“The world as idea, with which alone we are here concerned, only appears with the opening of the first eye. Without this medium of knowledge it cannot be, and therefore it was not before it. But without that eye, that is to say, outside of knowledge, there was also no before, no time. Thus time has no beginning, but all beginning is in time. Since, however, it is the most universal form of the knowable, in which all phenomena are united together through causality, time, with its infinity of past and future, is present in the beginning of knowledge. The phenomenon which fills the first present must at once be known as causally bound up with and dependent upon a sequence of phenomena which stretches infinitely into the past, and this past it self is just as truly conditioned by this first present, as conversely the present is by the past. Accordingly the past out of which the first present arises, is, like it, dependent upon the knowing subject, without which it is nothing. It necessarily happens, however, that this first present does not manifest itself as the first, that is, as having no past for its parent, but as being the beginning of time. It manifests itself rather as the consequence of the past, according to the principle of existence in time. In the same way, the phenomena which fill this first present appear as the effects of earlier phenomena which filled the past, in accordance with the law of causality.”
So I'm assuming your later characterization is more what you're aiming at: Not that something presently becomes a certain age, but presently comes to have occurred at a certain time in the past. — csalisbury
If so, at what point in time did it become true that the fifty year old artifact came into being in 1966? — csalisbury
If so, at what point in time did it become true that the fifty year old artifact came into being in 1966? — csalisbury
If so, at what point in time did it become true that the fifty year old artifact would come into being in 1966?
When I say it won't rain tomorrow and it rains tomorrow was I really already wrong at the moment I said it wouldn't rain? — csalisbury
That's not clear to me. I can look back, knowing it will rain and say I was wrong then . — csalisbury
In any case future events fall along a probabilistic spectrum. At xxxx bc, X coming into being in 1966 is at the far end of that spectrum. — csalisbury
Do you think the end of linear time is totallu enfolded in its birth? — csalisbury
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.