By NOW, do you mean something like 'ever' or 'while I exist?'

So do you mean to ask me, 'do you ever have those sorts of experiences?' or 'Do you have those sorts of experiences while you exist?'

In answer to the former, yes, and in answer to the latter, yes (surely I must exist to have the experiences).

If that is not what you mean, can you clarify what you are asking me?

I mean that I exist at different times, and find myself having different sorts of experiences at those different times.

I don't find myself having an experience of being in my room, and an experience of being on the train to work, for instance. — Mr Bee

But I do find that – at different times of course.

Saying that you "experienced" and "will experience" something if you mean that in an A-theoretic sense — Mr Bee

I mean that in the perfectly ordinary sense. Forget about the A and B theories – we're not assuming we accept any particular theory of time, remember?

Again, if you could please read up on they mean then that would make both of our lives easier. You can still remain neutral even after reading about them and refrain from adopting any of them if you so wish. Why are you making this so hard?

I cannot respond to your comments because they seem like they rest upon a lack of understanding, one that you seem adamant about maintaining. If you don't want to do so, then I don't see the point of continuing to argue with you, given that we will most likely talk past each other like we have been over the past couple of days. — Mr Bee

OK, I've been pulling your leg a little bit. I actually am familiar with all of these theories, and have been playing dumb because I don't want to get into them and distract from the actual issues.

So with that said, what's wrong with my objection to P3? Reading it over again, it sounds way more plausible than P3 itself. Why should I think my experience is limited to a single time (again, prior to accepting any metaphysical theory – do not ask me to accept a certain theory of time in your justification without first arguing for it)?

Nobody needs to commit to any metaphysical theory of time in order to accept P3. — Mr Bee

Great! So let's talk about P3 independent of metaphysical theories of time. Let's suppose (as is true) that I have no stake in the game of which theory of time is right, and so am neutral on the subject.

P3 doesn't sound convincing at all to me. Why? Because I don't think my experience is limited to a single time – I think that I experienced some things yesterday, will experience others tomorrow, and so on. So it seems that I have different experiences at different times – and if that's true, my experience can't be limited to a single time.

Your response?

It makes sense to the common everyday layperson but that doesn't mean it can't be false. The idea that the sun rises and sets would be acceptable to children who don't know any better, but that doesn't mean that the sun revolves around the earth no matter what.

Eternalism isn't common sense. It is not intuitive at all, and it certainly doesn't conform to our everyday beliefs about time. It says things that goes against our everyday notions of time, and that includes the idea that events had or will happen through the passage of time. That is just what it basically says. — Mr Bee

Don't you think that any theory that forces us to say that sensical things don't make sense should prima facie be disregarded, unless there is good reason to believe them? Is there any reason one would want to be an eternalist or a presentist? Probably not; they probably arise from verbal disputes and misunderstandings.

NB: 'The sun rises' is still true, of course.

I think there is some misunderstanding here. The issue is not over which metaphysical theory of time anyone does or doesn't understand – it's about the plausibility of P3, which so far as I can see, still has no plausibility whatsoever as an intuitive claim made using English.

Does one need to commit to some metaphysical theory in order for P3 to sound plausible? Will P3 sound plausible to a layman? Who is P3 attempting to convince, and why should anyone find it convincing?

Okay, Eternalism says that the past, the future and the present are all NOW. According to the block universe, every event from the Big Bang to whatever the end of the Universe is like exists NOW. This is in contrast to presentism, which says that only the present moment exists NOW. The Growing Block theory says that the past from the Big Bang to the present exist NOW and that NOW continues to increase with the passage of time. — Mr Bee

Alright – I still don't really get it. I don't know what the difference between a past time 'existing' versus not. It seems to me to be a confusion about the way we talk about time using tense. For example, past events happened, individuals that once were alive but are now dead did exist but don't anymore, and so on. Certainly we make reference to past times – does that mean they 'exist?' I don't know, since I don't know what it means for a time to 'exist.' What's more, the word 'exist' has to be used tensed, in reference to some time, so the very notion that a time exists may even be confused – or at least that is not how we usually use these words.

