Time Isn't Real
First, let's come to an agreement on what it means to say time is real. I'm unsure how to word this but I'll give it my best shot. Here goes...
Time is real if and only if it's a an aspect of reality itself in that it's not, as some claim, a concept "invented" by our minds to make sense of our world. In other words, time, to be real, must be so in the same sense that space is real and space, as we all know, is not something cooked up in our minds for it's there, out there, measurable, occupiable, and most importantly, minds are incapable of affecting its properties, something that should've been possible if space is an "invention" of the mind. That's that.
Second, regarding time, it lacks a proper definition - everybody knows that. Nevertheless, we'll have to work with what can only be our intuitions on the subject. One that I'm going to employ in this discussion is the tripartite division of time into 1. Past (before) 2. Present (now) and 3. Future (after). Of particular importance is the past (before) in the sense that for any given moment in time, we can always inquire "and before that?" This line of questioning is an ad infinitum process as must be clear to you by now.
If so, time must be extend to infinity into the past for there seems to be no real reason, at least I can't think of any, not to ask, "and before that?" Now, if time is real then it implies an infinite past but the universe is in the present moment as I write this. In other words, the universe has experienced, gone through, infinite time. But, infinity can't be experienced for, by its very nature, it can't be completed and if the past is infinite as it must be (if time is real) then that would imply a completed infinity. This only because we assumed time is real, an aspect of reality the mind didn't invent. Ergo, time is not real.
What say you?
Time is real if and only if it's a an aspect of reality itself in that it's not, as some claim, a concept "invented" by our minds to make sense of our world. In other words, time, to be real, must be so in the same sense that space is real and space, as we all know, is not something cooked up in our minds for it's there, out there, measurable, occupiable, and most importantly, minds are incapable of affecting its properties, something that should've been possible if space is an "invention" of the mind. That's that.
Second, regarding time, it lacks a proper definition - everybody knows that. Nevertheless, we'll have to work with what can only be our intuitions on the subject. One that I'm going to employ in this discussion is the tripartite division of time into 1. Past (before) 2. Present (now) and 3. Future (after). Of particular importance is the past (before) in the sense that for any given moment in time, we can always inquire "and before that?" This line of questioning is an ad infinitum process as must be clear to you by now.
If so, time must be extend to infinity into the past for there seems to be no real reason, at least I can't think of any, not to ask, "and before that?" Now, if time is real then it implies an infinite past but the universe is in the present moment as I write this. In other words, the universe has experienced, gone through, infinite time. But, infinity can't be experienced for, by its very nature, it can't be completed and if the past is infinite as it must be (if time is real) then that would imply a completed infinity. This only because we assumed time is real, an aspect of reality the mind didn't invent. Ergo, time is not real.
What say you?
Comments (42)
Actually, the ordering described here as "first" and "second" is temporal rather than spatial. The one tree is first and the other is second because that is the temporal order in which the person encountered them, according to the person's approach from a particular direction. "First" and "second" is always based in a temporal priority, and can never be based in a "spatial dimension" because such a designation (first and second) with only spatial reference would be completely arbitrary, or subjective, depending on the perspective.
There is a problem which manifests from the modern tendency to portray time as a spatial dimension, and that is that temporal priority becomes an arbitrary, or subjective designation. You can see this in Kenosha Kid's threads where it is argued that time is reversible. Modeling time as a dimension of space robs us of the capacity for an objective concept of "priority" because such a designation become arbitrary, rather than being based in an objective passing of time.
Quoting TheMadFool
There is no sense in asking "in which dimension is the order/sequence of the ripening of the fruits taking place?", because dimensions are the property of space, and as described above, the concept of "space" does not provide us with the principles required for an objective concept of "ordering". Therefore we must allow that temporal ordering, and "priority" in general, cannot be properly conceptualized if we think of time as a dimension of space.
I was approaching it from the perspective of a queue, a line, as it were. Two trees would always form a line, a straight one but that's beside the point. The two trees can be viewed to be a sequence in terms of relative distance from X, the closer one being first and the farther one being second. A queue, a line of trees?! Ordering in space?! What are your thoughts on that? Of course it's also true that the sequence is temporal too but that wouldn't be quite so apparent to X as he has no real reason, no necessity rather, to think of time at this point and spatial ordering is the low hanging fruit, something rather obvious, perhaps too obvious to miss or overlook.
Too, there's a sense in which the two trees are at the same time just as a queue can form at 12:00 AM but there's a first person and a second person in the queue. I suppose the idea is to force X to think about an aspect of reality different from space.
At the second, fruiting tree, X has to make sense of the fruits' condition as the days progress. Space is no longer available to him as a context for the tree and the fruits haven't changed their positions. X is forced to think of an alternative - another way to make sense of the sequence: first, green; second, red. He can't do that in spatial terms, obviously, and so, he, in that moment, gets the first glimpse of the concept of time. X realizes, as it were, that the sequence is in another aspect, if you have issues with the concept of dimensions, of reality.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Care to expand on this a bit? What means you by "arbitrary", "subjective", and "objective passing of time"? As far as I'm concerned, all I want to achieve is to construct a plausible theory on the origins of the concept of time. I think secondary features like "subjectivity", "objectivity" come later and can be safely ignored. Unless, of course, you feel that they're relevant in which case you'd need to give me more to go on.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Definition of "dimension" (Merriam-Webster): (mathematics): any of the fundamental units (as of mass, length, or time) on which a derived unit is based
"Time" is real, in the sense that the concept exists in human imagination, within the context of Reality. But Time is not out-there in physical 3D space. It exists only in the fourth dimension of Mind-space. What is "out there" in reality is meta-physical Change. And Time is simply an artificial measurement system for recording Changes in memory. So, whether Time is Real or Imaginary depends on how inclusive your definition of Reality is. Does it include immaterial Minds? Is your personal mind "an aspect of reality"? Dude, are you real?? :joke:
The Illusion of Time : To many physicists, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real. At the deepest foundations of nature, time is not a primitive, irreducible element or concept required to construct reality. The idea that time is not real is counterintuitive.
https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html
Mindspace : The residence of one's state of dudeness, or the place in which this essence is located.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mindspace
The point I was making is that with only spatial reference, which tree is first and which is second, is completely arbitrary. You might add an additional spatial point, and say that relative to this point, one tree is closer and the other further, but this does not justify handing priority to one over the other. That the closer one is "first" and the further is "second" is not justified from a spatial perspective.
