means defining "the present" precisely how it appears directly from our experience of it. But of course there is a difference between the being who is experiencing, and the thing experienced. So the conscious experience of being present is not the same thing as the present which is being experienced. And so, the definition must respect this difference.

Yes, the present ought to be defined in terms of conscious experience, because it is only by doing this that the incoherency within our understanding of time will be exposed. Then to rectify the incoherency we will need to seek the true independent nature of the present. So the first step is to provide an accurate representation of "the present" in terms of conscious experience. The second step is to apply logic to the premises derived, thereby demonstrating that the continuity which is assumed of conscious experience is not a true representation. Conscious experience misleads us. And the third step is to seek the real points in time which the logic demonstrates as necessary. In other words, a very clear and unambiguous representation of how "the present" appears from conscious experience must be provided in order that we can apply logic to determine the problems with this representation.

Quoting Luke

They're not equivalent, that's right. One is a person and one is a time designation. The only so-called equivalence they have is that the observational perspective is temporally located at the present.

Then why did you equate "past the human observer" with "past the present" at the beginning of this post? I separated the two for a reason. Then to deny my reasoning, you equated the two. You very explicitly said: "What you call 'past the human observer', I would call 'past the present'",

So you denied my proposition in order to discount the logic which follows from that premise, then later you turn around and say that you really believe the proposition is true. Now I'll have to turn around and go through the logic all over again, at which point you'll deny the truth of the proposition again, only to accept it later on when it becomes convenient for you to do so again.

Quoting Luke

What makes you think there is a "true independent present"?

The difference between past and future, which we discussed a few posts back, which we know about from our conscious experience of being present, indicates that there must be a true independent present.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is your mistake then, you equate the human temporal perspective with "the present". I explained in the last post, and a number of times earlier, how this is a mistake. The conscious experience does not give us an adequate representation of the present. Therefore these cannot be equated.

Do you honestly think I was suggesting that a human perspective and "the present" are identical? We are discussing time, aren't we?

As I have made clear in my previous posts, the present is defined in terms of WHEN we are consciously experiencing. I'm obviously not saying that the present is conscious experience.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It means defining "the present" precisely how it appears directly from our experience of it.

You can't see time; it doesn't appear at all.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So the conscious experience of being present is not the same thing as the present which is being experienced.

You don't experience the present. The present is when you experience.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

the first step is to provide an accurate representation of "the present" in terms of conscious experience.

How? What do you mean by "an accurate representation"? What sort of "representation" do you mean? And how could its accuracy be improved?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Then why did you equate "past the human observer" with "past the present" at the beginning of this post? I separated the two for a reason. Then to deny my reasoning, you equated the two. You very explicitly said: "What you call 'past the human observer', I would call 'past the present'",

I thought it was understood that we were talking about time, and that you would therefore understand that I was referring to equating the present time with the time of observation. But I guess I overestimated your basic comprehension of the issue.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What makes you think there is a "true independent present"?
— Luke

The difference between past and future, which we discussed a few posts back, which we know about from our conscious experience of being present, indicates that there must be a true independent present.

I must have missed that. Can you point me to it? Or, just explain again how the difference between past and future indicates that there must be a true independent present.

Quoting Luke

Do you honestly think I was suggesting that a human perspective and "the present" are identical? We are discussing time, aren't we?

It's what your arguments implied, and then you confirmed it by saying that "the human observer" may be replaced by "the present". This is what you stated "What you call 'past the human observer', I would call 'past the present'. So you are saying that "the present" signifies nothing more than the human observer.

This is very significant because I've been arguing that we need to separate these two in conception. So we need to define "the present" in terms of the conscious experience, but recognize that the actual present is distinct and different from the conscious experience of being present. In this way we can come to see the faults in the way we represent "the present" according to the conscious experience.

You don't seem to be able to follow the argument because you've been insisting that the two are inseparable. And then you went so far as to suggest that "human observer" could be replaced with "present". You will never be able to understand how the human conception of "the present" is faulty if you do not allow for that difference.

Quoting Luke

As I have made clear in my previous posts, the present is defined in terms of WHEN we are consciously experiencing. I'm obviously not saying that the present is conscious experience.

We have no conception of time in this conceptual structure we are creating from our agreed upon starting point, beginning with the premise of "the present" as defined in terms of conscious experience. That is what I indicated to you when you said that you could define "past and "future" with direct reference to "the present". I said that this would require a conception of time. Now you are attempting to employ a conception of time, without defining your terms. You now say, the present is "WHEN" the conscious experience occurs.

But what is "WHEN" referencing, other than the past implied by memories and the future implied by anticipation. I told you that such a definition, one like you seek, really ends up defining "the present" in terms of past and future. Now you're trying to avoid referencing past and future, by referencing time as "WHEN". But there is no way to ground this proposed conception of time, and "WHEN" other than in the past which is implied by memories, and the future implied by anticipations. So it's nothing but a trick of deception.

Quoting Luke

How? What do you mean by "an accurate representation"? What sort of "representation" do you mean? And how could its accuracy be improved?

There are many ways that the representation, or conception of "the present" could be improved. The most important thing I believe is to recognize the substantial difference between past and future. This substantial difference you yourself denied in your reference to compatibilism. So for example, if you had a more accurate representation of "the present", you would understand why compatibilism is unacceptable.

Quoting Luke

I thought it was understood that we were talking about time, and that you would therefore understand that I was referring to equating the present time with the time of observation. But I guess I overestimated your basic comprehension of the issue.

No, it was never understood that we were talking about "time". This is an attempt by you to smuggle in a hidden premise. You cannot take such things for granted when defining terms. We were talkin about "the present" and we made it as far as a discussion as to whether "the present" ought to be defined with reference to "past" and "future" or "past" and "future" ought to be defined in reference to "the present". We failed to agree on what the current convention is on this matter.