As for this NOW thing, I'm trying to grasp from your usage what it means and I can't. I can say things like, 'there was a time when...' or 'there will be a time when...' Perhaps even 'there existed a time when...' etc. So perhaps the obvious thing to say is that past times existed, and future times will exist? Is this a case of existing in 'the general' sense of NOW? But then, NOW seems to have nothing to do with 'now,' since it covers all times not just now.

If you really aren't interested in learning what the theories are — Mr Bee

Isn't this thread about your argument? Do I have to accept some sort of metaphysical theory in order for your argument to make sense / be valid / be persuasive? I'm a little lost as to your rhetorical strategy.

Is your claim about what you can intuit, and the resulting P3, something that only people who accept a certain metaphysical theory can intuit?

So you say. But that is simply just wrong. — Mr Bee

Whether the word "will" makes sense isn't contingent on any metaphysical theory, since we already observe that it makes sense independent of any such theorizing. It is an empirical fact that such words have a meaning, we know how to use them, etc.

Eternalism says that the past and future exist just as much as the present does. Or to quote someone else: — Mr Bee

This is not what I was asking. I was asking what this word, NOW, you've made up, means. This does not help. You need to use it in sentences.

I did mention earlier that those terms don't make sense without a flow of time (as the eternalist worm theorist asserts there isn't). That is simply because "will' and "existed" as A-theoretic terms don't make sense under a theory that rejects the A-theory of time! — Mr Bee

The terms "will" and "existed" make perfect sense, regardless of what theory you subscribe to.

Fine then. Which theory of time do you think is true? — Mr Bee

I have no particular opinion on the matter, and it should make no difference since presumably your argument should have some sort of force without prior commitment to a metaphysical thesis.

Again, those terms make no sense under eternalism if we are talking about them in A-theoretic terms. You keep saying that they do but apparently you don't know yourself. So either read up on what Eternalism says, or stop making claims about what you think it should say. — Mr Bee

But the terms do make sense, full stop, as anyone who knows English can see. Besides, why should I have to subscribe to some bizarre metaphysical theory for your argument about what you claim you can intuit introspectively to make sense? If asked what I experience, prior to any such commitment, that is how I respond. I certainly don't intuit that what I experience now is all I experience "for the duration of my existence," or any such thing.

If what you are saying is that the you that exists in every possible sense of the word (NOW) does not exhaust who you are, then I am interested in what else you consider yourself to be since frankly I find that claim implausible. — Mr Bee

I don't know what this means. How many senses of existing are there? I know I exist. I know that sitting here etc. is all I experience right now. But I'm also reasonably sure that I will exist tomorrow, and that tomorrow I will experience other things. Therefore I in no way intuit that what I experience right now exhausts all my experience during the time I exist.

What is wrong with this, or do you intuit something different?

I just did. It's called NOW, in accord with the Stanford definition of "existing in the most unrestricted sense", that they themselves call the ontological sense of now. — Mr Bee

That doesn't tell me anything. Is it an adverbial? A predicate? Use it in a sentence, or give me an idea of what it means to 'exist in the most unrestricted sense.' Do other things exist 'in a restricted sense?'

Please. The "you" tomorrow and the "you" yesterday. Do they exist in any ontological sense, and are they are part of you NOW? — Mr Bee

The 'me' tomorrow and the 'me' yesterday are just me. And I would say that I existed, do exist, and will exist. I don't know what it would mean for 'them' to be a part of 'me.' Can I be part of myself? I suppose, trivially. Those times, at which I did exist and will exist, are parts of my life.

The answer to that would again depend upon the theory of time you adopt.

Presumably, the answer I adopt will depend on what's true!

Great then. My argument is that I simply find nothing of the sort in my experience. — Mr Bee

But you had found them before, and will find them later. See how that works?