Ask you why the closer is first and the further is second. Maybe you can get to the closer one before you can get to the further, but that means your designation of "first" is based in time.
Quoting TheMadFool
Again, "a first person and a second person in the queue" is a temporal reference. It refers either to the temporal order by which they assembled, or the temporal order by which they will be served.
Quoting TheMadFool
Imagine your two trees at two different spatial locations. To say that one is the first and the other is the second is a completely arbitrary designation. If you add a perspective, and say that you base first and second on this perspective, then your designation is subjective. The only thing which can make your designation of first and second into a true objective determination, is to provide a real, objective passing of time, and base "first and second" in this passing of time.
To look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective. Our perspective is always the present. And from the perspective of the present, the future is always before the past. Here's an example. Today is our perspective, and this is November eighth. Tomorrow is November ninth, and it is in the future. November ninth is in the future before it is in the past. Likewise, all things are always in the future before they are in the past, so the future is really before the past. How something will be is always prior to how it actually has been.
It is only when we remove the present as the proper temporal perspective, and place things in a temporal order, like a chronological order, saying that one thing is before the other, in that chronological order, that we produce the illusion that a past event is before a future event. But this is a manufactured model, and it is faulty in that sense, because it does not portray the true relation of past to future, by portraying the existence of the event in the future as prior to its existence in the past
Quoting TheMadFool
When the present is established as the proper temporal reference point, it doesn't make sense to say that there could be an infinity of past time. This is because there must always be a future before there is a past. Time cannot pass, and create a past, unless there is future which is ready to move into the past. So prior to there being any past time, there must have necessarily been a future. Something must have been available to move into the past. This implies that it is impossible for the past to be infinite because it is necessary that there was always a future prior to any past. Therefore the past is limited in this way.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Nice idea you have here although I am confused about a couple things. Would the proposition above require the existence of an origin to be valid? In other words, would it hold in an always-existing reality (no origin AND no end)? What about cyclic time? Would the proposition hold in a scenario in which what once was will be again?
I don't think an "always-existing reality" makes any sense from the perspective I described. If it is necessary that there is always a future before there is a past, this implies a point in time when there was a future, but no past. This would indicate that no time had passed at that point, thus signifying a beginning of time.
To say that if there is a future, there is necessarily a past, or vise versa, if there is a past there is necessarily a future, is a conclusion not supported by any logic. So we must allow for the logical possibility of a future without a past, and a past without a future, which would represent the beginning and ending of time. Now, when we bring this into the context of real physical existence, we see that any physical event has a future (is possible) before it has a past (is actual), as I described above. So putting time in relation to physical existence in general, we can say that physical existence had a future before it had a past, and this would represent what we apprehend as the beginning of time.
The allegation that "to look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective" is important as far as I'm concerned. I'll ask you a simple question based on dates, your contribution to the discussion. Today is 9/11/2020. Yesterday was 8/11/2020 and tomorrow will be 10/11/2020. What was the date before 9/11/2020? You wouldn't say 10/11/2020 (tomorrow) is the date before 9/11/2020, right? You would say 8/11/2020 but then 8/11/2020 is in the past and so, I conclude, "to look at the past as before..." isn't a mistaken perspective.
To drive home the point note the common expression "the day before". Today is Monday where I am and If I say, "I ate broccoli the day before" on which day did I eat broccoli? The correct answer is Sunday, I ate broccoli on Sunday, but Sunday is in the past; in other words, "to look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective" is a dubious claim.
What is interesting though is why you thought "to look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective"?
Can you give me more to go on?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Read above.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I'm going to focus on the last underlined statement, "...it is impossible for the past to be infinite because it is necessary that there was always a future prior to any past". What makes you say that? The most reasonable interpretation of this would be your claim is that we've only experienced a finite part of the future and so the past can't be infinite. But that, as it turns out, is based on an unfounded assumption viz. that the part of the future we've experienced is finite. How do you know that? :chin:
Does the arbitrariness of X's point of view somehow prevent him from developing the concept of space in this setting? :chin:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Really? If a queue forms at 12:00 Noon exact. How are you going to order it temporally? To make it clearer consider this. Imagine a computer program that displays 4 balls on the screen simultaneously, say at 4:00 AM. How are you going to order this temporally?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Again, the arbitrariness is inconsequential to X's first contact with the concepts of space and time.
If X knows the green fruits will be good to eat in a few days, and that his supplies will last him roughly the same length of time, then doesn’t he already have a concept of time?
What you seem to be referring to in terms of first and second is yet another dimension: value/potential. This is where early math begins: an awareness of variability in order/sequence of ‘first’ and ‘second’ trees according to values of distance, time or potential relative to X on his journey through the savannah.
It would mean that. However, consider the possibility that the ripe fruits were on one tree and the unripe ones on another. He could've gotten the idea that the red ones are tastier than the green ones from that and since the variable space hasn't been controlled for, there's nothing to stop X from inferring the ripening of fruits was a non-spatial phenomenon.
As for the knowledge that X's supplies will last a few days, again, space becomes a confounding factor - is it the different loci he occupies the cause of his hunger? As long as there's change in space, X will lack the motivation to think about time.
Sorry - your use of ‘experience’ and ‘yet’ implied an existing awareness of time.
I know I’m being nit-picky, but I think awareness of time is a function of interoception. For a human to be unaccustomed to thinking of time as distinct from space, they would need to have been unconscious for most of their life, I would think.
