You're doing things the wrong way around.

Look, it is obvious what the answer to my question is: it is 'no'.

If an event is present, it is not also future and past.

Look, it is obvious what the answer to my question is: it is 'no'. — Bartricks

Then what’s the point of your posts?

My motives are irrelevant. Focus.

Present, past and future are incompatible properties. Yes?

So you think that if an event if present, it is also future and past? — Bartricks

No. I'm saying that an event just is.

Allow me to answer your query with another sort of query:
Is the current year (2020) past, present or future?

My point is, there are certain events which defy the limitations of time we attempt to stamp onto them.

Time is a marker, a point of record, of an event with respect to other events. For us, humans, it exists within our memory relations, primarily as a sequence marker.

You can't answer a question with a question.

So, is a present event also in the future and also in the past? Please answer with an answer, not a question.

The record of events in your experience can only be as you allow for them.

For me, while there are events which are characterized into pasts, presents and futures, there are also those events beyond such designations due to their capacity to exceed such limitations depending on perspective, case in point, this year (this moment of our earth's revolution cycle).

For me, this year is already in the past, present and future in as much as its moment of occurrence, from my perspective, encompasses all those designations.

You still haven't answered the question. Is 'now' also future and past? Does "you will be dead in the future" mean the same as "you are now dead"?

You still haven't answered the question. — Bartricks

I have. I've given you an event which encompasses our past, present and future.

Unless you show me the deficiency in the answer, I don't know what else to say.

So, "I will be dead in the future" means the same as "I am dead" yes? That is, if I am dead in the future, I am now dead. That's your view, yes? It's kinda silly, isn't it? I mean, nobody - not even you - thinks it is actually true.

Is that what you've got from all the explanations I've given?

Do you think it is true, or false? I mean, so far you've failed to address yourself to my question.

So I'll ask it again: If I am dead in the future, am I now dead?

Note: I think everything you have said so far makes not a blind bit of sense. Not even a tiny bit. And I think you haven't a clue what you're talking about. As, like I say, your inability to answer my question demonstrates.

Then, I am unable to respond to your satisfaction.

Does "you will be dead in the future" mean the same as "you are now dead"? — Bartricks

You might have to define what you mean by “dead”.

No I don't.

Will you be dead in the future?

Are you dead now?

Is your answer to one of those different from the answer to the other?

Actually, don't bother - you're beyond help. I recommend Buddhism (if you're not a Buddhist already). They like to sit around and think nothing.

How can we discuss death if we don’t agree on the term?

What do you mean by 'how'?

And while you're at it, what do you mean by 'can'?

Oh, and 'we' - what do you mean by 'we'?

'Discuss' - I think we need to clarify that too, actually.

And 'death'. I am not sure what you mean by it when you use it.

'If' too, please.

'Don't' - please define that while we're at it.

And I supposed 'agree' would be helpful too.

And 'on'.

Oh, go on then - 'the' too please.

And 'term'.

And that squiggle at the end - ? - what does that mean?

Thanks.

And 'death'. I am not sure what you mean by it when you use it. — Bartricks

Exactly. That’s my position, too.

Still not sure I'm following you. Can you define 'exactly' for me? And that little dot that followed it - . - what does that mean? And "That's" - can you define what you mean by "That's". Need to know we're on the same page, you see. Oh, and "my" and "position" and "," and "too", as well please. And that dot at the end - what does that mean? The same as the earlier dot or something different this time?

Thanks Bre. Can I call you Bre?

I’m confused by the position you hold here about death, or appear to hold to me, and the position you hold with @TheMadFool on “The Simplest Thing” about the immaterial mind. Your argument there would seem to agree with my feelings about death, that it’s only the material body that dies, that there is no “death”.

Bartricks, seems to want people to agree on one simple point before moving on and has become frustrated that their not doing that. His argument seems to be that past, present and future are logically incompatible properties. I understand what he's saying, but there are subtleties which are missed. He is insisting that all events happen in the present, they logically can't happen in the past and nothing can happen in the future. So the property of something happening (being) in the past is nonsensical, there is no past for it to be in. Humanity has created a false narrative of things being in the past. Likewise there is no future, there is only the present.

So, "I will be dead in the future" means the same as "I am dead" yes? That is, if I am dead in the future, I am now dead.

You can't be dead in the future, because there is no future, there is only conjecture. I know from empirical observation that I will cease to be a human being in the present, because I will be dead. Just that it is not this current moment, but another, future, moment, that I am dead.
Our language has developed with many words implying things happening, or being, in the future, or the past, I have written these words in italics. You are claiming that this narrative is false, because there isn't a past and there isn't a future? Well I agree.

