Future and past, being parts of this immaterial thing, time, do not need to have material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Future and past are immaterial, but what of the present? It must also be immaterial, and yet it contains materiality -- space-time.

Is the future not part of a continuous time? Is it a separate entity to the past and present? If we do accept the continuous nature of time, then the materiality of space- time of the present must extend into the future as it does into the past. The only other option is for time to abandon space and race off on its own.

Would you agree that the past is determined? That we can read of the history of the world and it does not change every time we pick up the book? Again, arguing the continuous nature of time, we can deduce that if the past is determined, so too is the future as they are all parts of this same 'immaterial thing'. If the past existed and the present exists then the future will exist. This means it will be written into the past and assume the determined form.

When we review the continuous nature of the past we see no discontinuity between what was a civilization's future and their past. It is one continuous path that we can clearly identify. A determined path. When Julius Caesar walks into the senate on the day of his assassination, his future is determined. It would therefore seem that to hold the contention that the future is not determined would suggest the need to ascribe different properties to the future of the past then to the future of the present. How can one be determined and the other not?

Is the future not part of a continuous time? Is it a separate entity to the past and present? If we do accept the continuous nature of time, then the materiality of space- time of the present must extend into the future as it does into the past. The only other option is for time to abandon space and race off on its own. — MikeL

Clearly the future is completely distinct from the past. Our living experience demonstrates that the two are not the same at all. When you talk about "continuous time" I assume you refer to the present. The present appears to be continuous, but it is neither the future nor the past, it is some sort of division between the two.

Would you agree that the past is determined? That we can read of the history of the world and it does not change every time we pick up the book? Again, arguing the continuous nature of time, we can deduce that if the past is determined, so too is the future as they are all parts of this same 'immaterial thing'. If the past existed and the present exists then the future will exist. This means it will be written into the past and assume the determined form. — MikeL

I agree that the past is determined, But I do not agree with your conclusion, that the future must be also, because they are both parts of the same thing. Two parts of the same thing may be very different in nature, so long as there is a proper separation, or boundary, between the two parts, and this is what we find with the present.

When we review the continuous nature of the past we see no discontinuity between what was a civilization's future and their past. It is one continuous path that we can clearly identify. A determined path. When Julius Caesar walks into the senate on the day of his assassination, his future is determined. It would therefore seem that to hold the contention that the future is not determined would suggest the need to ascribe different properties to the future of the past then to the future of the present. How can one be determined and the other not? — MikeL

In your description here, you are looking at the past, and trying to find the separation between past and future there. When you do not find the division between past and future in the past, you claim that there is none. This is a mistaken exercise because you will only find the division between past and future at the present.

Can you, in your mind, separate the things which exist in time, from time itself? If so, let's say something about time itself. Living at the present, do you notice that there is always a future in front of you, and a past behind you? Now let's turn to the physical existence, and see what it is about physical existence which makes the difference between past and future notable. Do you notice that the past is full of things which have already happened and things which have already existed? This is what allows you to have memories, and form visual images of things in the past, they have already existed and been experienced by you. Now bring your focus up to the very close past, right up to the point of what you are doing now, looking at the screen or whatever. The screen has been existing in front of your face continuously, right up to the point of now, and it continues to exist, even now as you read this. But let your mind jump to the future for a moment. You cannot see any screen there, or remember any physical object from the future. The present is like a massive wall, and behind that wall is nothing, in relation to your experience. Do you apprehend the nothingness in the future when referring to physical existence?

Clearly the future is completely distinct from the past. Our living experience demonstrates that the two are not the same at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

How so? Only in a relational sense surely. One is in front behind the wall, the other is behind in memory. The content though is a continuation of the story, I just need to turn the page to find out what the words written there say.

Do you accept that space and time are inseparable entities? Thus if a past exists a present exists and a future exists, all must contain space, as space is inseparable from it. We know that the past did indeed contain space- we have memories and books about it, and we know that the present does also contain space, therefore a future must also contain space.

The space that the future contains will have items in it arranged in specific positions, just as it did in the past, just as it does now. Thus it is determined.

I agree that the past is determined, But I do not agree with your conclusion, that the future must be also, because they are both parts of the same thing. Two parts of the same thing may be very different in nature, so long as there is a proper separation, or boundary, between the two parts, and this is what we find with the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your argument might become that time is feeding through the present like cloth through a sewing machine, at the rate a second per second stitching reality together behind it, but that still assumes the materiality of the future and thus a spatial component which implies a determined relationship between the objects in that future. There can be no stitching of the cloth.