So, there is a misunderstanding between us as to how these terms, "present", "past", "future" are currently defined by convention. You say that the convention is to define past and future in reference to the present, and I told you that this would require a conception time. Now you are trying to smuggle in that hidden premise, as if it is somehow already within our definitions. That is a logical fallacy. Perhaps our disagreement is the manifestation of this hidden premise, as described bellow:

[quote=https://wrtg213x.community.uaf.edu/resources/recognizing-logical-fallacies/]The third type of premise difficulty is the most insidious: the hidden premise. It is sometimes listed as a logical fallacy — the unstated major premise, but it is more accurate to consider it here. Obviously, if a disagreement is based upon a hidden premise, then the disagreement will be irresolvable. So when coming to an impasse in resolving differences, it is a good idea to go back and see if there are any implied premises that have not been addressed.[/quote]

Quoting Luke

I must have missed that. Can you point me to it? Or, just explain again how the difference between past and future indicates that there must be a true independent present.

This is where we had our most profound disagreement. You referred to past as what has been, and future as what will be. I said that this is incorrect, because "what will be" implies determinism and our conscious experience indicates that the future is indeterminate, consisting of possibilities. This substantial difference between determined past, and indeterminate future, implies that there must be a real, identifiable division between past and future, which we can know as "the present". You denied this substantial difference, and consequentially the foundation for a real identifiable, independent "present", with an appeal to compatibilism.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

It's what your arguments implied, and then you confirmed it by saying that "the human observer" may be replaced by "the present". This is what you stated "What you call 'past the human observer', I would call 'past the present'. So you are saying that "the present" signifies nothing more than the human observer.

No, this is what I said:

Quoting Luke

What you call "past the human observer", I would call "past the present", because the present is when each person makes their observations. The present is defined in terms of conscious experience, or the time at which one is consciously experiencing, which is how you believe it ought to be defined.

It's a big leap, and a very uncharitable reading, for you to interpret this paragraph as me saying that the present is identical to conscious experience.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So we need to define "the present" in terms of the conscious experience, but recognize that the actual present is distinct and different from the conscious experience of being present.

What is this:"actual present"? What is it, and what reason do you have for believing there is any such thing?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I have made clear in my previous posts, the present is defined in terms of WHEN we are consciously experiencing. I'm obviously not saying that the present is conscious experience.
— Luke

But what is "WHEN" referencing, other than the past implied by memories and the future implied by anticipation.

"When" could mean:

when
conjunction
1
a
: at or during the time that : while
went fishing when he was a boy
b
: just at the moment that
stop writing when the bell rings
c
: at any or every time that
when he listens to music, he falls asleep

I was using the word in the sense of definition 'c'.

I don't understand how you could think that the word "when" used in my statement "the present is defined in terms of when we are consciously experiencing" is "referencing...the past implied by memories and the future implied by anticipation". I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. The word "when" is not "referencing" anything. I used it in the manner given at definition 'c' above.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I told you that such a definition, one like you seek, really ends up defining "the present" in terms of past and future.

You did, but not very clearly. I never understood what you meant by it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Now you're trying to avoid referencing past and future, by referencing time as "WHEN". But there is no way to ground this proposed conception of time, and "WHEN" other than in the past which is implied by memories, and the future implied by anticipations. So it's nothing but a trick of deception.

This is just gibberish.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

How? What do you mean by "an accurate representation"? What sort of "representation" do you mean? And how could its accuracy be improved?
— Luke

There are many ways that the representation, or conception of "the present" could be improved. The most important thing I believe is to recognize the substantial difference between past and future. This substantial difference you yourself denied in your reference to compatibilism. So for example, if you had a more accurate representation of "the present", you would understand why compatibilism is unacceptable.

This barely answers my questions. By "representation", I take you to mean concept of "the present". But how could that concept be more accurate? More accurate in relation to what?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

No, it was never understood that we were talking about "time".

After all of our discussion about "past", "present" and "future", it never dawned on you that we were talking about time?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You cannot take such things for granted when defining terms.

I can't take it for granted that when defining "past", "present" and "future" we are talking about time? That's absurd.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So, there is a misunderstanding between us as to how these terms, "present", "past", "future" are currently defined by convention.

There's no problem in talking about how "past", "present" and "future" are currently defined by convention, but assuming that these terms have anything to do with time is a bit of a stretch, is it?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I said that this is incorrect, because "what will be" implies determinism and our conscious experience indicates that the future is indeterminate, consisting of possibilities.

Yes, and I replied that "what will be" does not necessarily imply determinism because "what will be" is also consistent with compatibilism. What you call "our conscious experience" does not indicate that the future is indeterminate; that is merely your belief. Your ability to anticipate several possible outcomes or future events does not necessarily have any bearing on the nature of reality. Or, at least, you've provided no argument for it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This substantial difference between determined past, and indeterminate future, implies that there must be a real, identifiable division between past and future, which we can know as "the present".

Perhaps; if your unargued assertion happens to be true.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You denied this substantial difference, and consequentially the foundation for a real identifiable, independent "present", with an appeal to compatibilism.

No, I merely provided a counterargument to your claim that "what will be" implies determinism. That is not necessarily so.

Quoting Luke

What is this:"actual present"? What is it, and what reason do you have for believing there is any such thing?

I answered this:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is where we had our most profound disagreement. You referred to past as what has been, and future as what will be. I said that this is incorrect, because "what will be" implies determinism and our conscious experience indicates that the future is indeterminate, consisting of possibilities. This substantial difference between determined past, and indeterminate future, implies that there must be a real, identifiable division between past and future, which we can know as "the present". You denied this substantial difference, and consequentially the foundation for a real identifiable, independent "present", with an appeal to compatibilism.

Quoting Luke

This barely answers my questions. By "representation", I take you to mean concept of "the present". But how could that concept be more accurate? More accurate in relation to what?

The above quote answers this too.

Quoting Luke

After all of our discussion about "past", "present" and "future", it never dawned on you that we were talking about time?

I was very deliberately not talking about "time". That we were talking about time is your misinterpretation, your mistake. I told you from the beginning, dismiss your principles of measurement for the purpose of this discussion of "the present". We were talking about "the present" and it's relation to "the past" and "the future". The nearest I got to "time" was when I said that the present must consist of duration. At that time we could have discussed whether "time" is implied by "duration". I believe it is from the experience of duration that the concept of time is derived. So duration is implied by time, but not vise versa

Quoting Luke

I can't take it for granted that when defining "past", "present" and "future" we are talking about time? That's absurd.