No problem. I'll get back to you later!
It implies an existing awareness of time for me. Consider me as an omniscient narrator, a literary device I'm sure you're familiar with.
That this is the conventional way of describing these things does not mean that it is not a mistaken way. To be understood I speak according to convention, but I do not necessarily agree that the conventions which I follow for the sake of being understood, provide a correct description.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, I agree that it is a dubious claim, but one I believe. Are we not moving in time? And, when we move we say that what is in front of us is before us. What lies before me is the rest of today and tomorrow, and what lies behind me is yesterday.
You look at the order of days as something independent from yourself, and independent from the very thing which creates the existence of days (which is the passing of time, at the present), and you assign a direction to that order which dictates that one day is before another. That is the convention, and I will readily agree that to be understood in this world, I will say that yesterday was the day before today. But I think this is a misrepresentation of how time really appears to us.
Consider that all existing days are in the past. We can speak about future days, but they really have no existence, having not come into being yet. So we can say that things which have actual existence (like all the days of the past) are coming into being at the present. Future days have not come to be yet so they have no real existence. Now, the past begins at the present. The most recent day is yesterday, so it ought to be the first day in our count of days. What we call "the day before yesterday" ought to be counted as the second day, and so on. Remember, it is us who is counting the days, so we ought to count them in the order that they appear to us, starting with the day which is present to us. How would it even be possible to start counting days from some undefined, indefinite point in the past? In order for us to have a real count of days, we need a real starting point, like today, and if we start counting from today, yesterday is counted as the first full day, and it is before the next day, which is further into the past, and after that there are many days in the past.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think I explained why I say that. But I'll try again in a slightly different way. There might have been a point in time, at which time there was future but no past. This is what we would commonly call the beginning of time, a point at which no time has yet passed. But if time is passing, there is necessarily a future. Since time is passing, then it is impossible that there was ever a past with no future. This means that future is necessary for the existence of time, but past is contingent on the existence of time. And, it is impossible that a contingent thing could be infinite because it is limited by its causes. An infinite thing has no such causes. Therefore it is impossible that the past is infinite.
Not at all, but "first" and "second" are not parts of a spatial concept. Nor do they have any spatial reference.
Quoting TheMadFool
A queue takes time to form, and the first person there (temporally) is the first in the queue. Otherwise you have a mob showing up at exactly twelve, each person insisting on having the first spot. That is not a queue.
Quoting TheMadFool
But arbitrariness is consequential to demonstrating that your assignment of "first" and "second" is faulty..
I question whether a future is necessary and not merely sufficient for a past.
Quoting Gnomon
Right out of the 1960s, man! :joke:
It's necessary, and that is because time cannot pass unless there is a future. A future is required and therefore necessary in order for time to pass And, there cannot be a past unless time passes. Therefore a future is necessary for a past.
What this indicates to me, is that the force, or cause of time passing is in the future. The way I look at it is that the future is always being forced upon us. We cannot stop time or prevent the future from continuously forcing itself upon us. And it is a force which would, if we let it, annihilate us, as demonstrated by the law of entropy. What we do is attempt to cope with the future, or even make the best of it by planning and shaping events as they come at us out of the future, thus we may actually use this force to our advantage. However, it is a battle for each of us to stay present, and as time passes the future continues in its act of forcing us toward the past, so much so that all mortals are eventually forced into the past.
If it were possible for something to stay present forever this would deny the necessity of the future. But this is not possible, because the future is necessary.
I have my doubts regarding the matter of referring to the past with "before" but the fact is, at least I think it is, conventions come to be usually when there are good reasons for them. Granted some conventions are completely arbitrary e.g. handshaking instead of a namaste but others, usually those that need some rationale to be accepted, are not.
Let's go over it together to see if we can come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Why did you say that the future comes before the past? To me, the answer to that question is simple: The future has to first become the present and only then, second, can it become the past. So far so good.
Imagine that, on this day 10/11/2020, the two of us plan two events: event 1 on 11/11/2020 and event 2 on 12/11/2020. As of now, these two events are in the future and not in the past meaning you're right about the future coming before the past. There's no doubt that event 1 on 11/11/2020 will be experienced first and that event 2 on 12/11/2020 will be experienced second. Right? Say, three days go by and our plans for the events have taken place. We've arrived at the date 13/11/2020, the two events we planned are now in the past. We already know that event 1 took place before event 2 and that was the precisely the same sequence they were in when they were in the future. How will you answer the question, "what event happened before event 2 on 12/11/2020?" Surely, there's no valid answer other than "event 1 on 11/11/2020". But event 1 is in the past. In short, "before" can refer to the past.
This point of this small exercise is to show you that my use of the word "before" is specific to the temporal sequence of events and that your use of the word "before" is about the three divisions of time viz. past, present and future.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
My thinking is slightly different. Sticking to your bewildering theory, it can't be that we've experienced an infinite future through many moments of presents because infinity can't be completed. Ergo, the past has to be finite i.e. time has to have a beginning since we could've experienced only a finite amount of the future.
The first mile was tough - the road was terrible, and it rained. We got our break on the second mile - the road was smooth, sunshine and fresh mountain air.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Ok, if you want to go at it this way, what happens when more than one person arrive to join the queue at exactly the same moment. There's an ordering but it can't be temporal.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Once something is arbitrary, there really can't be a fault in it unless you insist on being objective. Spatial objectivity in the sense you seem to be interested in is impossible for positions in space as spatial positions are relative/arbitrary.
Yes there are reasons for such conventions, they describe the way things appear to us. But sometimes they are based in common misunderstanding. We say that the sun comes up, and the sun goes down, but really the earth is spinning around and around. So the convention, is a convenient description of how things appear to us, but it is based in a misunderstanding. The convention has us saying something other than what the reality of the situation is.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, let's say that anything which is going to come to be in the past, must first be in the future, as a possibility, before it comes to be in the past.