When you talk about "continuous time" I assume you refer to the present. The present appears to be continuous, but it is neither the future nor the past, it is some sort of division between the two. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you choose to make the present the only meaningful description of time, and relegate the future and past to concept, then the premise becomes that all that exists is the present. Zeno's paradox seems to want to come into play at this point and ask exactly what instant of this instant is the present. Surely time is infinitely divisible. Surely time cannot move unless it is continuous.

The workaround in this situation would be to invoke a duration of time of random quantity and assign that as the present. Thus we have two measures of time - the duration of the present and the timeline of history and the future. But the duration of the present cannot make the trip from the past to the future - it is not of sufficient duration to make the trip.

The workaround for this workaround would be to suggest that rather than time being linear in the direction of duration, it is in fact perpendicular to the axis of duration. The present itself stretches across time from left to right (past to future), but moves forward the length of one duration. Thus all present moments are simultaneous - all time is occurring simultaneously. It is right now that the Colosseum is being built and it is right now that Apokrisis is in his spaceship staring out the window at the eternal heat death wishing he'd been wrong.

Invoking the present as the only true time becomes totally deterministic.

The present is like a massive wall, and behind that wall is nothing, in relation to your experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but just because I can't see past the wall does not mean there is nothing past it. In fact my experience tells me that there is something past it. I can go to bed and close my eyes confident that tomorrow will come.

How so? Only in a relational sense surely. One is in front behind the wall, the other is behind in memory. The content though is a continuation of the story, I just need to turn the page to find out what the words written there say. — MikeL

Things in the past are fixed, determined. With respect to the future we can work to avoid unpleasant things, and create pleasant ones. So clearly there is a substantial difference between things of the past, and things of the future.

Do you accept that space and time are inseparable entities? — MikeL

No, I do not accept this. What "time" refers to, and what "space" refers to are completely distinct. I do not believe that it is possible that the future contains space, I think that this idea is a misunderstanding of the relationship between space and time. I believe that spatial existence comes into being at the present. The fact that the human being is capable of changing things in the physical world, annihilating thing setc., at any moment, at will, is evidence that there is no spatial existence on the other side of the present (future).

The workaround in this situation would be to invoke a duration of time of random quantity and assign that as the present. Thus we have two measures of time - the duration of the present and the timeline of history and the future. But the duration of the present cannot make the trip from the past to the future - it is not of sufficient duration to make the trip. — MikeL

Yes, I believe it is necessary to assume two dimensions of time. I would say that the present has breadth. This is what you call the duration of the present.

Invoking the present as the only true time becomes totally deterministic. — MikeL

I don't see how you make this conclusion. If we assume two dimensions of time, one is just as real as the other, so it makes no sense to say that we have to forfeit one to enable the other. Therefore the conclusion that all moments exist at the same time is unwarranted.

Yes, but just because I can't see past the wall does not mean there is nothing past it. In fact my experience tells me that there is something past it. I can go to bed and close my eyes confident that tomorrow will come. — MikeL

Oh I believe there is something on the other side of the present (future), this is necessary to account for the continued existence which we observe at the present. However, the fact that we can interfere with that continued existence, at any moment, at will, indicates that the continued existence is not necessary. If it is not necessary, then we cannot hold it as a fundamental principle. And the fact that anything can be destroyed at any moment indicates that there is no spatial existence on that side of the present.

Things in the past are fixed, determined. With respect to the future we can work to avoid unpleasant things, and create pleasant ones. So clearly there is a substantial difference between things of the past, and things of the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is no difference at all. Do you think that the people of the past didn't work to avoid unpleasant things and create pleasant ones? It is the story of much of mankind.

Do you accept that space and time are inseparable entities?— MikeL

No, I do not accept this. What "time" refers to, and what "space" refers to are completely distinct. I do not believe that it is possible that the future contains space, I think that this idea is a misunderstanding of the relationship between space and time. I believe that spatial existence comes into being at the present. The fact that the human being is capable of changing things in the physical world, annihilating thing setc., at any moment, at will, is evidence that there is no spatial existence on the other side of the present (future). — Metaphysician Undercover

Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program, as quoted by Standford University disagrees with you on this point. He [url=http:// https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html]says[/url]:
"Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time."

That fact that human beings can change their world is not in dispute. The tortured serpentine paths of the determined past are a reflection of the choices people made. Then, as now, as in the future we may choose to change or annihilate things. It is what gave the past is unique determined shape and gives the future its unique determined shape.