We were talking about defining terms. Taking for granted, as part of a definition, that which is not explicitly part of the definition, is a logical fallacy, the hidden premise. As explained in the quoted article, it is most likely the root of our disagreement, you were holding a hidden premise. You thought time was implied by talk about "present" "past" and "future". But we were discussing the defining of these terms in reference to each other, not in reference to time. How "time" is related is a further matter.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You thought time was implied by talk about "present" "past" and "future". But we were discussing the defining of these terms in reference to each other, not in reference to time. How "time" is related is a further matter.

I have no idea what these terms could possibly mean in relation to each other if we don't already assume that they are in reference to time. Perhaps you could explain what any of the terms "past", "present" or "future" mean if they are not in reference to time?

Reply to Luke
Use your capacity to think Luke. None of those terms imply time. "Time" implies the descriptive terms of past present and future, but not vise versa.

As we've been discussing, past, future, and present are defined in reference to each other, and there is no necessity of "time", only the experience we discussed, being present, memories, and anticipations are implied by these terms. "Time" refers to a concept created by a synthesis of these three. And, depending on how they are synthesized the concept varies. hence there are differing concepts of "time".

I suggest that the reason why our discussion has failed to progress is that you have a preconceived idea of "time", and this preconceived idea of "time" requires a specific relationship of past , future, and present. This is your "hidden premise".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"Time" implies the descriptive terms of past present and future, but not vise versa.

How does "time" imply the descriptions of past, present and future?
Why do the descriptions of past, present and future not imply time?
What do the descriptions of past, present and future describe, if not time?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As we've been discussing, past, future, and present are defined in reference to each other, and there is no necessity of "time", only the experience we discussed, being present, memories, and anticipations are implied by these terms.

We weren't discussing this. I had been using the words "past", "present" and "future" in accordance with their conventional usage, where they refer to periods of time. Until very recently, I was unaware that you were trying to create new meanings for these words from scratch in order to accommodate your metaphysical theory.

Regarding what you say here, what does the word "present" mean when you say "the experience we discussed, being present"? Does it mean the same as when you refer to "the present", as in "past, present and future"? It seems like only moments ago that you were accusing me of conflating the present with one's conscious experience, but it looks like that's exactly what you have done here.

If there is a difference between "the present" and the experience of "being present", then what is that difference?

Furthermore, you already acknowledged earlier that the past is not synonymous with memories and the future is not synonymous with anticipations. Here, you say that memories and anticipations "are implied by these terms". But if "past" and "future" are not synonymous with "memories" and "anticipations", and if "past" and "future" are not in reference to time, then how do you define "past" and "future"?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

"Time" refers to a concept created by a synthesis of these three. And, depending on how they are synthesized the concept varies. hence there are differing concepts of "time".

Nonsense.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I suggest that the reason why our discussion has failed to progress is that you have a preconceived idea of "time", and this preconceived idea of "time" requires a specific relationship of past , future, and present. This is your "hidden premise".

According to this logic, you (and everybody else) must have the same hidden premise.

The meanings of the terms "past", "present" and "future" that I have argued for is consistent with their conventional definitions. Look at these and you will see that they are in reference to time. I'm not offering an idiosyncratic metaphysical theory; I'm demonstrating that your theory either relies on the conventional definitions of these terms or else becomes nonsensical.

Now, please explain what any of the terms "past", "present" or "future" mean if they are not in reference to time, as I asked you to in my previous post. Your inability to do so demonstrates that your theory is nonsense.

Quoting Luke

How does "time" imply the descriptions of past, present and future?
Why do the descriptions of past, present and future not imply time?
What do the descriptions of past, present and future describe, if not time?

We use "past", "future", "present" to describe and even define "time". Time cannot be described or defined without these references. But we can also use these without referencing time, as I've been demonstrating. We can discuss these concepts, and define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time. We can refer solely to human experiences, being present, memories and anticipations, and understand those terms without consulting the further abstraction which is the concept of time.

Quoting Luke

We weren't discussing this. I had been using the words "past", "present" and "future" in accordance with their conventional usage, where they refer to periods of time. Until very recently, I was unaware that you were trying to create new meanings for these words from scratch in order to accommodate your metaphysical theory.

You were questioning me, on my usage, and my definitions. I was talking about (1) defining "past and future" with reference to the present, and (2) defining "the present" with reference to past and future. Although there was earlier discussion of the present consisting of duration, when we moved on to discussing definitions of these terms, there was no indication that time would be a defining feature.

That you think the convention is that these terms refer to periods of time, is what I believe is your mistake. This is your hidden premise, which made us incapable of agreeing on what the convention is. I thought the convention is to define "present" in reference to past and future, but you thought the convention is to define "past and future" in reference to the present. It now appears like you hold this opinion because of your hidden premise, that all three of these refer to periods of time.

Quoting Luke

Until very recently, I was unaware that you were trying to create new meanings for these words from scratch in order to accommodate your metaphysical theory.

I think this is blatant BS. No matter how many times I tell you, that I am making distinctions between the way these words are actually defined in conventional usage, and the way that I think they ought to be defined, you still continue to deny that I am doing this. After I've told you this many times, and you continue to insist that you never knew that this is what i was doing, you must expect the accusation of BS to arise sometime.

Quoting Luke

Regarding what you say here, what does the word "present" mean when you say "the experience we discussed, being present"? Does it mean the same as when you refer to "the present", as in "past, present and future"? It seems like only moments ago that you were accusing me of conflating the present with one's conscious experience, but it looks like that's exactly what you have done here.

This is the issue we've been discussing. Does "present" mean the separation between past and future, (past being defined by reference to memories, and future being defined by reference to anticipations), or does "present" mean something derived from the conscious experience of being. I think the former is the convention, and the latter is the way it ought to be.

So now we're getting to the heart of the matter, your question of what does "present" mean, in the context of the conscious experience of being present. I would say that it means to be experiencing activity, things happening. And so this ought to be the defining feature of "the present", activity, things happening.

Quoting Luke

If there is a difference between "the present" and the experience of "being present", then what is that difference?

This is the difference I stated earlier, the difference between what is experiencing, and what is being experienced. So if the present is defined by activity, then "experiencing activity", is different from "activity" by that qualification. So "experiencing" is itself a special type of activity which occurs at the present, and that is how it is different from the more general "activity" which is what defines the present. In other words, "present" encompasses all activity, while "the experience of being present" refers to one specific type of activity.