Personally, it seems like the ontological now is more basic than the sense of "now" in terms of temporal location (but I am not saying it is how the english term is used mind you), but whatever. — Mr Bee

There is no 'ontological' sense of 'now,' if by 'now' you mean the English word. If you do not mean this word, then why not make up a new one so as to be less confusing, and spell out what this new word means?

Now do you accept it as a way of making my claims, as something that is framed in this "quasi-English" technical sense? If so, then let's just go with the ontological sense of "now" and call it "NOW" just to be absolutely clear. — Mr Bee

You can make whatever claim you like – but it won't make more true the claim that you or I can intuit such a thing from our introspective experience. I intuit that right now I only experience such-and-such, but not that I exist only right now, or all that I experience is that. So I see no plausibility in the premise.

Are those other times which have those experiences a part of me right NOW? If not, then they don't count. — Mr Bee

I really don't know how to answer this question, because I'm not sure what it means. How can a time be a part of a person? It seems like a category error.

What I do know is that, unless I die, I'll exist tomorrow, and experience something else. So I'm not in the least inclined to believe that whatever I'm experiencing right now is all that I experience (or will/have experience(d)) while I exist.

so so much as I am talking about my total experiences, they should, assuming the worm theory, include experiences of all these times. — Mr Bee

They do include experiences of all such times; it's just that the future ones will happen latter. Obviously.

So it seems like I am referring to my total experiences — Mr Bee

No, since you'll exist tomorrow and existed yesterday and had experiences then as well.

I don't think anything I can say would help convince you, since not knowing anything about eternalism yourself we are at the point where you will just assume that I am mistaken — Mr Bee

I'm being polite. What you quoted is more lucid than what you said.

It is just the idea that it has to be "anchored to the speech time" that I find objectionable. — Mr Bee

I didn't invent the English language. That's how it works.

There are other senses of what "now" could mean, as the Stanford article mentions, — Mr Bee

Those senses are not how the word is used in the English language. So if you want to use them in a non-standard way, you must flag to begin with what you are using a different, technical language, and define its terms, and state your premises in that language. In a word, you must say 'by "now," I don't actually mean "now," but xyz...'

You seem to be equating "the temporal duration in which I exist", with "my entire life". This is a fact that is only true under certain theories of time. For instance, under the worm theory, we are temporal worms, and are extended through our entire lives, but under presentism and also the stage theory, we are only limited to a single time (note that I am not endorsing presentism here). The use of the former was meant to be neutral with respect to those theories of time.This was the reason why I have assumed presentism in my earlier example, to make clear the distinction between the meanings of both. — Mr Bee

If I can intuit from my introspective experience "The only thing I experience during the time in which I exist is sitting at my computer, etc.," and the truth of this requires that stage theory be true, it follows that I can intuit from my own introspective experience that stage theory is true. But I can intuit no such thing – so you must have made a mistake. Or, if you like, I can't intuit from my introspective experience how long I exist for. Yet if I can't intuit this, then I can't know what "the time in which I exist" is, and so I cannot intuit the truth of any such proposition as "The only thing I experience during the time in which I exist is..."

If the very question under discussion is whether or not I exist for more than the present, then you cannot appeal to a premise in your argument that requires for its truth that this holds. This is begging the question.

As for the claim read as an ordinary claim of English, which is what I take it must be to prove useful in this argument, I cannot understand it as meaning anything but my entire life. It is only if I take 'exist' in some special, technical sense, that I can read 'I will not exist a minute from now' as true. As the word 'exist' is used in English, I will exist a few minutes from now so long as I don't die.

This is why terms such as "will" experienced" that you mentioned earlier make no sense because under a theory in which there is no flow of time, there is no sense in which an even "will" happen. — Mr Bee

But the word "will" does make sense. So either eternalism is false, or your characterization of it is. I'm guessing the latter – I'm sure eternalists have reasonable semantic proposals for "will."