Don't you agree that the argument that future space time doesn't exist because we can't see it yet in the present is a little akin to sailing a boat down a river claiming that the waterfall at the end of it doesn't exist because we can't see it? Or that it is also a bit like saying a tree falling in a forest doesn't make a sound because we can't hear it?

If, for arguments sake, we say that space is materialising at the present, from which realm is it manifesting itself? How did it get to the present? How come it has all the properties of space, but is not space? How does the present tether it to time (If I bend space I slow time)? What is it about the present that causes it to become space? Why can't we see the interface of this cosmic cloud with the present? Does it change to space at the outer interface of the present (I have never seen a cloud from the future in my present existence)? If it is does form space at the outer interface of the present does that mean the present is also determined and not just the past?

Yes, I believe it is necessary to assume two dimensions of time. I would say that the present has breadth. This is what you call the duration of the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, no, you misunderstand me. I do not say the breadth of the present is duration. I am saying the breadth of the present must encompass the entire timeline. The duration would be the sideways bump that allows the instantaneous traversal of the entire timeline by the present. If it is not the case that it happens this way, then the duration of the present is of insufficient interval to span the entire timeline. It would move through an instant and run out of steam. No future or past, just a frozen moment.

This is why it becomes totally deterministic. The entire timeline occurs at once.

Oh I believe there is something on the other side of the present (future), this is necessary to account for the continued existence which we observe at the present. However, the fact that we can interfere with that continued existence, at any moment, at will, indicates that the continued existence is not necessary. If it is not necessary, thenwe cannot hold it as a fundamental principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are a few sweeping statements in here I need you to clarify. The first highlighted part is suggesting that because I can manipulate space in the present, the present is not necessary? That doesn't make sense to me, but if it did, then my next question would be necessary to what?

The second highlighted part builds on from the first. What can't we hold as a fundamental principle? And a fundamental principle of what?

And the fact that anything can be destroyed at any moment indicates that there is no spatial existence on that side of the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can we destroy space? I had no idea. What happens when we do?

This is no difference at all. — MikeL

I can point your head at the difference. I can describe it to you. But I can't make you see it. If you do not see that the future is substantially different from the past, then so be it.

The first highlighted part is suggesting that because I can manipulate space in the present, the present is not necessary? — MikeL

Remember, I asked you to differentiate between time, and the things which exist in time. What you manipulate at the present, is spatial existence, not the present itself.

What can't we hold as a fundamental principle? And a fundamental principle of what? — MikeL

What we cannot hold as a fundamental principle is the continuity of spatial existence, at the present. This is the faulty principle which you will not let go of. And you will not let go of it because you are in denial concerning the very obvious, substantial difference between past and future, which you refuse to acknowledge. All human beings, all the time, recognize that they cannot change the past, but they can work to produce a future which they might like. Do you not see the difference between future and past? The past is fixed, "closed", but as Tom Petty said, "the future was wide open": "Into the Great Wide Open".

Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program, as quoted by Standford University disagrees with you on this point. — MikeL

Of course he disagrees with me on this point. This is the hole which modern physics has fallen into as a result of people believing that special relativity expresses a truth about time.

Don't you agree that the argument that future space time doesn't exist because we can't see it yet in the present is a little akin to sailing a boat down a river claiming that the waterfall at the end of it doesn't exist because we can't see it? Or that it is also a bit like saying a tree falling in a forest doesn't make a sound because we can't hear it? — MikeL

No, I don't agree with that at all. First, I do not think that the concept of space-time provides a proper representation of reality, so we must start with a deconstruction of that. Once we have done that then we can see that the passing of time doesn't necessitate any particular spatial event, or existence whatsoever. Now, "the waterfall at the end" is a description of a spatial event. It is not necessitated by the passing of time.

That fact that human beings can change their world is not in dispute. — MikeL

I don't believe this statement from you. I think that is exactly what is being disputed. If you actually believed that human beings could change their world, you wouldn't believe that the waterfall at the end is necessitated by the passing of time. These two are completely inconsistent, incompatible, contrary, statements. You desire to say that human beings can work to avoid an unpleasant future, and produce a pleasant future, but at the same time, you want to say that there are things in the future, which are already fixed, "the waterfall at the end". Then, you take this faulty example, of a thing which is fixed (the waterfall at the end), and proceed through the use of some very faulty inductive reasoning, to claim that all things in the future are fixed, determined just like the past. Now, you base your denial of the very substantial difference between future and past, in this very faulty inductive reasoning.