By refresh-rate, you are referring to the duration of a moment for a human, what we would describe as a few seconds. Or about a second with a fade in and out of a second each side, the past and future?
Also you are saying there are other reset periods, like day length determined by physical circumstances?

There is no single time: there is a different duration for every trajectory; and time passes at different rhythms according to place and according to speed. It is not directional: the difference between past and future does not exist in the elementary equations of the world; its orientation is merely a contingent aspect that appears when we look at things and neglect the details. In this blurred view, the past of the universe was in a curiously ‘particular’ state. The notion of ‘present’ does not work: in the vast universe there is nothing that we can reasonably call ‘present’. The substratum that determines the duration of time is not an independent entity, different from the others that make up the world; it is an aspect of a dynamic field. It jumps, fluctuates, materialises only by interacting, and is not to be found beneath the minimum scale...

None of the pieces that time has lost (singularity, direction, independence, the present, continuity) puts into question the fact that the world is a network of events. On the one hand, there was time, with its many determinations; on the other, the simple fact that nothing is: that things happen instead. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

And on ‘eternalism’:

The fact that we cannot arrange the universe like a single orderly sequence of times does not mean that nothing changes. It means that changes are not arranged in a single orderly succession: the temporal structure of the world is more complex than a single linear succession of instants. This does not mean that it is non-existent or illusory.

The distinction between past, present and future is not an illusion. It is the temporal structure of the world. But the temporal structure of the world is not that of presentism. The temporal relations between events are more complex than we previously thought, but they do not cease to exist on account of this...

What confuses us when we seek to make sense of the discovery that no objective universal present exists is only the fact that our grammar is organised around an absolute distinction - ‘past/present/future’ - that is only partly apt, here in our immediate vicinity. The structure of reality is not the one that this grammar presupposes. We say that an event ‘is’, or ‘has been, or ‘will be’. We do not have a grammar adapted to say that an event ‘has been’ in relation to me but ‘is’ in relation to you. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘The Order of Time’

Interestingly, the concept of ‘eternalism’ or the ‘block universe’ interests me mainly because I believe it relates to how we structure events in our minds: not according to time, but according to value. This, I imagine, is what Einstein meant by the comment many tout as ‘proof’ of his support of eternalism (which was written in a personal letter regarding the death of a dear friend):

“Now he [Michele] has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

In that sense, the idea that everything that could ever exist is already out there awaiting our ability to see it, pertains, in my view, to our perception of potentiality in the world. Our ability to create something new depends on our ability to see or ‘perceive’ potential in our unique interactions with the world that no one has seen before - potential that was already there, awaiting our ability to ‘see’ it.

By refresh-rate, you are referring to the duration of a moment for a human, what we would describe as a few seconds. Or about a second with a fade in and out of a second each side, the past and future?
Also you are saying there are other reset periods, like day length determined by physical circumstances? — Punshhh

Yes. What we, humans, like to refer to as a moment is not and cannot describe a moment in its absolute sense. Ours is a kind of aberration built upon a specific kind of relation. It is also why, in all my explanations, I have insisted on perspective. It is also why, given a period of activity taking place beyond a humans comprehension of duration of a moment, e.g. a year, it becomes impossible to classify it according to linear time unless it hasn't happened yet, or it is has already happened. In both cases, time would actually be irrelevant unless in connection with memory relations (records) of events. Basically, it is always now.

Yes, the way I look at it is that the natural state in a world/realm of manifestation is for there to be one point in one moment, rather like a singularity. This is such that it is also extended in space and time, that it contains all the complexity found in our limited world and the nature of that particular manifestation. But those limited occurrences are natural expressions of the one point and may be, for example a 3, or 4, or 5th dimensional expression of a single point existing in a higher dimension, in which all extension is as one.

This sort of concept can be a tongue twister and philosophically mere speculation.

If one approaches the question from a spiritual perspective you can go a lot further and consider the absolute.

This sort of concept can be a tongue twister and philosophically mere speculation.

If one approaches the question from a spiritual perspective you can go a lot further and consider the absolute. — Punshhh

True. However, I think that philosophically, it will change because there is a growing realization that subjectivity does not negate objectivity. There is also a growing number of people who realise that subjective actions add up to some part of our objective processes, e.g. how meditation increases the proficiency of mental processes which earlier scientific thought had dismissed as hogwash but now has incontrovertible proof of increased brain gamma waves through prolonged practice of meditation as well as its connection to well-being through improved mental health and such.