All times, existing on a par, can also be said to be "present" in an A-theoretic sense as well. — Mr Bee

This is, so far as I can tell, nonsense – it's not possible for all times to be at the same time, since to be different times is precisely for them not to be (at) the same time. So either eternalism is nonsense, or your construal of it is false. My guess is the latter. My guess is the eternalist would say that all times are on a par in some sense, but not in a temporal sense, i.e. that they're all 'at the same time,' any more than all spaces are 'at the same space.' This simply makes no sense.

So much as you are saying we use the present tense in an argument, assuming by that you mean the common A-theoretic version of "present", it doesn't mean what you normally think it means under common everyday situations, because the situation under the worm theory is quite alien to our usual understanding of things passing from moment to moment through the flow of time. — Mr Bee

I mean the present tense as it is used in the English language, which is the language in which you are making your claims.

It is for this reason why I find unjustified the assumption that my claims about my experience must be anchored to a specific time of speech, — Mr Bee

If you do not want to so anchor them, you must not make them in English using the present progressive. For that is what that grammatical construction will do, regardless of your intentions or theoretical assumptions. You must cast them in some non-English or quasi-English technical vocabulary, or find some way to avoid using that tense.

So even if I clarify what I mean on the specific terms I use, you will still insist on reading them at face value? — Mr Bee

If you clarify what you mean, then the sentence may lose its intuitive plausibility: that is the gamble one takes when moving from an intuitively plausible premise to one spelled out in technical jargon. Though I'm not sure you have clarified what you mean, yet. I still don't understand the claim.

I find that I am only experiencing sitting in my room during the temporal duration in which I exist. (This is what I find through introspection upon my direct experience) — Mr Bee

But this just doesn't even sound true. For my own case, I don't find that at all – I find that I experience many things while I exist: yesterday, for example, I existed, and I experienced being on the L-train, and not at my computer, as I experience myself being now.

I don't know what to make of the present progressive 'am experiencing.' The present progressive is clearly anchored to the speech time, so again, the only way I can read it is as something like 'am experiencing now,' which again, is confusingly what you've insisted you don't mean. As for 'am experiencing during the entire time I exist,' this just seems like word salad to me – the only way I can make sense of it is to draw the bizarre implication that I only exist right now, and that's the only thing I experience right now. But then, you've said you don't want to assume any bizarre / presentistic premises for your argument.

Do you see why the weird use of English makes this impossible to understand? Once you clarify, it will probably not be plausible. I am not sure how to parse your claim, and so I can't tell you what I think about it. If it's supposed to be an intuitive truth based on introspective evidence, surely I should be able to recapitulate your conclusion? But my guess is if you asked most people this question, they would either not know what you're talking about (because 'am experiencing during the entire time that I exist' sounds like word salad without the aforementioned bizarre implication, and in any case the notion that one intuits directly how long one exists for, and what one experiences for their entire existence, is wildly implausible), or they would construe it as anchored to the present (and so not serviceable to your argument) or possibly habitually if you drop the progressive (and so false).

but I have tried to clarify what I meant by both sentences so what the terms I use mean normally in English shouldn't be relevant, — Mr Bee

It is relevant because you are appealing to intuition for the truth of an English sentence and presenting your argument in English. P3 and whatever variations of it you might want to use seem to be either not plausibly true, or not relevant for the conclusion you want to draw.

I think the reason we are talking past each other is because I am taking the sentences you say at face value as English sentences, and interpreting them that way. You seem to want to interpret them in a theory-laden way. So when you ask "can you clarify what you mean by..." I don't know what to say. If you speak English, you should be able to understand the sentence. Likewise, you should be able to hear the contradiction.

Again, there is no "habitual view." It is a fact of English grammar that simple present sentences can be read habitually (as well as sometimes being anchored to the time of utterance). I do not know of any other way to read the sentences you've said – and since neither reading seems to be what you want, I have no idea what you're claiming.

I just see no sense at all in claiming 1) I only experience one sort of thing, and 2) I experience many sorts of things. Yet this seems to be what you're committed to.