How can you say, and truly believe what you're saying, "that fact that human beings can change their world is not in dispute", when you claim that there is no difference between future and past? Do you believe that human beings can change what has happened in the past? If not, then how can you make that statement in honesty, without allowing for a substantial difference between future and past? You recognize that human beings cannot change the past, then you claim that they can change the future, but you deny a difference between future and past. See the inconsistency?

If, for arguments sake, we say that space is materialising at the present, from which realm is it manifesting itself? — MikeL

Spatial existence manifests from the realm of the future. This is where the Neo-Platonic Forms are, which are the cause of material existence. Temporal existence is defined by the passing of time. In the future, time has not yet passed. So these Forms are described as eternal (meaning outside of time, rather than forever in time).

How did it get to the present? How come it has all the properties of space, but is not space? How does the present tether it to time (If I bend space I slow time)? What is it about the present that causes it to become space? Why can't we see the interface of this cosmic cloud with the present? Does it change to space at the outer interface of the present (I have never seen a cloud from the future in my present existence)? If it is does form space at the outer interface of the present does that mean the present is also determined and not just the past? — MikeL

I really don't understand these other questions, perhaps we could take them one at a time, and you could explain more thoroughly the issues which you are questioning.

No, no, you misunderstand me. I do not say the breadth of the present is duration. I am saying the breadth of the present must encompass the entire timeline. The duration would be the sideways bump that allows the instantaneous traversal of the entire timeline by the present. If it is not the case that it happens this way, then the duration of the present is of insufficient interval to span the entire timeline. It would move through an instant and run out of steam. No future or past, just a frozen moment. — MikeL

I don't understand this either. Why would you conclude, that if the present had breadth, it must be wide enough to encompass the entire past? The breadth of the present is defined by how we experience time. So even if yesterday, last year, etc., must be somehow included within the concept, we do not experience those presently, along with our experience of now, except by memory, so their is really no difference, in this respect, between accounting for past events in a one dimensional time, and in a two dimensional time.

Can we destroy space? I had no idea. What happens when we do? — MikeL

Quantum field theory effectively destroys space, and what happens is quantum entanglement.

This is the hole which modern physics has fallen into as a result of people believing that special relativity expresses a truth about time. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it.

Quantum field theory effectively destroys space, and what happens is quantum entanglement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmmm, is this part of the new theory?

Why would you conclude, that if the present had breadth, it must be wide enough to encompass the entire past? — Metaphysician Undercover

You told me that the present had duration. How long is that duration? Is it less than the duration of the entire timeline? There are two conceivable answers.
1. No, the duration is the same - in which case the entire timeline is the present. The present is now. So the entire timeline is happening right now. If that is the case then it is determined.

2. Yes, the duration of the present is shorter than the timeline. In this case the present will run out before it reaches the end of the timeline. Having reached the end of its duration time will freeze. There will be no further progress into the future.

Thus, for the argument to stay alive, in addition to duration you might also invoke a breadth for the present and have the breadth span the entire timeline. The breadth is at right angles to the duration of the present. Thus when the present moves it does not move from past to future, but rather sideways across the timeline, so that all instants of the timeline occur now. As you can see though this solution also proves that the future is determined.

I really don't understand these other questions, perhaps we could take them one at a time, and you could explain more thoroughly the issues which you are questioning. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK, imagining for a second that none of what I said proves determinism, the question becomes about the interface between the future and the present. Where does this occur? The present is a duration of time which encapsulates me but there is no nebulous haze of future that I can see around me. It is filled with both space and time - nothing is outside of space or time, but we have established that space is determined. Everything in space has a place and is performing an action of some sort. Therefore, the bubble of time you are calling the present must also be determined. It must, at the very least, become determined at the start of the duration of the present. So now you must have not only a determined past, but also a determined present.

Spatial existence manifests from the realm of the future. This is where the Neo-Platonic Forms are, which are the cause of material existence. Temporal existence is defined by the passing of time. In the future, time has not yet passed. So these Forms are described as eternal (meaning outside of time, rather than forever in time). — Metaphysician Undercover

How much more determined can you get than a state of being that is eternal? If it is outside of time, it doesn't change.

I don't believe this statement from you. I think that is exactly what is being disputed. If you actually believed that human beings could change their world, you wouldn't believe that the waterfall at the end is necessitated by the passing of time. These two are completely inconsistent, incompatible, contrary, statements. — Metaphysician Undercover

- this about the comment of free choice in a determined universe.