Quoting TheMadFool
We cannot move to this proposition. Any event in the future is indefinite, it is a planned event, so we cannot assign one as necessarily before the other, because neither are necessary. A future event, as a possibility has a completely different status, and because it has not come to exist in time, it cannot be given a definite temporal order. It may be the case that event 1 would exclude the possibility of event 2, and so on and so forth, so the order we give these possible events is an order based in our intentions, a priority of importance, rather than a temporal order.
Quoting TheMadFool
This is exactly the faulty perspective I am talking about. When we look at the two possible future events, one is closer than the other temporally. When we look at those same two events as they have come to be, and are now in the past, they have switched places, the opposite one is now closer. This inversion is a true fact of reality which cannot be neglected. The sequence is not the same. Looking backward in time, and looking forward in time is similar to the inversion created by looking into a mirror. We cannot say that things in the mirror are the same as they are without the mirror. You could create a system of imaginary numbers or something like that in an attempt to justify your claim, but it will not work out, because there are differences which cannot be accounted for.
Quoting TheMadFool
There is no such thing as "the temporal sequence of events". That is just a manufactured description which is inadequate as a description of reality, just like "the sun comes up" is an inadequate description. From our perspective, event 1 is proposed as before event 2, when they are possible events in the future, as closer, but when they are actual events, in the past, event 2 is before event1, as closer.
Thanks for the tidbit about the misconception regarding the sun going "up" and "down". It'll be useful to me at some point I'm sure. However, as a point of clarification, the use of the word "before" with regard to time isn't a "mistaken perspective". This doesn't mean I don't accept that all things have to be in future before they're in the past. Just think back to a time when you had the pleasure of attending a series of events - remember to numerically sequence them (dates will do fine) - and ask yourself "what happened [I]before[/i]
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
:chin:
Today is 10/11/2020. The following dates are in the future: 11/11/2020; 12/11/2020; 13/11/2020. Are you saying you don't know what the date will be tomorrow? :chin:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
A sequence is numerical. Every point of time in the future is sequenced i.e. ordered in terms of which ones you will encounter first, second, third and so on. Say you've experienced a series of events in a certain order. Once these have been experienced, does their order - the sequence - change in the sense that the first, second, third, so on swap positions on the timeline? To illustrate, in the year 1999, the Y2K bug was in 2000, and 9/11 was in 2001, both in the future. Right now, it's 2020, two decades have passed. Is there any confusion regarding when the Y2K bug was projected to occur and when 9/11 took place? Are you sure that "the sequence is not the same"?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What are clocks, calendars, diaries, etc?
Let's not get bogged down in this, what I feel, is just a minor issue. Let's agree to disagree.
What I'm interested in is your theory of time. You said a couple of things - especially the part where you said that there has to be a future for there to be a past - that were very thought-provoking. I'd like to hear more of it if that's ok with you.
The future and the past are just figments of the imagination and a kind of tool that we use in order to make since of the change that we see take place in the world
So in a since it is are brains way of understanding why things change .
So this is why we are convinced that time is real because we "see it" in everything around us
However just because we see it doesn't mean that what we see is in fact what we label it to be.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Past without a future = the ending of time.
The ending of time could be described as a point in time with no future, as you said. However, if there is no future beyond this point, this point cannot ever become past, for it would require a point in time beyond itself to become such a thing. Anything that is past was present at some point in time. Therefore, for something to be present, it would also require the future. This point at the end of time would then not be able to ever be present without a future beyond it; that is, it would never exist. If there is an end of time, any point before that could not exist since there is no "ultimate" future that supports their existence. Therefore, if the future is required for the past to exist, there is an origin of time but there is not an end of time. What do you think?
As I said, I completely agree that this is the convention, and I will readily speak about such a sequence, and use "before" and "after" in this way, just like I will readily speak about the sun coming up and the sun going down. What I am saying is that I think that the convention is wrong.
It's pointless for you to keep insisting that this is the conventional use of "before" and "after", and trying to get me to recognize this fact, because I already fully recognize and accept that this is the convention. What you need to do is provide an argument concerning the nature of time which supports the convention, to show me that the convention is correct. I have already provided you with the counter argument. So like my analogy, if you really believe that it is the sun which comes up and goes down, as the conventional way of speaking says, then provide an argument for this, rather than just insisting that it is the convention.
Quoting TheMadFool
No, I'm saying that past days have actual existence, as events which have actually occurred in the past, while future days have no actual existence, having not yet occurred. So future days ought not be put into a sequence with past days. Because of this fundamental difference between them, they need to be categorized separately. Would you categorize things which you have, with things which you want?
Quoting TheMadFool
OK, I'll try to stay on track, but the mind wanders.
Quoting Daniel
Right, and isn't this in concordance with your experience? The indication we get from science is that time had a beginning. And, time is still proceeding so definitely there is no end in time. The issue you seem to be questioning is whether or not an end in time is possible.
Quoting Daniel
I think I agree with what you say here. It is consistent with my conclusion that the future is necessary. What I think is evident, is what I was describing in the earlier post to jgill, is that the future is what is responsible for what we call the passing of time, or the flow of time. So as odd as it might seem (I'll pass this one to The Mad Fool to figure out), the "origin" of time is the future, because it is what causes the existence of time.
The future is out of the grasp of empirical knowledge because it is in no way experienced by the senses, while the past has been sensed. So empirical knowledge is strictly of the past, while knowledge of the future is speculative in nature. Suppose that we as human beings occupy a perspective called the present. The future is always ahead of us, imperceptible from our perspective, but the cause of all that we perceive as happening at the present. We could think of this future analogously as a film projector. What we see, and the world we live in is the projection, which is projected from the future. The projecting mechanism is always in the future relative to us, moving along in time, just like us, but just in front of us, so it is imperceptible to us, and all that we perceive is the projection.