Quoting Luke

Furthermore, you already acknowledged earlier that the past is not synonymous with memories and the future is not synonymous with anticipations. Here, you say that memories and anticipations "are implied by these terms". But if "past" and "future" are not synonymous with "memories" and "anticipations", and if "past" and "future" are not in reference to time, then how do you define "past" and "future"?

Do you not recognize a difference between the meaning of "implied by" and "synonymous with"? If "past" and "future" are defined with reference to memories and anticipations, this does not mean that these are synonymous.

Quoting Luke

According to this logic, you (and everybody else) must have the same hidden premise.

The meanings of the terms "past", "present" and "future" that I have argued for is consistent with their conventional definitions. Look at these and you will see that they are in reference to time. I'm not offering an idiosyncratic metaphysical theory; I'm demonstrating that your theory either relies on the conventional definitions of these terms or else becomes nonsensical.

Now, please explain what any of the terms "past", "present" or "future" mean if they are not in reference to time, as I asked you to in my previous post. Your inability to do so demonstrates that your theory is nonsense.

This is irrelevant. We agreed to start from a definition of "the present" whereby "the present" is defined with reference to the conscious experience of being present. We both agreed to that. There was no mention of "time" in that agreement. Therefore your mode of referring to "conventional definitions" and "time" is only misleading you, preventing you from looking directly at the conscious experience to provide the definition. Your presupposition, or prejudice, is that the convention is to define "the present" with reference to the conscious experience of being present. Therefore you believe that convention will provide this definition of "the present" for us which refers directly to the conscious experience of being present. But then you resort to the convention of referring to "time".

Now, I've been telling you over and over, that convention has a completely different definition of "the present", which is not at all consistent with the conscious experience of being present. So the truth of the matter is coming out. You desire to define "the present" with reference to the abstract concept, "time", rather than with reference to the conscious experience. But this is contrary to what we agreed on, as the way that "the present" ought to be defined.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We use "past", "future", "present" to describe and even define "time". Time cannot be described or defined without these references.

Not true. According to John McTaggart's widely referenced classification, "past", "present" and "future" are used to order (or describe) events in time; they are the ordering relations of McTaggart's A-series. Alternatively, events in time can be ordered (or described) using the ordering relations of McTaggart's B-series: "earlier than", "simultaneous with", and "later than". See here.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We can discuss these concepts, and define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time.

This remains to be demonstrated. You still haven't provided a definition of any of these terms.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We can refer solely to human experiences, being present, memories and anticipations, and understand those terms without consulting the further abstraction which is the concept of time.

You can refer to them, but where's your definition(s)?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

This is your hidden premise, which made us incapable of agreeing on what the convention is. I thought the convention is to define "present" in reference to past and future, but you thought the convention is to define "past and future" in reference to the present. It now appears like you hold this opinion because of your hidden premise, that all three of these refer to periods of time.

Then you must hold your opinion because of your hidden premise that all three of these don't refer to periods of time? I don't see how this is helping.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I think this is blatant BS. No matter how many times I tell you, that I am making distinctions between the way these words are actually defined in conventional usage, and the way that I think they ought to be defined, you still continue to deny that I am doing this.

At one point you thought that the way these words ought to be defined was the same way that they are conventionally defined. I'll admit it took me a while to realise that you weren't simply getting the (conventional) definitions wrong and that you were actually proposing a metaphysical theory, but I don't think I should take full responsibility for that. You are using the everyday terms "past", "present" and "future", after all.

Also, if you are using these terms in a non-conventional way, then define them so as to differentiate them from their conventional meanings; explain how your definitions are not what these terms typically mean. But then you will have no right to tell me that I'm misusing these terms or that these terms are not conventionally used to refer to time.

Also, despite saying here that you are distinguishing between how they ought to be defined and their conventional definitions, you have also stated that you are providing their conventional definitions and that our disagreement is over who is providing the correct conventional definition (see below).

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Does "present" mean the separation between past and future, (past being defined by reference to memories, and future being defined by reference to anticipations)...

Saying that past and future are defined "by reference to" is not (the same as) you providing their definitions.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So now we're getting to the heart of the matter, your question of what does "present" mean, in the context of the conscious experience of being present. I would say that it means to be experiencing activity, things happening. And so this ought to be the defining feature of "the present", activity, things happening.

Are you saying that "present" means "to be experiencing activity, things happening"? Because I would consider the experience (or the experiencing) and "things happening" to be two distinct things or events. And I wouldn't consider either of them to be what "present" means. And you criticised me earlier for conflating "the present" with an experience (even though I clearly didn't), which is exactly what you've done here.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

And so this ought to be the defining feature of "the present", activity, things happening.

If "the present" is synonymous with "activity, things happening", then are the past and future both synonymous with "no activity, things not happening"? If so, is there any distinction between the past and future? If so, what is the distinction between them?

Also, you said earlier that the present is defined in terms of the past and the future. How have you defined "the present" in terms of the past and the future given this definition of "the present" as "activity, things happening"?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Do you not recognize a difference between the meaning of "implied by" and "synonymous with"? If "past" and "future" are defined with reference to memories and anticipations, this does not mean that these are synonymous.

Then what are your definitions of "past" and "future"?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We agreed to start from a definition of "the present" whereby "the present" is defined with reference to the conscious experience of being present. We both agreed to that.

My agreement was based on my defintion of "the present" as "the time at which we are consciously experiencing".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There was no mention of "time" in that agreement.

My definitions have almost all included time (as far as I can recall). I might have referred to the present as "when things are happening", or something similar, but time is implicit in the "when".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore your mode of referring to "conventional definitions" and "time" is only misleading you, preventing you from looking directly at the conscious experience to provide the definition.

I don't think that "the" definition of "the present" is your definition of "the present". What's your definition?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Your presupposition, or prejudice, is that the convention is to define "the present" with reference to the conscious experience of being present. Therefore you believe that convention will provide this definition of "the present" for us which refers directly to the conscious experience of being present. But then you resort to the convention of referring to "time".

No, I've maintained throughout that the present is the time at which (or when) we are consciously experiencing. What's your definition?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Now, I've been telling you over and over, that convention has a completely different definition of "the present", which is not at all consistent with the conscious experience of being present.