I will answer with my corrupted version of the Parable of Death I heard many years ago. Maybe you know it.
A man was walking through a street market in Switzerland with his wife and two children when he looked up and saw Death staring directly at him. The man was terrified and fled the scene. He raced home and threw some items in a bag,grabbed his passport and flew out the door, leaving his wife and children behind. He flew from country to country, backtracking at points to throw death of his trail, until eventually he arrived in Australia four days later. He left the city immediately and headed into the Outback - a huge desolate area where you can see anyone approaching from a hundred kilometers away. Each night he pitched tent and the next day took it down and moved on. On his forth day, he was coming out of a swimming hole when a brown snake - one of the most deadliest in the world bit him. He fell ill instantly and slumped against the tree. His vision began to blur and he blinked it into focus again - only to see Death in front of him once again.
The man looked at Death and said to him: "I am surprised you found me all the way out here. When I saw you at the market in Switzerland I took off. I have flown around the world and thought I had hidden myself well."
Death replied: "You're surprised? You couldn't possibly imagine my surprise when I saw you in that street market in Switzerland with your wife and two children eight days ago, knowing I would be meeting you here alone in Outback Australia today at this moment."

Of course we can make choices. But the choices are fated. The universe is determined.

So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it. — MikeL

Have you studied this issue? There is nothing to abandon. SR and GR are solutions to measurement problems. They have zero ontological standing. They describe nothing about the experience of life.

What's more since SR only applies to non-accelerating (inertial) frames of references, which doesn't exist anywhere in the universe, all of its peculiar paradoxical implications can be discarded into the junk pile. Its only application is science fiction literature.

What is left is GR which had a rather obscure and obtuse expression of time that has nothing to do with time as we experience it or even measure it. If there is something there it will have to be ultimately radically reformulated to describe anything meaningful from an ontological point of view. Gravity remains mysterious.

Einstein's Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect not SR and GR and for good reason, these theories contradict each other and are a mess, which is the real reason no one understands them or can explain them. SR is irrelevant and GR is a mass of impenetrable equations that say something about the actions of gravity but say nothing about life.

So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it. — MikeL

That is correct. The problem with the space-time conception is that it makes time the fourth dimension of space. But a proper understanding of the passing of time, as a necessary condition for spatial existence, will demonstrate that time should rather be the 0th dimension. This allows for the reality of the non-spatial existence which we understand as ideas and concepts, which are demonstrated to have causal efficacy over the material world. Then we can comprehend real non-dimensional existence, and activity within non-dimensional points. This will shed a new light on the problems of quantum physics because it will enable us to comprehend a real non-dimensional matrix, rather than the inadequate field theory.

You told me that the present had duration. How long is that duration? Is it less than the duration of the entire timeline? There are two conceivable answers.
1. No, the duration is the same - in which case the entire timeline is the present. The present is now. So the entire timeline is happening right now. If that is the case then it is determined.

2. Yes, the duration of the present is shorter than the timeline. In this case the present will run out before it reaches the end of the timeline. Having reached the end of its duration time will freeze. There will be no further progress into the future. — MikeL

You've forgotten one thing though, time as we know it, only exists as the present comes to pass. So the "entire timeline" is from now until what we call the beginning of time. The real timeline cannot extend into the future because time has not come into existence there yet. That answers #1. The second thing is what I said about the human experience of the present. What we call "the present" is limited to how we experience the present. So depending on the context, one might use "the present" to refer to a second, a minute, the day, the year, whatever arbitrary duration one chooses.

The only difference I am proposing, from how we currently use "the present", is that we cannot include any future time in "the present". So if I say "the present hour", it is the hour which has just past. The present minute is the minute which just past, etc.. The future is separated out, as having had no time yet.

Thus, for the argument to stay alive, in addition to duration you might also invoke a breadth for the present and have the breadth span the entire timeline. The breadth is at right angles to the duration of the present. Thus when the present moves it does not move from past to future, but rather sideways across the timeline, so that all instants of the timeline occur now. As you can see though this solution also proves that the future is determined. — MikeL

The breadth of time is at a right angle to the flow of time, and it's magnitude is a representation of how we experience the present. So we have a time line created by the "flow of time", which begins at the point of "now", and extends into the past. The beginning point, what we call by the name "now", is not a zero dimensional point though. We have to allow for this dimensionality of the point which we call the present now, because if there was none, there could be no motion or activity whatsoever, at the now. But we observe activity at the now, therefore the now has some sort of temporal duration. However, it cannot be the same sort of duration which the timeline expresses because the time line only allows for points in time. If the point of the now has breadth, duration, then the whole timeline must be redrawn to allow that the timeline has breadth.