Can you explain what "I only experience sitting at my computer" would mean under the habitual view? I just want to get a clearer idea on what you take this to be. — Mr Bee

Something like, 'in general, the only thing I experience is sitting at my computer' or 'the only thing I ever experience is sitting at my computer.'

It's not a 'view,' it's an ordinary way of interpreting that sentence. Again, think about the sentence, 'I smoke.' What does that mean?

Do you need me to explain it to you again? If you don't understand what it means, then why have you been insisting that it was contradictory with your habitual claim? — Mr Bee

I have merely been pointing out that it is a contradiction to believe you only experience one thing, and tend to experience other things as well. I'm not sure why you don't see this as a contradiction – yet this is what you seem to believe.

I said earlier that I did not understand you habitual claim fully. Can you please, in specific detail, explain what that means. — Mr Bee

The simple present in English typically has a habitual reading. This is a fact about English, and has nothing to do with any metaphysical position.

For instance, if I say, 'I smoke,' it means that I smoke habitually, not that I am smoking at the time of utterance.

Likewise, if I say 'I experience x,' this might mean I do so habitually. For example, I might say, 'I experience fright whenever I walk alone at night.' And if someone asks me, 'what do you experience?' I might answer, 'I experience all sorts of things: joy, pain, frustration, anger...' and this is not to be read that I am experiencing all of those things now, but rather that habitually I experience all of them.

Read this way, the sentence, 'I only experience sitting at my computer' is patently false, since there are many other things I experience. Note that this has nothing to do with any metaphysical assumptions: this is simply a way the English sentence can be read, and on that reading I take it to be uncontroversial that such a claim (that I only experience being at my computer, etc.) is obviously false.

--

At the same time, explain what you think having a certain set of experiences only at the time you exist means? — Mr Bee

I don't know – this sounds like a technical notion. I know what it means to have an experience, and to have an experience at a certain time.

I'm asking about your position.

Do you not see why it is a contradiction to claim that you have only one sort of experience, and that you tend to have many kinds of experience? This, so far as I can tell, is what you are claiming.

since as time passes, my experiences will change — Mr Bee

This is not possible since you only exist for an instant.

You cannot both have only one sort of experience, and tend to have different sorts of experiences.

OK. 1) and 2) seem to contradict each other. Surely you are not committing to a contradiction. So why do you believe they don't contradict?

If you are unsure why I think this, change 1) to 'I only ever...' Do you still assent to it?

I'm sorry, but I literally do not understand your position. Can you please just give me a straightforward answer, as to whether you accept both 1) and 2), and if not, which of either you reject?

Do you assent to the following two sentences:

1) I only experience sitting in front of my computer
2) I tend to have other sorts of experiences

?

I ask because your position is not clear to me.

Under the stage theory a similar conception holds, but "I" is merely a label to describe the person the counterparts represent. In this sense "I" also tends to experience other experiences. — Mr Bee

So you tend to experience other experiences? How, then, is the only experience you have of sitting at your computer?

Of course I am not saying that the sorts of things I experience is limited to sitting in a computer, if by that you mean the types of experience I tend to experience. That is not what I am saying at all. — Mr Bee

So what are you saying? You're not saying that the only sort of thing you experience is being on a computer. You're not saying that all you're experiencing now is this. What other construal of your claim can there be?

I thought we were going with the notion of that "I only experience sitting at my computer during the temporal duration of my entire existence" — Mr Bee

But this is false, given that as you just admitted, you experience other sorts of things – presumably, you experience them in the temporal duration of your existence (when else would you experience them)?

---

In other words, so much as I am subject to a certain set of experiences only I am making the claim with regards to the whole temporal duration in which I exist (whether it be an instant or a lifetime). — Mr Bee

Please explain to me how the only experience you have, during the temporal duration in which you exist, is sitting at your computer, while also you tend to have other sorts of experiences besides sitting at a computer. I literally cannot make sense of this conjunction of claims, except as a contradiction.