However, there is a little twist of reality which we need to come to grips with, and that is our capacity to interfere with the projection, through our free willing actions. So there must be a part of us which partakes in the projection mechanism itself, such that we can actively interfere with, and influence what is being projected, to an extent.
What would constitute the end of time? The projection mechanism would stop doing what it is doing. Of course this is possible, but only because the necessity which I've granted to the future is derived from our experience of the present. And our concept of time is based in this experience of the present. So as soon as we start talking about a future which is outside of our experience of time and presence, then we are free to entertain any logical possibilities which we want, concerning this future which is not constrained by the principles we derive from empirical (sense) knowledge.
Yeah, this is basically it.
and fucking references?! This guy grabs by the balls.
Hi!
How do you not see that first and second are a temporal reference in this example? The "first mile" is the one prior in time to the second mile.
Quoting TheMadFool
It is temporal, because it's an ordering of who will get served first in time and second in time, and so on.
Quoting TheMadFool
This I agree with, and that is why we look to time for ordering, rather than space, it provides us with objectivity.
I've given it my best shot. If that doesn't convince you then I don't know what will. I'll try again. By the way I'm using dates, an aspect of time you were so kind to introduce into the discussion. Here's why "before" to refer to the past is not a mistaken perspective.
Imagine today is 1 Jan 2021. The day following that is 2 Jan 2021 and the day following that is 3 Jan 2021, and so on and so forth. First things first, we have to agree on the sequence/order of the dates: basically, we have to concur that if dates are given a numerical sequence then they will be experienced in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...and so on. Said differently, the date 1 Jan 2021 comes before the date 2 Jan 2021 and that date comes before 3 Jan 2021... Are we on the same page here?
If we are then imagine now that you're living through the month of January 2021. A few days go by and you've now arrived at the date 4 Jan 2021. What date was before 4 Jan 2021? Pause a bit and go back to what we've agreed on viz. the sequence of dates and that Jan 1 2021 comes before 2 Jan 2021 and that comes before 3 Jan 2021 and this date (3 Jan 2021) comes before 4 Jan 2021. You have to answer the question "what date was before 4 Jan 2021?" with "3 Jan 2021" but 3 Jan 2021 is in the past and, as we've found out, it's perfectly reasonable to refer to 3 Jan 2021 as the date before 4 Jan 2021. The bottom line is this: given a sequence of numbers, and dates are that, you have to ask yourself "what comes before a date x?" Surely, the date x - 1, right? But, this is obvious, the date x - 1 is in the past.
Just so you know, you're perfectly correct in saying that the future is before the past. Every event must first be in the future, second become the present and only after that, third, drift away into the past.
Notice the difference between our two points of view. You're talking about the sequence in which we experience the three natural divisions of time viz. past, present, and future. It's correct as far as I can tell that the future comes before the present. My point is that you order the events that will occur - those that are in the future - by assigning them ordinal numbers such as first, second, third, and so on. If ordered thus, it's obvious that you'll experience the said events in the sequence first, second, third, and so on. Allowing that these events are experienced, let them flow through the present into the past and suppose that you're now at the fourth event. At this point ask yourself, "what event occurred before this moment, this moment when I'm experiencing the fourth event?" Obviously, the answer is the third event which we know is in the past. In short, it's ok to refer to the past with the word "before".
And that's all she wrote.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
:ok:Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You mean to say that calendars are bogus? People seem to plan events with calendars and excepting the odd contingency, their plans seem fairly well executed. I don't see how that's possible if the future weren't sequenced as you seem to be claiming.
Too, your point was the future becomes the past. You'll have to explain to me how things changed so radically between the two that they're, as per your claims, no longer comparable in any sense of that word. To my reckoning, the sequence in which events occurred in the future must be preserved in the past and they are, right? :chin:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Wander some more. Tell me what you find.
Also prior in space. That's the point. If a particular event or phenomena can be contextualized in more than one way, there's no compulsion to think of alternatives. Space being a more immediate experience than time, if it were X that were riding his cycle on that road, X would've no need to consider the temporal aspect of his experience, space being a more familiar, a more direct, a more obvious notion.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Ok. I'll agree with you on this one - the queue-sequence is temporal with respect to the time each person in the queue gets served. But, is there a spatial sequence as well with respect to the food counter?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I still haven't figured out the reason for your insistence on bringing to the discussion the notions of arbitrariness and objectivity. To me, these ideas comes into play only once there's something to be objective/arbitrary about. First the notion of space needs to be apprehended and only after that does it matter whether it's objective or arbitray unless you mean to say that the arbitrariness of X's experience invalidates the very idea that he can form a concept of space. That you'll have to explain how. Thank you.
It is not "also prior in space", that's the point that you are not getting. The "first mile" is the one that you traverse first in time and is called "first" because of that. If, somehow your spatial existence allowed you to traverse the other mile, which was further away, first in time, then you would call that other mile the "first mile". But the nature of spatial-temporal existence does not allow you start at the furthest away mile, so the closer mile is called "first". But it is not called "first" because it is closer spatially, it is called "first" because it is closer temporally.
Further, I do not see how you can say that space is "a more immediate experience than time". We experience the passing of time internally, what Kant called the internal a priori intuition, while we apprehend space as external, so Kant designated it as the external a priori intuition. Being apprehended internally, while space is apprehended as external, indicates that time is more immediate than space
Quoting TheMadFool
There is such a thing as a spatial sequence, but as I argued already, it is always arbitrary, being created from a subjective perspective. Defining your sequence as relative to the food counter is that arbitrary subjective perspective.
Here's some other examples. Consider the numbers between one and ten. The phrase "the numbers between one and ten" specifies no particular order, so you could give these numbers any order. We would commonly order them by the quantity signified. But ordering according to quantity does not stipulate whether we start at ten, and count down, or start at one and count up. This is the problem with spatial ordering, we can see a pattern in space, but nothing distinguishes the start from the end, except an arbitrary designation (the food counter in your example). Then, if we attempt to give reason for using that particular starting point, ask why is this the starting point rather than something else, objectify it, then we must refer to temporal relations. We start at one when we count because we need to have one (temporally prior) before we can have ten. You order relative to the food counter because that's where the person will be first in time to be served.