OK, imagining for a second that none of what I said proves determinism, the question becomes about the interface between the future and the present. Where does this occur? The present is a duration of time which encapsulates me but there is no nebulous haze of future that I can see around me. It is filled with both space and time - nothing is outside of space or time, but we have established that space is determined. Everything in space has a place and is performing an action of some sort. Therefore, the bubble of time you are calling the present must also be determined. It must, at the very least, become determined at the start of the duration of the present. So now you must have not only a determined past, but also a determined present. — MikeL

You are making a false representation here, referring to "the future that I can see around me". What you see around you is the activity of things. The activity is the result of this process which is the future becoming the past (time passing) This occurs at the present. This activity is "determined", but it is determined by the Platonic Forms, which exist on the future side of the present, it is not determined by what has occurred in the past. Because the present has breadth, the Forms may interact with each other during the process of emanation, at the present. There is an association between the length and breadth of time such that a wider part of last moment is related to a narrower part of this moment. . This interaction provides for the premise that no one particular Form has absolute power of determination over what will occur, at any particular moment, unless there was an omnipotent God or some such thing. The possibilities for interaction of the Forms, are endless, so the possibilities for actions at the present are likewise endless.

So there is no interface between the future and the present, the interface is between the future and the past, and this is what we call the present. Consider that "space" is nothing but a conception which helps us to understand the existence of physical objects. There is no actual space independent from our minds, only things existing. Instead of positing a fixed "space", within which things exist and move around, we need to adjust the concept of space, uniting it with the concept of existing things, such that the things are space, and the activity of things can be understood as the activity of space. Space is in no way fixed, it is defined according to what exists there.

How much more determined can you get than a state of being that is eternal? If it is outside of time, it doesn't change. — MikeL

The Forms are only outside of time, to the extent that the concept of "time" is currently defined by spatial movements and activities. So the Forms are eternal (outside of time) in relation to this concept of time, which ties time to spatial existence. As soon as we adjust our conception of time, such that space is understood as active and emergent, then we can talk about time prior to spatial existence. This allows that the Forms have actual existence in time, but in a time when there is no spatial existence.

Of course we can make choices. But the choices are fated. The universe is determined. — MikeL

Insisting that the universe is determined doesn't answer my question of why you contradict yourself. You said it is a fact that human beings can change their world, but you also claim that what's to be, in the future, is already determined, just hidden behind a curtain. So how is it that human beings can change their world when what's to be is just hidden from us. I don't see how this allows for change. You don't really believe that human beings can change their world, do you?

So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it.
— MikeL
That is correct. — Metaphysician Undercover

OK, well, I'm glad we can both agree that in the universe as most people understand it, our world is determined.

Now we enter into a theory that has been created for the purpose of proving there is no determinism, and want to debate that instead. That's fine, I'll debate anything, so let's have a look.

time should rather be the 0th dimension. This allows for the reality of the non-spatial existence which we understand as ideas and concepts, — Metaphysician Undercover

A time outside of space is fine with me.

Then we can comprehend real non-dimensional existence, and activity within non-dimensional points. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, what type of activity might we see in a Time dimension with no spatial relationships? The mixing of ideas and concepts? The blueprint of of the coming present?

So we have a time line created by the "flow of time", which begins at the point of "now", and extends into the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is analogous to the sewing machine example I gave before, which showed a determined future.

The breadth of time is at a right angle to the flow of time, and it's magnitude is a representation of how we experience the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

If the point of the now has breadth, duration, then the whole timeline must be redrawn to allow that the timeline has breadth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let's redraw the timeline with the breadth you call the 'now'. That only reinforces that every moment that ever existed is happening now. So if now is happening now and the sacking of Rome is also happening now, why can't a person say the same thing next year? It doesn't make sense to preclude the future from the now - after all, the fact that the time line has been redrawn in the 'now' format is telling us that there is no separation of time points on the timeline. Now is one gigantic superposition. Like it or not, that superposition includes the future as two weeks from now I will still be having that 'now' experience. It all becomes determined.

The second thing is what I said about the human experience of the present. What we call "the present" is limited to how we experience the present. So depending on the context, one might use "the present" to refer to a second, a minute, the day, the year, whatever arbitrary duration one chooses. — Metaphysician Undercover

I choose the entire timeline from the past to the end of the future? Determined. - but you sense the weakness of the position and the shut that option down when you say:

The only difference I am proposing, from how we currently use "the present", is that we cannot include any future time in "the present". — Metaphysician Undercover

Not to worry, sooner or later the nebulous future has to come out from hiding. As soon as it does, it interacts with the space dimensions, immediately rendering it determined. Our present of dubious duration becomes a series of connected determined present moments (if we decide we don't want to superpose all the nows).