That's true. You've also been claiming that your definition of the present in terms of the past and future is the conventional definition. Which is it then: are you telling us how these terms ought to be defined in contrast to the conventional definition, or are you telling us what the conventional definition of these terms actually is?

Also, the conventional definition of "the present" is perfectly consistent with the time at which one is consciously experiencing.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You desire to define "the present" with reference to the abstract concept, "time", rather than with reference to the conscious experience.

Rubbish. My definition contains both.

Now, what are your defintions?

Quoting Luke

Not true. According to John McTaggart's widely referenced classification, "past", "present" and "future" are used to order (or describe) events in time; they are the ordering relations of McTaggart's A-series. Alternatively, events in time can be ordered (or described) using the ordering relations of McTaggart's B-series: "earlier than", "simultaneous with", and "later than". See here.

The use which you describe here is a way of describing time, just like I argued. This supports what I said, "past", "future", and "present" are used to order events and describe the flow of time. The B-series does not provide us with a conception of "time" in any conventional sense. It is a conception produced by McTaggart and offered as an alternative to the conventional conception of "time". That is similar to what I am doing here, except I am doing it with "the present", offering two distinct ways of conceiving of "the present".

You, however, seem to be having great difficulty recognizing what is "conventional". Since there are many conventions, as I said, we should perhaps use a different word. Maybe "traditional" would be a better word. Instead of talking about what is "conventional", I will use "traditional". The traditional way is the way that our modern usage is grounded, and permeates through the usage of classical physics. The usage of the B-series, since it was just proposed by McTaggart, is limited to modern speculative philosophy and metaphysics, the B-series conception of time is not the traditional conception of time, and so I would argue it is not conventional either.

The rest of your post demonstrates that we did not really agree on how to produce a definition of "the present", when I thought we did. I was assuming something like the following.

Quoting Luke

I've already answered this. The present is what is happening or occurring;...

Now I see you do not accept this, and what you really meant was that the present is the time when things are happening or occurring. This means that you think we cannot define or understand "the present" without putting that term into the context of a conception of time.

That is exactly what I am arguing is the mistaken approach. I believe that we need to understand and define "the present" first, with reference directly to conscious experience, independent from any potentially misleading concept of "time". Then we might produce a concept of "time" accordingly. See, the concept of "time" ought to be derived from the concept of "present", rather than vise versa.

So if you cannot dispel this idea, that "the present" must be defined in reference to "the time when...", instead of being defined with direct reference to the conscious experience of being present, then we will not be able to agree on anything here, nor could we make any progress in this discussion.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We use "past", "future", "present" to describe and even define "time". Time cannot be described or defined without these references...
— Metaphysician Undercover

Not true. According to John McTaggart's widely referenced classification, "past", "present" and "future" are used to order (or describe) events in time; they are the ordering relations of McTaggart's A-series. Alternatively, events in time can be ordered (or described) using the ordering relations of McTaggart's B-series: "earlier than", "simultaneous with", and "later than". See here.
— Luke

The use which you describe here is a way of describing time, just like I argued. This supports what I said, "past", "future", and "present" are used to order events and describe the flow of time. The B-series does not provide us with a conception of "time" in any conventional sense...

You, however, seem to be having great difficulty recognizing what is "conventional". Since there are many conventions, as I said, we should perhaps use a different word.

You've missed my point here. I was countering your assertion that "Time cannot be described or defined without these references" to McTaggart's A-series relations of "past", "present" and "future". The B-series relations are an alternative to the A-series relations. Therefore, time can be described using the B-series instead of the A-series, which refutes your assertion that time cannot be described without reference to the A-series.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The usage of the B-series, since it was just proposed by McTaggart, is limited to modern speculative philosophy and metaphysics, the B-series conception of time is not the traditional conception of time, and so I would argue it is not conventional either.

I didn't make any mention of convention in my reply above and never intended to suggest that the B-series was conventional or traditional. That was not the purpose of my comments here. The purpose was to refute your assertion that time cannot be described or defined without reference to the A-series.


Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I've already answered this. The present is what is happening or occurring;...
— Luke

Now I see you do not accept this, and what you really meant was that the present is the time when things are happening or occurring.

That's right, and when you consider the full context (and the full quote), then it is clear that I was referring to the time when things are happening or occurring. I said:

Quoting Luke

The present is what is happening or occurring; the past is what did happen or occurred; and the future is what will happen or occur.

My use of tense in "what did happen" (past) and in "what will happen" (future) in contrast to "what is happening" (present) clearly indicates that time is involved here. Furthermore, this is even more clear in the immediately previous quote of mine in this chain of responses, where I said (emphasis added):

Quoting Luke

I agree that the present is defined relative to experience or being, but I disagree that it is not conventionally defined this way. The present is conventionally defined in relation to (or as the time of) being, existing or happening, and the past and future are conventionally defined relative to this, with the past as what has been, has existed or has happened, and the future with what will be, will exist or will happen.

It is also worth noting that just prior to these exchanges, you made comments such as:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

The past is defined as what has gone by in time...The future is defined as what will come in time...

However, now you are claiming that:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We can discuss these concepts, and define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time.

There's an easy way to settle this dispute which is to provide your definitions of these terms without any reference to a concept of time. I've asked you for these definitions several times now. Are you ever going to provide them?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So if you cannot dispel this idea, that "the present" must be defined in reference to "the time when...", instead of being defined with direct reference to the conscious experience of being present, then we will not be able to agree on anything here, nor could we make any progress in this discussion.

You've also claimed that the present is defined in terms of both the past and the future and that the present is an overlap between the past and the future. So, which definition takes precedence: that the present is defined in terms of both the past and the future, or that the present is defined "with direct reference to the conscious experience of being present"?

Regardless, let's see if you can provide some definitions of these terms without reference to time.

Quoting Luke

You've missed my point here. I was countering your assertion that "Time cannot be described or defined without these references" to McTaggart's A-series relations of "past", "present" and "future". The B-series relations are an alternative to the A-series relations. Therefore, time can be described using the B-series instead of the A-series, which refutes your assertion that time cannot be described without reference to the A-series.

That point is irrelevant. Of course one can define "time" however one wants, but if it's not recognizable as time, then the proposition would be unacceptable, and the definition would be pointless and irrelevant. So really all you've demonstrated is that you misunderstood what I meant.