Here's another example to consider. Suppose we start at zero. We can count upward, into the positive integers, or we could count downward into the negative. You might think that counting forward and counting backward are the exact same thing, in reverse of one another, but there is a problem. Counting forward is to count some sort of actual things, things we have, while counting backward is to negate actual things. If we start at zero, and begin to negate things, we are negating things which we do not actually have. But then when we carry out operations, and multiply two negative numbers, and the convention is to have a positive number. Well that's a huge problem, we count things we do not actually have, multiply them together and come up with things we actually have. So the mathematicians have introduced imaginary numbers as an attempt to resolve this problem, but it doesn't really resolve the issue, which is the difference between counting things we have and things we do not have. It doesn't resolve the problem because it doesn't provide the temporal reference required to objectify the ordering.
Quoting TheMadFool
There is something to be objective/arbitrary about, and that is your designation of "first" and "second", your ordering. In the op you named the one tree first, and the other tree second, thereby handing them an order. You seem to think that your ordering can be justified spatially, when I've been telling you that such an order with only spatial reference is completely arbitrary, so your use of first and second can only be justified (objectified) through reference to time.
Quoting TheMadFool
Sure, but confusing space and time, or conflating them together does not allow you to properly apprehend "the notion of space". You assign attributes of time (priority and order) to space, and you come up with a notion of space which is wrong, and therefore prevents you from proceeding.
I worded that wrongly. Do forgive the unnecessary diversion. I meant to say that as it is temporally sequenced, it is also spatially sequenced. That's all and that possibility - spatial sequence - being alive and kicking in the scenario I described and space being a more immediate experience - it's kinda in your face, or, if you prefer, sticks out like a sore thumb - and thus, space being more noticeable than time, I suggested that X, if he's the one riding along that road, would feel no necessity for looking at the temporal aspect of his journey. That's what you seem to be ignoring.
If this doesn't convince you think of children...which concept do you think comes to them more readily - space or time? They seem to be able to handle space easily and before time, which has to be taught to them and, from my experience with my own daughter, clocks are a mystery to children. I'll say no more. Please reconsider your position on the matter. If you still find something wrong with what I'm saying, let's just agree to disagree. Thank you.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
As far as I can tell, you're conflating the notions of arbitrary with relativity. All sequences must be/are relative in the sense that we can choose an origin, the beginning, the start and that beginning, start or point of origin can be anywhere in space. Arbitrariness has a connotation - that of being false/mistaken in some sense - that isn't applicable in the context of my post.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Where is the confusion in two trees being separated by a distance in space and two states of a fruit being separated by a duration?
That said, I do agree that if something can be contextualized in both space and time, there'll be no compulsion to consider the more difficult alternative viz. time.
I will not discuss this anymore. Thank you for your time.
No, we're not on the same page at all, you're missing the point. If today is Jan 1 2021, then Jan 2 2021 is not existent, it has not yet happened, and therefore it is not a day which can be counted. The only days which can be counted are the days of the past, the real days which have occurred. So we start with Jan1, and since it is present, not completed we can assign 0 to it, as the starting point. After this, is the first day which has occurred, Dec 31 and the second, Dec 30, etc.. Therefore in our ordering of the days, Jan 1 2021 is prior to Dec 31 2020.
Let's assume that there are imaginary future days, as you suggest, Jan 2, Jan 3, etc.. Since our count of real existent days extends from the present (0), in one direction, into the past, we can count from the present into the future, imaginary days, by assigning -1 to Jan 2, -2 to Jan3, etc. This way we have a consistent way of counting days which recognizes the difference between past days and future days, the future days being imaginary, non-existent things.
Quoting TheMadFool
See, your way of sequencing the days, described here is faulty, because it does not allow for the difference between past days which have really happened, and future days which are completely imaginary. And you cannot say that you rely on this faulty sequencing method because we do not have the means to distinguish between real days and imaginary days, in our count, because we do. As I described, we count real things which we have (the days of the past) with the use of positive numbers, and we count imaginary things, which we do not have (the days of the future) with negative numbers.
Quoting TheMadFool
The problem is that future events are possible events, and the order which we assign to them is just the order that we think that they ought to occur in. There is no guarantee that they will pass in the order given, and something or someone might act to change the order assigned. So we cannot truthfully say that we will experience the events in the sequence we've created, it's only a possibility.
Quoting TheMadFool
Now you have four events which you have experienced. You agreed with me that the future is before the past. So, when we turn around from the future to look at these four events in the past, isn't it obvious to you that the most recent event is closer to the future and ought to be ordered as before the less recent?
I suggest that the only reason you are inclined to say that the events further back in time are before the others is that you adhere to the convention of a linear time, which stretches from the past, through the present and into the future. My argument is that this is a mistaken model of time because it does not properly account for the difference between future and past
Quoting TheMadFool
I wouldn't say that calendars are bogus, they are a convention of convenience. My argument is that such conventions of convenience can very often hide the truth when the reality of the matter is complex, and more difficult to understand, just like the convention of saying that the sun comes up and the sun goes down.
Quoting TheMadFool
Do you not recognize that the difference between the possibility of something, and the actual existence of something, is a radical difference? This is the difference between future and past. Notice that you must live with what has happened in the past. Whether you like the event which occurred or not, it cannot be changed and you must live with the consequences of it. However, a future event which appears unpleasant, you can take measures to avoid, and one which you desire you can attempt to make happen. This is a radical difference, and acknowledgement of that difference seems to permeate all of our living activities. The past ensures that you are what you are at the present, but the future allows you to change.