You are making a false representation here, referring to "the future that I can see around me". What you see around you is the activity of things. The activity is the result of this process which is the future becoming the past (time passing) This occurs at the present. This activity is "determined", but it is determined by the Platonic Forms, which exist on the future side of the present, it is not determined by what has occurred in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, we are no longer even arguing that the present- the place we make choice- is determined, only what it is determined by. And you say it is determined by the Platonic Forms on the future side of the present. But I thought you wanted people in the present to have free choice. How can they when they live in a determined world - as determined by the Platonic Forms of the future? Isn't that the argument you're trying to use against me?

Because the present has breadth, the Forms may interact with each other during the process of emanation, at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Lucky for me my bed keeps emanating in my bedroom each present moment from the past - although at times I think the Forms emanate my wallet and keys to other areas of the house. :)

The real timeline cannot extend into the future because time has not come into existence there yet. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's the entire quote so you know I have not taken you out of context:

You've forgotten one thing though, time as we know it, only exists as the present comes to pass. So the "entire timeline" is from now until what we call the beginning of time. The real timeline cannot extend into the future because time has not come into existence there yet. — Metaphysician Undercover

If time has not come into existence in the future yet, then we only have space in the future. Space is full of spatial relations - it is determined, just like the past. Time when it comes along merely sweeps over it, creating the illusion of movement, just like flipping the pages of book with an animated comic drawn on them.

Insisting that the universe is determined doesn't answer my question of why you contradict yourself. You said it is a fact that human beings can change their world, but you also claim that what's to be, in the future, is already determined, just hidden behind a curtain. So how is it that human beings can change their world when what's to be is just hidden from us. I don't see how this allows for change. You don't really believe that human beings can change their world, do you? — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no contradiction. Human beings can change their world, that is why their determined paths through time are so complex, rather than straight lines. Do you not think that when Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon he made the decision to do so? - a decision you yourself have conceded was determined.

Your theory to prove that the universe is not determined wants to separate time into its own dimension separate from space, but the problem is that it does not mean space no long exists. By taking this position, you create a model where it is the sweep of Time over a determined universe that creates the movement we call the present.

I think you understand this problem and therefore have attempted to dissolve space into time, calling it a concept of the future. The problem with this model is that once again we have time and space together again, causing determination. You might just as well leave them where they were.

You don't really believe that human beings can change their world, do you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Have you studied this issue? There is nothing to abandon. SR and GR are solutions to measurement problems. They have zero ontological standing. They describe nothing about the experience of life. — Rich

Do you want me to work with you guys on this or do you prefer me to keep my side? I'm happy enough to jump on your side for a while.

OK, well, I'm glad we can both agree that in the universe as most people understand it, our world is determined. — MikeL

Where do you get this idea, that "most people" understand our universe as determined. Physicists make up a small portion of the people in the world, and not even all of them think that the world is determined. I would say that it's more likely that most people think that the world is not determined, because this is the default position produced by living and choosing. It only seems to be a small number of determinist philosophers who really think that the universe is determined.

So if now is happening now and the sacking of Rome is also happening now, why can't a person say the same thing next year? — MikeL

There's a substantial difference between future and past, that's why, I've gone over this numerous times. You deny this to claim determinism, but it is evident in all of our activities. Without this substantial difference, there is no such thing as "now".

It doesn't make sense to preclude the future from the now - after all, the fact that the time line has been redrawn in the 'now' format is telling us that there is no separation of time points on the timeline. Now is one gigantic superposition. Like it or not, that superposition includes the future as two weeks from now I will still be having that 'now' experience. It all becomes determined. — MikeL

Yes it does make sense to preclude the future, because time has not yet come to pass in that realm, so there is literally no time there. And there is separation between time points, because there is two dimensions of time, one which accounts for the breadth of the time points, and one which accounts for the separation (temporal duration) between points. There is no such points in the future, nor is there temporal duration, in the future, because time has not yet passed in the future. Any suggested points, or temporal duration, in the future, are purely hypothetical.