You might say that this is all that I am doing, seeking to define terms like "present", "past", and "future" in new ways which render them as unrecognizable. But that's why I am taking the time to explain why the things which we know, that bear those names, ought to be understood in this way.

Quoting Luke

The purpose was to refute your assertion that time cannot be described or defined without reference to the A-series.

You could have done that simply by stating that one can define a word in any way one desires. It would have the same effect, you would just demonstrate that you misunderstood me.

Quoting Luke

There's an easy way to settle this dispute which is to provide your definitions of these terms without any reference to a concept of time. I've asked you for these definitions several times now. Are you ever going to provide them?

I've given you the starting point, the way I would define "the present" with direct reference to the conscious experience of being. I defined it as "activity, things happening". I thought you might agree with this because you had already said "the present is what is happening, occurring". But now I see that you think we need to qualify this with "the time" at which things are happening.

I really do not think that such a qualification would be useful, because "time" is a very misunderstood term, and referring directly to a term which bears a high level of uncertainty would produce a very unstable foundation for any following definitions. That is why I've been seeking to avoid the use of "time" in these definitions.

Unless we can agree on the starting definition, which would be the reference point for the following definitions, there is really no point in proceeding. You would simply say that I am using my free will to define terms however I please, and I am rendering these terms as unrecognizable. There is no point to that. Propositions are proposals, and proposals are useless unless accepted. So unless we can agree on the initial step, the principal proposition, there is no point to me pointing toward the higher steps. You need to accept the truth of the principal premise on its own merits, not by looking at what it might lead to.

Quoting Luke

My use of tense in "what did happen" (past) and in "what will happen" (future) in contrast to "what is happening" (present) clearly indicates that time is involved here.

You are demonstrating equivocation here. You switch from B-series "time" to A-series "time" when you make this equivalence, and that is equivocation. That's the usefulness of McTaggart's distinction, we cannot exchange these designators "what did happen", and "what will happen" with "past" and "future", and say that they both, equally imply "time", without an equivocation in the term "time". It requires two very distinct and incompatible conceptions of "time" to make this equivalence.

Therefore rather than indicating that time is involved, you are indicating that what you say is incoherent, relying on an equivocal notion of "time".

Furthermore, as I pointed out it is fundamentally unacceptable to exchange "future" with "what will happen". And, I believe that this difference is at the root of McTaggart's perception of the need to distinguish between A-series and B-series.

This ambiguity in "time" is the reason why we ought to avoid using "time" in our principal proposition. This will allow us to build up a conceptual structure based on the conscious experience of being present. Then we can produce a conception of time which is consistent, and unambiguous, rather than the equivocal use which you promote.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

There's an easy way to settle this dispute which is to provide your definitions of these terms without any reference to a concept of time. I've asked you for these definitions several times now. Are you ever going to provide them?
— Luke

I've given you the starting point, the way I would define "the present" with direct reference to the conscious experience of being. I defined it as "activity, things happening". I thought you might agree with this because you had already said "the present is what is happening, occurring". But now I see that you think we need to qualify this with "the time" at which things are happening.

Unless we can agree on the starting definition, which would be the reference point for the following definitions, there is really no point in proceeding.

I haven't asked you for a starting point; I've asked you for the definitions. To demonstrate that we can "define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time" - as you claim - then give us your definitions; show us.

I'm not interested in agreeing to a "starting definition" and arriving at the "final definition" together. I don't agree that these terms can be defined without any reference to time. If you can, then prove it. Otherwise, this is just a cop out.

Reply to Luke
I've offered many propositions as to how to proceed in making these definitions. I've gotten no agreement from you concerning this procedure. To offer a definition which would undoubtably be rejected because you've shown very clearly that you disagree with the direction I am taking, would only be foolish. Therefore I have no definitions to offer.

If you think this is a cop out then so be it. I think it's simply a recognition that productive discourse is impossible without some agreement, which we have none of. In other words, if we cannot work together to produce the required definitions (which we clearly cannot do), then any proposed definitions would be useless, because I cannot force you to accept what you've demonstrated you will willfully reject.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I've offered many propositions as to how to proceed in making these definitions. I've gotten no agreement from you concerning this procedure. To offer a definition which would undoubtably be rejected because you've shown very clearly that you disagree with the direction I am taking, would only be foolish. Therefore I have no definitions to offer.

You asserted that we can "define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time". I've asked you several times to produce such definitions. Until you produce them, there is nothing to reject. Unless you produce them, there is no support for your assertion.

Don't blame me for your failure to support your argument.

Quoting Luke

You asserted that we can "define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time". I've asked you several times to produce such definitions. Until you produce them, there is nothing to reject. Unless you produce them, there is no support for your assertion.

I've explained very clearly how "we" can define and understand these terms without reference to time. Obviously though, you will never be able to understand these terms without reference to time. Therefore I was wrong, and "we" cannot understand and define these terms without reference to time.

Quoting Luke

Don't blame me for your failure to support your argument.

I firmly believe that the blame is to be directed at you,. You have a very strong propensity toward willful misunderstanding. Denial and misrepresentation, which results in misunderstanding, without any real attempt to understand, is your modus operandi.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I've explained very clearly how "we" can define and understand these terms without reference to time.

I don't believe so. If that were true then you could simply define them. However, you have produced zero definitions of the terms "past", "present" or "future" that do not reference time. All you have offered is a "starting definition" that is only of "present", and which is not even a complete sentence. You have offered zero definitions (or even "starting definitions") of "past" or "future" that do not reference time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Obviously though, you will never be able to understand these terms without reference to time.

That's right, because the meanings of these terms are in reference to time. You have asserted otherwise but have failed to demonstrate it.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Don't blame me for your failure to support your argument.
— Luke

I firmly believe that the blame is to be directed at you,. You have a very strong propensity toward willful misunderstanding. Denial and misrepresentation, which results in misunderstanding, without any real attempt to understand, is your modus operandi.

What have I misunderstood, denied or misrepresented? You asserted:

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

We can discuss these concepts, and define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time.

All I have asked is for you to provide some examples of such definitions. You have failed to provide any examples and then blamed me for not helping you find some.