I think eventually, philosophy will advance further when it realises that logic does not mean scientific. At that point, a great part of the spiritual perspective will have regained some of its lost trust.

Right now, no matter how chaotic it gets, everything is just roses, ...roses. (Emoji/Gif: Indian guy doing the head-bobble)

I can’t answer the question because I’m only just getting my head around the theory of Eternalism which I find supportive of my OP. — Brett

Some people interpret Block Time and Eternalism as-if our experience of sequential space & time is an illusion due to our warped view from Relativity. So, the speculative inferences they draw are pretty far-out. But we need to remember that Block Time is a mathematical theory with no empirical evidence. Therefore, unless you are a theoretical physicist, I wouldn't worry too much about the weird implications of Block Time.

In my own worldview, I assume that Eternity-Infinity (timelessness and spacelessness) is the default state of BEING. But nobody is "there" to experience the infinite possibilities except G*D. This notion contrasts with Multiverse Theory (again, no empirical evidence), in which Space-Time is the default, and physical mini-universes are popping-up all over the place. Since G*D is defined as "everything possible forever" (an assumption taken as an axiom) our space-time world is analogous to a tiny bubble in the ocean. This perspective is called PanEnDeism : all-in-G*D.

This means that we humans are creatures of space-time, and would be out of our element in eternity-infinity. Yet, our rational minds can transcend space-time, to imagine intangible and irrational concepts (ideas). So we too-often confuse those Ideal notions with Real things. If we were to leave the Real world, and go to the Ideal world, we would have to abandon our 3D bodies, and become fleshless ghosts. Unfortunately, we also have no empirical evidence of humans "crossing-over", just imaginary stories of "the other side". Hence, if you want to believe that you will someday experience Eternalism, no one can prove you wrong --- or right.


G*D : An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. So, the eternal Whole, of which all temporal things are a part, is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.

I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.


PanEnDeism : Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between G*D (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of G*D that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.

1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as supernatural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.

So we too-often confuse those Ideal notions with Real things. If we were to leave the Real world, and go to the Ideal world, we would have to abandon our 3D bodies, and become fleshless ghosts. Unfortunately, we also have no empirical evidence of humans "crossing-over", just imaginary stories of "the other side". — Gnomon

Unfortunately this subject gets caught in a very tight gap between those who take a firm view on presentism and those who don’t. Of course like so many things they represent the two extremes and consequently both fail to contribute much in the end except their fixed views. However that’s my problem, not theirs. It’s not my intention to prove anyone right or wrong but to pick up any new aspects I hadn’t come across before, which I did.

Edit: by non presentism I actually meant mysticism.

I assume that Eternity-Infinity (timelessness and spacelessness) is the default state of BEING.

I'm not sure it is wise to use the word infinity there, I note that you qualify it with spacelessness, but squaring infinity with reality doesn't end well.

Timelessness and spacelessness, is a good default, or baseline. But it is a dead end when it comes to intellectual inquiry.

But the idea is that mathematical knowledge was already there. Does this then mean that everything is already there, it only awaits our ability to see it; America was there before it was discovered, Einstein’s theory of relativity was there before he formulated it, viruses existed before we identified them. Over time we learn to see more as our knowledge expands. But even then, despite our advancement in science, are we still only comprehending one small aspect of a virus. Might we one day discover that a virus has a mind? — Brett

I think of it like the cosmic computer brain, in that, many things relating to knowledge (not all) are already out there. There's a predetermined scope of axioms that exist, it's our volition that brings them into existence and/or awareness.

A good analogy would be the classic game of Twenty Questions, and the most notable from' Wheeler's Cloud' where there is no predetermined subject matter; it evolves based on the questions that we ask...hence:

"In developing the participatory anthropic principle (PAP), which is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler used a variant on Twenty Questions, called Negative Twenty Questions, to show how the questions we choose to ask about the universe may dictate the answers we get. In this variant, the respondent does not choose or decide upon any particular or definite object beforehand, but only on a pattern of 'Yes' or 'No' answers.

This variant requires the respondent to provide a consistent set of answers to successive questions, so that each answer can be viewed as logically compatible with all the previous answers. In this way, successive questions narrow the options until the questioner settles upon a definite object. Wheeler's theory was that, in an analogous manner, consciousness may play some role in bringing the universe into existence."