You mean to say that the earth will not rotate on its axis or that the moon will stop revolving around the earth or that the earth will not go around the sun if it's in the future? These are the phenomena, fairly dependable I should say, on which a day, a month and a year are defined. If they will occur, there's a certain rhythm, a period, and these periods are days, months, years, all sequenceable i.e. we can assign numbers to them. I won't discuss this anymore. Thank you.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The two of us are talking past each other. I already admitted that you're right and that I am too and, most importantly, there's no inconsistency we should argue about to decide who's right. I'm no longer going to discuss this. Again, thank you.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Surely, you're not arguing that calendars are just a matter of convenience. All important events, in our lives and on a global level, are planned and executed based on them. If there were something wrong with them even in the slightest sense, it would stick out like a sore thumb - they would be too obvious to miss for the consequences would be worldwide chaos.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not saying there's no difference between the past and the future and the present for that matter. The very definitions of these terms bespeak a real distinction among the three. However, numerically sequencing time is a different matter. An order in time that exists in the future will persist through the present and into the past i.e. given two events x and y, if x is before y in the future, x will be before y in the present and x has to be before y in the past also.
I wonder whether "spatial sequence" has any really meaning, or is it just a misnomer? If you had one, two, three, four or more distinct things with spatial separation between them, what would make you think that they form a sequence? I can see how one might say that they make a spatial pattern, but what aspects of the pattern would make you say that it is a sequence, if you are not inferring a temporal order to the things?
Space might be "in your face", but time is in your body. That's why I say time is more immediate, you don't even need external senses to apprehend its passing.
Quoting TheMadFool
I do not see how X would would refer to one mile as the first mile, and the other mile as the second mile without looking at the temporal aspect of his journey. You seem to think that X might somehow look back on his journey, remove the temporal aspect of that journey, and then refer to one mile as the first and the other as the second. But I don't think that makes any sense. If X could really look at that journey without the temporal aspect, why would he be inclined to order one or the other as first?
Quoting TheMadFool
Understanding the human concept of time, or space, is completely different from apprehending the thing's existence. I think children apprehend time long before they apprehend space. Time is something very real and concrete to them, as they learn to wait to be fed, and they are given mealtimes, and bedtimes etc.. Space is very abstract. Sure, they recognize that there is distance between them and others, but is this really apprehending "space", as being made to wait is apprehending "time"?
Quoting TheMadFool
My argument is that a temporal sequence is not arbitrary, that's the point. There is a real "now" which serves as the objective start, and this makes the true sequence not arbitrary. To the contrary, your assumption of a spatial sequence is simply false/mistaken, because there is no spatial principle which allows you to order first and second. Therefore you are claiming that there is such a thing as first and second, justified completely by spatial reference, but this is a false proposition.
Quoting TheMadFool
The confusion is in you naming the trees first and second, and asserting that this designation is done completely through spatial reference, without reference to time.
I suppose, given that you don't mention if the separations between the things are themselves regular, I'd say that proximity to the observer can very well be the grounds of a sequence
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I checked, and 1 mile means the first mile spatially - the 1 means the first length that's 1 mile long and mile 2 is the second length that's again 1 mile long, again spatially. In all this, I'm not at all tinkering with the temporal aspect of the setup. If X is intelligent enough he may immediately realize the temporal dimension of it all. However, given that he's travelling at speeds that regular bikes do, the duration to cover a two-mile stretch of road will not be adequate for any noticeable change that has to be put in a time-context to occur. All, I'm saying is that there's no necessity for X, the rider, to think of time in the given situation.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I suppose you're right on that score. Children probably do possess a circadian rhythm which regularly posts updates on the body's status into consciousness - telling them to cry when they're hungry and also when they need to be sung a lullaby to put them to sleep. What I'm referring to is conscious awareness of time and space in the sense that if a mind is alive to these concepts, you'll notice planning behavior that take into account knowledge of these aspects of reality. I've seen a 2 year old navigating space with the utmost ease i.e. they can plan their movements in space but I've never seen 2 year olds ask what time it is or that they to go to the toy shop at 4 on the dot. This is what I'm getting at.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
While I can't confirm your claim, I'll admit that I sympathize with it. I suppose that makes me a time absolutist like Newton but then we have this mountain of evidence gathered from relativity experiments that contradict your position and my intuitions on the matter for what they're worth. FYI, even if time is objective in the sense that there's, what you call a NOW, the alleged real beginning, it doesn't matter to X's conceptualization of time for however much time has passed since that beginning, the change in the condition of the apple occurs in a duration that he actually experiences in those days by the tree.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
As I said, the sequence is with respect to proximity given the possibility that X might not have a unit of measuring distance at hand.
Thank you for your contribution. They've been very helpful.
Dependability does not give you a countable thing. For example, I might know that the bus will be there in the morning, for me to step on. This is very dependable. But I cannot count the stepping on to the bus, as an instance of stepping on to the bus, until after it occurs. Likewise, regardless of how the calendar numbers the days, we really cannot count them until after they have occurred.
Quoting TheMadFool
I can't see how you can say that an order of time exists in the future. There can be no order of events, unless the events have actually occurred. Otherwise you are just talking about an imaginary ordering of imaginary events. And, since the past consists of actual events which have an actual order, we cannot make an order through future into past, or vise versa, because one consists of real events and the other of imaginary events.
If you have two spatial lengths of one mile, there is no spatial principle which makes one of them the first, and the other the second. To say that one is closer to you is not a spatial principle, it is a subjective principle. It is a principle which gives you priority, the right to determine first and second from your personal perspective. But then such determinations are not objective and therefore cannot be any part of an objective concept of space. That is why it is not a spatial principle by which you designate first and second, but a subjective principle.
Quoting TheMadFool
As you see, I totally agree with your description of X conceptualizing time through the use of the concept of order, first and second. What I don't agree with is that one could make a conception of order through space alone. Take the Fibonacci spiral for example. This is the spatial representation of a numerical sequence. This appears like a totally spatial order, but it really is not, because it requires a very specific beginning. And the beginning, being 0; cannot be represented spatially.