Since you disagree with me, are you going to help me to support my argument? I don't see why you won't given that you expect me to help to support your argument.

Instead of acknowledging and taking responsibility for your own failure to produce any examples to support your assertion, you criticise me for not helping you to produce those examples, or for simply not agreeing with your unsupported assertion without question. What a willingness to misunderstand!

Quoting Luke

All I have asked is for you to provide some examples of such definitions. You have failed to provide any examples and then blamed me for not helping you find some.

Luke, do you not even try to read my posts?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So now we're getting to the heart of the matter, your question of what does "present" mean, in the context of the conscious experience of being present. I would say that it means to be experiencing activity, things happening. And so this ought to be the defining feature of "the present", activity, things happening.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

So if you cannot dispel this idea, that "the present" must be defined in reference to "the time when...", instead of being defined with direct reference to the conscious experience of being present, then we will not be able to agree on anything here, nor could we make any progress in this discussion.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I've given you the starting point, the way I would define "the present" with direct reference to the conscious experience of being. I defined it as "activity, things happening". I thought you might agree with this because you had already said "the present is what is happening, occurring". But now I see that you think we need to qualify this with "the time" at which things are happening.

So, you have my stated definition of "the present", and as I also stated earlier, definitions of "past" and "future" ought to be produced in reference to "the present".

However, we clearly have no point of agreement concerning "the present", so I cannot make reference to a word which "we" do not have a consistent understanding of. Therefore any attempts to define "future" and "past" would be wasted effort. I'm sorry to say that unless you can accept "the present" as defined, the attempt at discourse has proven fruitless.

Reply to Metaphysician Undercover

Quoting Luke

All you have offered is a "starting definition" that is only of "present", and which is not even a complete sentence. You have offered zero definitions (or even "starting definitions") of "past" or "future" that do not reference time.

To give the “defining feature” of the present, or what the present should be defined “in reference to”, is not to give a definition. Also, you have made no attempt to define the past or the future without reference to time.

Reply to Luke
You are missing the point Luke. Obviously defining the terms without reference to time is not a problem, because a person can define terms any way one likes, even contradictory, or whatever. The issue is getting agreement on the definitions, consensus that the definitions are acceptable. If I could stipulate the definitions as dogma, and force your mind to understand and follow them in an unwavering manner, even if they were contradictory, then the problem would be solved. Right? That particular problem might be solved, but a much bigger problem would be created.

Now, you've demonstrated to me that it would be impossible for me to define the terms the way that I like, i.e. without reference to time, and solely referencing human experience, in a way which is acceptable to you. After many days of discussion, you have shown me that such definitions would be fundamentally contrary to your beliefs, and you are not willing to relinquish these beliefs, even for the sake of discussion. The discussion always turns to you equivocating your meanings of the terms with mine, in your attempt to say that mine are self-contradicting, or have some similar problem of incoherency. Therefore you have shown that it is impossible for you to dismiss your understanding of what these terms mean, to proceed solely from my premises, for the sake of discussion. Consequently, discussion cannot proceed.

Here's an example. I will propose the following definitions. I will define "present" as what is happening, activity which is occurring. Then, past gets defined as what has happened, activity which has occurred, and future is defined as what is possible to happen, activity which is possible. You will say "what has happened", in relation to "what is happening" implies temporal separation, and cannot be understood without reference to "time". Therefore you will insist that this does not define the terms without referencing time. But this would be your misunderstanding, your failure to dismiss your preconceived need to refer to time.

I will insist there is no need to refer to time, because I am keeping the definitions within the context of human experience, so we refer to memory, not time, to ground the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened". Then you will say 'but "memory" is not synonymous with "past"'. And this would only demonstrate your misunderstanding of how definitions work. Defining terms are not necessarily synonymous with the terms defined. In most cases the more specific is defined through reference to the more general ("human being" is defined with reference to "animal"). And you will continue to make ridiculous objections to my definitions, based on your preconceived meanings to those terms, without relinquishing those prejudices to start from new premises.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Obviously defining the terms without reference to time is not a problem, because a person can define terms any way one likes, even contradictory, or whatever.

Until this post, you had not defined any of the terms without reference to time; you had only provided the “defining feature” of the present or what the present should be defined “in reference to”.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Now, you've demonstrated to me that it would be impossible for me to define the terms the way that I like, i.e. without reference to time, and solely referencing human experience, in a way which is acceptable to you.

I have repeatedly asked you to provide a definition of "past", "present" or "future" without reference to time. Until this post, you had not offered any definitions. I could neither accept nor reject (or find acceptable or rejectable) something that you never offered.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Now, you've demonstrated to me that it would be impossible for me to define the terms the way that I like, i.e. without reference to time, and solely referencing human experience, in a way which is acceptable to you. After many days of discussion, you have shown me that such definitions would be fundamentally contrary to your beliefs, and you are not willing to relinquish these beliefs, even for the sake of discussion.

That's quite unfair. You never provided any "such definitions".

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Here's an example. I will propose the following definitions. I will define "present" as what is happening, activity which is occurring.

Thank you. Finally, a definition.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Then, past gets defined as what has happened, activity which has occurred, and future is defined as what is possible to happen, activity which is possible.

What meaning do you give to the past tense phrase "has happened"? What meaning do you give to the future tense phrase "to happen"?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

You will say "what has happened", in relation to "what is happening" implies temporal separation, and cannot be understood without reference to "time".

That's right.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I will insist there is no need to refer to time, because I am keeping the definitions within the context of human experience, so we refer to memory, not time, to ground the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened".

What is the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened"? Memory may "ground the difference", but what is the difference?

Quoting Luke

What meaning do you give to the past tense phrase "has happened"? What meaning do you give to the future tense phrase "to happen"?

As I said, meaning is given to these terms from the human experience of memory and anticipation. What has happened, "past", consists of things which might be remembered. What is possible to happen, "future" consists of things which might be anticipated.

Quoting Luke

What is the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened"? Memory may "ground the difference", but what is the difference?

As I said earlier, I believe that "the present", as what is happening, consists of a unity of what has happened (past), and "what is possible to happen" (future). The difference between "what has happened" and "what is happening", therefore, would be that "what is happening" consists not only of "what has happened" but it also contains some "what is possible to happen", as well.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I said, meaning is given to these terms from the human experience of memory and anticipation. What has happened, "past", consists of things which might be remembered. What is possible to happen, "future" consists of things which might be anticipated.