You've been insisting that I use the present tense and I tried to comply with your demands up until this point. — Mr Bee

I did not insist on anything. You used the present tense yourself in making the claims. I was pointing that out to you. I have adopted no theoretical position and have not held you to comply with anything.

Thus there is a clear tension between experience and theory here and something's gotta give. However, whereas I take this as "so much worse for the worm theory", it seems that you take the opposite conclusion from me prioritizing theory over experience, which I consider to be a wrong-headed approach. — Mr Bee

This is emphatically not my position and I am not defending worm theory. Rather, there is no conflict between theory and experience, and a linguistic confusion is causing you to believe that there is, viz. you are not distinguishing between the habitual and simple present readings of the claim. You require the latter reading in order for it to sound plausible, but the former in order for it to be useful in your argument. There can't be any progress on this point until you recognize this fact about English.

As far as I can tell the only reason why you seem to believe my claim to be false is because it is inconsistent with what the worm theory says we should experience. — Mr Bee

Not at all. I believe it's false because they don't seem to be true, independent of theoretical position. If someone asked me what sorts of things I experience, I would probably say I experience all sorts of things, not just sitting at my computer.

Your entire argument therefore seems to rest on insisting that something that we would ordinarily say is false is true – that you only experience one thing, sitting at your computer. But of course you don't, you experience many other things as well.

Of course you might only experience that right now. But then... &c &c.

I think we may be at a roadblock here, but I genuinely think your argument is based on a linguistic confusion and so can't both be interesting & valid. And the block can't be overcome until you recognize at the very least that there is an obviously false construal of P3, on its habitual reading, which makes it uncompelling as a premise. Do you agree with that?

What I have insisted is not true was mainly the identification of "now" as "the specific moment in which this utterance is had". Nowhere does that notion come up when I say that I only have a certain set of experiences and nowhere do I even mean anything like that. — Mr Bee

It doesn't matter what you 'mean.' What I am saying is that the sentence you uttered, a sentence of English, cannot mean what you are saying it does. That is just not what the words mean.

I have proposed an alternative conception of "now", describing the "temporal region in which I exist" as a better description of what I would mean when I would have to use the word now. — Mr Bee

If your claim is 'I only experience being at my computer during the time that I exist,' then this is clearly false – surely, you experience all sorts of other things during your life.

Technically, under something like a layman presentist framework, the word "now" can refer to both the time in which I exist and the time of the utterance, but that is certainly not true under something the worm view (or really any view that allows for a temporally extended experience). — Mr Bee

It doesn't matter what your view is. The word 'now' is a word of English whose meaning doesn't depend on your technical view, and you are making a claim using that word based on intuitive experience. If instead you make it using technical vocabulary, as above, then it doesn't sound true anymore, so your argument isn't convincing. You're trading on the sentence sounding true intuitively in English, which trades on it not meaning what you want it to.

If you want to convince me that this usage of "now" is somehow mistaken, then you would need to give me more in way of an argument. — Mr Bee

My argument is that that is not what the word means, and you are wrong to insist that it can mean that. If you want instead to say you only experience sitting at your computer during the temporal duration of your entire existence, you should instead say that, since it means something different from your only experiencing it now. But then, that sentence isn't even plausibly true. So the argument doesn't work.

But I was describing them in general, at least I wasn't intentionally specifying a specific time in which something like "I only experience x" rings true. I just mean "I only experience x simpliciter". Just because the set of experiences I have in general happens to be limited to the contents of a single time does not mean that I am saying they are limited to those contents only within that specific context, so I am not sure how you made that connection. — Mr Bee

So, in general you only experience sitting at your computer? No, clearly not, unless that's all you ever do.