So, we are no longer even arguing that the present- the place we make choice- is determined, only what it is determined by. And you say it is determined by the Platonic Forms on the future side of the present. But I thought you wanted people in the present to have free choice. How can they when they live in a determined world - as determined by the Platonic Forms of the future? Isn't that the argument you're trying to use against me? — MikeL

As I explained, the Forms offer a seemingly endless numbers of possible combinations, for determining what will occur.. Whichever combinations occur, this determines what happens. People with free choice can choose combinations and make them occur. So as much as you interpret this as "the world is determined", part of this determining is carried out by the free will , which is not itself determined. Either you should interpret this as "part of the world is not determined", the part where free will is, or that the free will is separate from the world which you see as determined.

Lucky for me my bed keeps emanating in my bedroom each present moment from the past - although at times I think the Forms emanate my wallet and keys to other areas of the house. :) — MikeL

Right, you should always be wary because someone with free will could cause something unexpected, and also undesirable, to happen to you. That's just the nature of reality. Neo-Platonic Forms and such are needed to describe this aspect of reality.

If time has not come into existence in the future yet, then we only have space in the future. Space is full of spatial relations - it is determined, just like the past. Time when it comes along merely sweeps over it, creating the illusion of movement, just like flipping the pages of book with an animated comic drawn on them. — MikeL

No, that's a faulty conclusion, to say that if there is no time in the future, then there must be space in the future. There is neither of these, and that's why reality is so hard to grasp.

There is no contradiction. Human beings can change their world, that is why their determined paths through time are so complex, rather than straight lines. Do you not think that when Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon he made the decision to do so? - a decision you yourself have conceded was determined. — MikeL

No, you are misrepresenting what I said. I wouldn't say that a free choice is determined. I would say that the activities which occur as the result of a free choice are determined. They are determined by that free choice, but I wouldn't say that the choice itself is determined. Do you see the difference?

Your theory to prove that the universe is not determined wants to separate time into its own dimension separate from space, but the problem is that it does not mean space no long exists. — MikeL

I already went through the reasons why we must assume that space doesn't exist prior to the present. It's all supported by empirical evidence concerning how human beings have been observed to change the world. It is this empirically based principle which leads to the conclusion that time needs to be separated from space.
You demonstrate a misunderstanding of these principles.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one Metaphysician Undercover. Nice debating with you. See you on the next OP. :)

Sure, we can agree to disagree. But I hope you respect the fact that I've explained to you why I believe what I believe, and you haven't yet answered my question of how you can believe that everything in the future is already determined, like it's just behind a curtain, yet you also believe that human beings can change things. How can you hold contradictory beliefs?

I know what you are saying Metaphysician Undercover. You presented your case well, but I put you in a bind by getting to you to concede to a determined past. In doing so, two different ways of looking at time became conflated.

The first way of looking at time, is in terms of the timeline. The timeline consists of the past, present and future. That is why you found yourself at odds with physics- all I had to do was say space and time and it became determined because every space on the timeline is associated with a time, and the timeline is a path.

The second way of looking at time is as the present. There is no past or future, period. There is only this bubble we live in where I can move things in space, a memory of events and ruminations about what will happen next. There is no need for a Platonic cloud - I think that arose as part of the conflation with the need for a timeline future while preserving the present as the only thing that existed (or maybe you actually think there is one, I don't know).

I do believe that both ways of looking at time allow for choice. In a timeline model I am quite OK with the idea of someone from the future coming to the present with knowledge of what will happen. Maybe I watch too much SciFi.

Which one do I think is truest reflection of reality? The second. The timeline is the construct in our mind.

Like I said, I think you did a good job at articulating your case. I was playing a devil's advocate roll to see if there was a deeper truth about it all I could find as well. When you push back against ideas you find their strength and weaknesses.

I know what you are saying Metaphysician Undercover. You presented your case well, but I put you in a bind by getting to you to concede to a determined past. In doing so, two different ways of looking at time became conflated. — MikeL

Your "two different ways seems to neglect other possibilities. The way I look at time is that the future is substantially different from the past. And this is extremely evident in the way that we approach everything we do and all aspects of our lives. So to deny this is to deny the obvious. But you do deny the obvious, claiming that if the past is determined then so is the future.

Which one do I think is truest reflection of reality? The second. The timeline is the construct in our mind. — MikeL

No, neither the first nor the second is the "truest reflection of reality". The option I've given you is much more consistent with our experiences and learned lessons.

Like I said, I think you did a good job at articulating your case. I was playing a devil's advocate roll to see if there was a deeper truth about it all I could find as well. When you push back against ideas you find their strength and weaknesses. — MikeL

Good job then MikeL! At least you were very attentive, and stuck with it trying to understand my twisted logic, right through the entire description. As you say, we'll meet on another thread.