I asked what the phrases "has happened" and "to happen" mean. It is unclear whether you are providing the meanings of these phrases - what you think they mean - or whether you are telling me "what gives meaning to" these phrases. I don't think these are the same.

To be clear, are you saying that what "has happened" means what "might be remembered", and that what is "to happen" means "what might be anticipated"? Does this imply that if something is not remembered then it has not happened and if something is not anticipated then it will not happen? That is, is what has happened or what might happen limited to only what can be remembered or anticipated? In other words, is it impossible that there are events that have happened that we don't remember and events that might happen that we don't anticipate?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

As I said earlier, I believe that "the present", as what is happening, consists of a unity of what has happened (past), and "what is possible to happen" (future). The difference between "what has happened" and "what is happening", therefore, would be that "what is happening" consists not only of "what has happened" but it also contains some "what is possible to happen", as well.

This does not explain the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened".

To say that "what is happening" (present) consists of some of "what has happened" (past) and some of "what is possible to happen" (future) does not explain the difference between "what is happening" (present) and "what has happened" (past).

This only says that the present consists of some past and some future. I asked for the difference between the present and the past.

Quoting Luke

I asked what the phrases "has happened" and "to happen" mean. It is unclear whether you are providing the meanings of these phrases - what you think they mean - or whether you are telling me "what gives meaning to" these phrases. I don't think these are the same.

You asked me for 'my definitions', so this is exclusively what these words mean within the context of 'my definitions'.

Quoting Luke

o be clear, are you saying that what "has happened" means what "might be remembered", and that what is "to happen" means "what might be anticipated"?

You are taking "to happen" out of context. The definition is "what is possible to happen".

Quoting Luke

To be clear, are you saying that what "has happened" means what "might be remembered", and that what is "to happen" means "what might be anticipated"? Does this imply that if something is not remembered then it has not happened and if something is not anticipated then it will not happen? That is, is what has happened or what might happen limited to only what can be remembered or anticipated? In other words, is it impossible that there are events that have happened that we don't remember and events that might happen that we don't anticipate?

No, this is not a solipsist definition. Just because I do not remember it doesn't mean it has not happened. Someone else might remember it. So "memory" and "anticipation" describe these categories, but the use of "might" indicates that these qualifiers are not necessary conditions. They indicate the type of property being referred to. For example, "sound" could be defined as a wave pattern which "might be heard". Then the tree falling in the forest makes a "sound", even though no one hears it, under this definition.

Quoting Luke

This does not explain the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened".

To say that "what is happening" (present) consists of some of "what has happened" (past) and some of "what is possible to happen" (future) does not explain the difference between "what is happening" (present) and "what has happened" (past).

This only says that the present consists of some past and some future. I asked for the difference between the present and the past.

Yes it does tell you the difference between past and present. The present is not solely past, as past is, it consists also of some future. I am informing you of the type of difference I am talking about. Why can't you accept this? If you asked me what is the difference between water and a solution, I would say that the solution consists of both water and something else dissolved within it. It informs you of the type of difference I am talking about. Why can't you accept this?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

What meaning do you give to the past tense phrase "has happened"? What meaning do you give to the future tense phrase "to happen"?
— Luke

As I said, meaning is given to these terms from the human experience of memory and anticipation. What has happened, "past", consists of things which might be remembered. What is possible to happen, "future" consists of things which might be anticipated.
— Metaphysician Undercover

I asked what the phrases "has happened" and "to happen" mean. It is unclear whether you are providing the meanings of these phrases - what you think they mean - or whether you are telling me "what gives meaning to" these phrases. I don't think these are the same.
— Luke

You asked me for 'my definitions', so this is exclusively what these words mean within the context of 'my definitions'.

You spoke about what gives these terms their meaning, and what the past and future "consist of", rather than what the terms "has happened" and "to happen" mean.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

o be clear, are you saying that what "has happened" means what "might be remembered", and that what is "to happen" means "what might be anticipated"? — Luke

You are taking "to happen" out of context. The definition is "what is possible to happen".

My question was: what does "to happen" mean within that definition.

If I accept your definition of the present as "what is happening", then how do "what is possible to happen" and "what has happened" differ from "what is happening" in a way that is not in relation to time?

Memory and anticipation are mental events. Do you also consider "what is happening" to be a mental event?

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

is it impossible that there are events that have happened that we don't remember and events that might happen that we don't anticipate?
— Luke

No, this is not a solipsist definition. Just because I do not remember it doesn't mean it has not happened. Someone else might remember it. So "memory" and "anticipation" describe these categories, but the use of "might" indicates that these qualifiers are not necessary conditions.

I asked about what we (humans) remember or anticipate, not just one person. But if your answer is still "no" to this question, then I don't see how you could say that memory grounds the difference between what is happening and what has happened. If memory grounds the difference, then the only events that have happened are limited to what humans remember. Likewise (presumably), the only events that might possibly happen are limited to what humans anticipate. I'm fairly certain there are events that have happened that no humans can remember and events that might possibly happen that no humans could anticipate.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Yes it does tell you the difference between past and present. The present is not solely past, as past is, it consists also of some future. I am informing you of the type of difference I am talking about. Why can't you accept this?

Because you cannot simply assume I know what you mean by these terms that you claim have no relation to time. That would be question begging. I know the difference in meaning between the terms "past", "present" and "future" in relation to time, and I know difference in meaning between the terms "what has happened", "what is happening", and "what will happen" in relation to time. But if you're telling me that none of these terms is defined in relation to time, then you have some work to do to explain their meanings and the differences between them that are not in relation to time.

You say that the past "consists of things which might be remembered", and you define the present as "what is happening, activity which is occurring". It is unclear to me just how these differ, if at all, when they have no relation to time.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

If you asked me what is the difference between water and a solution, I would say that the solution consists of both water and something else dissolved within it. It informs you of the type of difference I am talking about. Why can't you accept this?

Saying that a solution is partly water tells me what they have in common; that a solution is water plus something else. This does not explain what a solution is or what water is or how these two differ from each other, other than very superficially saying that they are different.