To be on the nose about it, this:

Certainly my experience of being in my room describes a complex set of experiences. My visual experience of me of the computer screen in front of me, the feeling of sitting in my seat and the feel of the fingers typing on the keyboard, and the silent hum of the background noise. What more do you expect there to be? — Mr Bee

Is obviously a description of what your experiences were at the time of typing, not what they are in general or at different times. Surely you experience different things at different times?

So you seem to be in a dilemma: either construe your claim as plausibly true, and thus restrict it to one time, making your premise trivial, and so not getting the conclusion you want; or construe your claim as obviously false, invalidating the argument.

So I'm trying to understand how to interpret your claim. If I say this:

I only find myself having the experience of being in my room in front of my computer and nothing more.

My first inclination is that this is simply false. I experience all sorts of things, not only my experience of being in my room in front of my computer. I also experience being outside, for example.

This is the reading I get when 'I only find myself having the experience' is read habitually.

I can also read the sentence as pertaining to what I am now experiencing. Then, it looks true, as you've said – but you've insisted that this is not how you intend the sentence to be construed.

So I'm stuck. The only way it sounds plausibly true to me is on the reading that you insist you are not interested in. And so on neither reading is your argument plausible, since there is no reason to accept P3, or any of the permutations of it you've offered (indeed, P3 simply sounds false, if not read as pertaining to the present time).

I only find myself having the experience of being in my room in front of my computer and nothing more. — Mr Bee

But this is just false, right? Read that back to yourself and ask whether it's true. The only thing you experience is being at your computer? No: you experience plenty of other things as well.

Oh, but you mean right now...?

That depends on the semantics of your language. You can of course construct a language in which 'A implies A' is contingent or even a contradiction. So the syntax alone is uninteresting except w.r.t. a semantic framework.

even if we were to assume that there was a present tense that attaches itself to my claim — Mr Bee

I don't think this is an assumption – it's a plain fact.

I am not experiencing any other times

That is written in the present progressive, and means that you are not experiencing any other times at the time of utterance. That's just a fact about English, not a metaphysical claim.

I see no reason why we should use the former over the latter. — Mr Bee

Because that is not what the sentence means, because that is not how the present tense in English functions.

If instead you opted for something like

I do not experience any other times

(as a habitual), then this simply rings false, since you do habitually experience other times (viz. you tend to experience whichever time it happens to be). And same with 'will not,' 'have not,' etc.

That is, are you claiming that one needs a semantic interpretation in order to identify basic tautologies? — Banno

Tautology is a semantic notion – the semantics are presumably set up in a way where their interpretation of the syntactic form is always going to yield true. But it makes no sense to say something is tautologous from syntax alone. Syntactically, the sentence is just a structure of symbols, and so doesn't mean anything, let alone something always true.

I'm not sure that's right, but in any case it doesn't matter – as long as there's a notion of having an experience at a time, the same holds, since the present tense in your claim will be translated to mean 'I experience only t at t,' t the time of utterance. It doesn't follow from this that for no other t', t'', you experience t' at t'' (which you must allow since as you say you accept experiences are temporally extended). In fact we'd expect for every t', you experience t' at t' so long as you're conscious.

It's easy for someone to claim that you experiencing all of your times, — Mr Bee

Not that you are experiencing all of them, but that you have or will experience(d) (or are experiencing) all of them.

I am not saying that I am having them "at a time". Nowhere does such a notion come into my description of what I am experiencing. — Mr Bee

But it does, via the present tense, which is anchored to the time of the speech act.

Hi, I'm not going to read the thread, but –

P3 seems easily deniable by the worm-theorist, who can claim that we experience all times in which we exist (it's just, as you note, that this experience is temporally extended). At best you have only the trivial premise that we only experience one time 'at a time,' which can of course be granted.

In other words, given the fact that we expect the experience to be temporally extended, this:

My judgement I am not experiencing any other times

won't cut it, since you need the conclusion 'I will not experience any other times,' which isn't made plausible by introspection in the same way.

Titus Groan - Mervyn Peake
Mistress of Mistresses - E. R. Eddison
Lud-in-the-Mist - Hope Mirrlees