A distance of 2 miles is counted from a point which is designated as 0. This 0 is followed by a 1 mile mark and then a 2 mile mark. When you start walking from 0 along this distance, mile 1 is the first mile and mile 2 is the second mile.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I wouldn't say subjective because it seems to give the wrong impression that one is wrong because there's no objectivity in it. The correct word, in my opinion, is "relative". What's closer or farther is matter of one's location in space but that doesn't mean close and far aren't spatial concepts. Their definitions, as you already know, are in terms of how short/long the distance between you and things are.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Here you're conflating the absolute/relative with subjectivity/objectivity. X's position and his spatial relations are relative in the sense they depend on his location in space and not subjective in the sense it's just a matter of opinion no matter where X is. The concept of space that X forms in his mind is objective in the sense that it exists for everyone and everything though it's true that the spatial relations within space are relative.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Read above.
By dependable I mean to emphasize the regularity, the essence of an objectively measurable length of time which then becomes the basis of a unit of time which in turn becomes the basis of sequencing time itself in regular intervals. The rotation of the earth takes approximately 24 hours and this is the basis for the unit of time we all know as a day. The future can be sequenced in terms of days. There's no necessity for the future to be real to sequence/count it. We simply decide, based on the unit of time that seems relevant to the events that we're expecting, to sequence it numerically.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Imagine this. Suppose there are two events that are part of our future: both events are chemical reactions and event 1 is a chemical reaction that takes 1 minute to complete at which point a certain container of chemicals will change color to red, and event 2 is another chemical reaction that takes 2 minutes to complete and when that's done, a container of chemicals will change color to green. You take a stopwatch and at 0 you start both chemical reactions. Obviously the colors red and green in the container of chemicals are in the future at time 0 but you can sequence them as the first color you'll see is red and then only, second, you'll see green. The future that had yet to happen (one at 1 minute and the other at 2 minutes from time 0) was sequenced at time 0.
Sure, but that's completely arbitrary. Someone else could switch the 0 marker and the 2 marker, to reverse this, or place the 0 in any random place and start measurement there. There is nothing within the concept of "space" which can give you a principle of priority by which to designate one area of space as first, and the other as second. You do this solely through a personal preference.
Quoting TheMadFool
That's your opinion. My opinion is that it is wrong to assign "first" and "second" in a completely arbitrary and subjective manner when time gives us the principles for an objective designation of first and second. This would be like if you were claiming that stealing is "good", because it's good from your perspective. You might argue that ethical principles are "relative" and so you are completely justified in saying that stealing is good, but I think that there are accepted ethical principles which make it wrong for you to use "good" in that way. Likewise, I think it is wrong for you to use "first" and "second" according to your own spatial perspective, when there are accepted temporal principles which make it wrong for you to use them in that way.
Why would you think it's acceptable for you to label two things as first and second, when it's very obvious that if someone else applied the very same principle they would be labeled in the exact opposite? This is the issue with terms like "right" and "left". We have to clarify by saying on my right, or on your left, etc.. But we do not have that problem with first and second, because these are terms of temporal priority, so first and second are the same for both of us. Why are you inclined to remove the clarity from these terms of priority, and assign to them ambiguity? I think that is wrong
Quoting TheMadFool
No, it really is just a matter of opinion. That one thing is closer to you than another does not provide the priority required to call the thing "first". There is no reason why the further thing ought not be designated "first". It is simply your opinion, that because the thing is closer to you, it has some sort of priority over the further thing, so you want to call it "first". But in reality, that the closer thing has priority over the further thing, which is what is required to justify your opinion, is just a matter of personal preference. There is no spatial principle which dictates that a closer thing is prior to a further thing. Therefore you are just claiming this as a personal opinion.
Quoting TheMadFool
The problem here is that time can only be measured as it passes. That's what a clock does, it measures time as it passes. I do not deny that you can project into the future, and talk about an hour of time, or a day, in the future, but I stress to you, that these are imaginary durations of time, and they cannot actually be measured because they're in the future. A period of time in the past, has already been measured. Do you see the difference?
So if you want to make a sequence of imaginary periods of time in the future, that's fine, but how are you proposing to relate these periods of imaginary time which cannot actually be measured because they're in the future, to the real, measured periods of time in the past? Notice that you cannot measure these imaginary (future) periods so anything you do with them is completely speculative unless you can establish some sort of relationship between the real measured time of the past, and the imaginary speculative time of the future.
Quoting TheMadFool
I do not accept this talk about events in the future. All events occur at the present, so it makes no sense to talk about events which are in the future. Whatever it is which is in the future, which causes events at the present, cannot be called "events" because events do not exist in the future.
Quoting TheMadFool
No, I don't think so. The chemicals are not red and green in the future. They will be red and green after the respective events take place, but it is wrong to say that they are red and green in the future. Do you understand the difference between "will be", and "are". The fact that something will predictably be red in the future, does not justify the grammatically incorrect proposition "it is red in the future".
As I've explained, this sequencing you are talking about, of future things, is a sequencing of imaginary things, which have no existence. And, when you say "the first color you'll see is red and then only, second, you'll see green", you are talking about what the person will see as it occurs at the present. You are not talking about how things exist in the future, but how things will be at the present, in a future time. So you're really not sequencing future things at all. You are talking about a sequence of things which will occur at the present, not a sequence of things which exist in the future.
On a larger scale the expansion of the Universe, thought by scientists to be accelerative, could be the driving force of time's movements. The Big Bang would be its initiation. From that point onward we have this continuous flow of events, a sequence as the Universe cooled and expanded from its very hot and dense early stages. Here we are still embedded in physics and the natural sciences to understand time.
Time is what links all events, even though it is not a prime-mover or cause, somehow time is what connects all events that take place in the Universe. Every event that happens can be, as close as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows, pin-pointed to a point in time. This suggests that there is a Universal time as time, although Relativity might suggest otherwise, with motion close to that of light.