Right, an "instant" is not a real part of time, and that is why time cannot be continuous. There is something which breaks the continuity, which is called the "instant".
The present is not distinct from the past and the future, it is an indefinite moment such that we directly perceive the continuous flow of time.
No, there are states of things independent of human judgments--namely, facts. These are signified by true propositions, which are likewise independent of human judgments. Again, a judgment is a human decision to adopt a certain proposition as a belief. — aletheist
On the contrary, I have consistently maintained that the principle of excluded middle applies to propositions signifying prolonged states of things (what you call "being"), but not to propositions signifying indefinitely gradual states of change (what you call "becoming"), both of which are only realized at lapses of time (not instants). — aletheist
I stipulated from the very beginning that in my example, "S" denotes an existential subject, an enduring concrete thing; and "P" denotes one of the innumerable qualities or relations that it possesses at some determinations of time, but not at others. I have never been talking about any other possible referent of either term. — aletheist
I have the same opinion of your responses at this point, so maybe it is time (no pun intended) for us to call it quits. — aletheist
The problem was you then started talk about divisibility in terms of past, present, and future - where did you get that, some reference? — Zelebg
Explain that to Aletheist. That's where his confusion is, and anything else you two are talking about is beside that essential point. — Zelebg
You can not resolve the issue by not addressing the issue, so until you start talking about continuity in terms of infinite divisibility there is no distinction what is it you two are really talking about. — Zelebg
However, it cannot actually be divided anywhere or else it is not continuous.
Continuous does not mean indivisible, it means “composed of no parts” — Zelebg
We draw a line from A to B. That line is either continuous in space / time or not, but we can divide it in either case by placing point C somewhere in between. — Zelebg
Do you agree, that if you divide that line at C, it then consists of the parts AC, CB, and is therefore not a continuous line from A to B?
That’s why I insist it should be referred to as “infinite divisibility” rather than “continuity”, it is far more specific and avoids this kind of misinterpretation. — Zelebg
Your logic is not wrong, just inadequate because you don’t get two logically opposite and mutually exclusive categories: continuous / divisible vs. discrete / indivisible. — Zelebg
So no, we divide a line and we do not get two parts, we get two lines, and if we supposed lines are continuous, then obviously we get two continuities. Think of it as analog vs. digital. — Zelebg
The goal is to describe how things are in reality, not to produce mutually exclusive categories.
Do you agree or not?
There has not been much consensus about anything in this thread, but please clarify exactly what you mean by "the bivalence/vagueness issue." — aletheist
I believe that time is real and continuous.Whether the so-called reality of past, present, future are either continuous or discrete? — 3017amen
I believe that there are lapses of time during which a concrete thing (S) is changing from possessing an abstract quality or relation (P) to not possessing it, or vice-versa, such that neither "S is P" nor "S is not-P" is true; i.e., the principle of excluded middle is false with respect to the attribution of that predicate to that subject at that determination of time. Instead, either "S is becoming P" or "S is becoming not-P" is true.The bivalence issue , I thought, was in large part what you and MU were arguing relative to P and-P, generally speaking. — 3017amen
I believe that the principle of contradiction is maintained, because there is no instant or lapse of time at which both "S is P" and "S is not-P" are true.And so, I thought one argument was that basically, time violated the laws of non-contradiction. — 3017amen
e cannot make truthful 'is' and 'is not' statements concerning the future because it is indeterminate, characterized by possibility. — Metaphysician Undercover
I would say that this is true relative to human understanding (only) — but not in an absolute sense. Because humans experience time one instant at a time and don't know the future with any certainty (needless to say). — Daz
We can make truthful 'is' and 'is not' statements concerning the past, because the past has already occurred and is therefore determinate — Metaphysician Undercover
If you believe in free will, the future is not determined. — Metaphysician Undercover
None, since the past is determinate.Under what circumstances might the past be altered? — jgill
Then you are indeed a hard determinist, as @Metaphysician Undercover stated; presumably also an eternalist, holding that the past, present, and future all exist. My view is more along the lines of the "growing block" theory, holding that the past and present exist, but not the future. The present is the indefinite lapse of time at which the indeterminate future is always becoming the determinate past.I believe the future is determined regardless of what one believes. — Daz
Under what circumstances might the past be altered? — jgill
None, since the past is determinate. — aletheist
If we are constantly changing our opinions as to the facts of the past on the basis of new information, then why should we believe that the past is real and immutable? — sime
Our grasp of the state of things seems on some occasions and in some respects to change gradually and indefinitely, on other occasions and in other respects to change definitely and suddenly.The state of things in the present is always one of indefinitely gradual change, — aletheist
It seems reasonable to suppose that some events are or involve "appearances", and that other events are not and do not involve "appearances".as ongoing events bring different abstract qualities and concrete things together, — aletheist
In what sense are possibilities "indeterminate"?such that the indeterminate possibilities and conditional necessities of the future become the determinate actualities of the past. — aletheist
Objective matters of fact do not seem to depend on our thoughts about them.Time is real because this process and its results are as they are regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about them. — aletheist
In my view, a definite change is an event, which is always realized at a lapse of time during which the change is strictly continuous. Some events are more abrupt than others; i.e., the lapse of time at which they are realized has a shorter duration, causing them to be perceived as more forceful. However, no event is truly instantaneous.Our grasp of the state of things seems on some occasions and in some respects to change gradually and indefinitely, on other occasions and in other respects to change definitely and suddenly. — Cabbage Farmer
They are states of things that may or may not be realized (in the future). Only facts that have been realized (in the past) are determinate.In what sense are possibilities "indeterminate"? — Cabbage Farmer
Facts signified by conditional propositions in the subjunctive mood; e.g., "If state of things X were to be realized, then state of things Y would be realized."What are conditional necessities of the future? — Cabbage Farmer
I suppose that "conditional necessities of the past" are facts signified by counterfactual propositions; e.g., "If state of things X had been realized, then state of things Y would have been realized."If there are such things as conditional necessities of the future, might they imply conditional necessities of the past, not merely determinate actualities of the past? — Cabbage Farmer
That is exactly what it means for something to be real--it is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it.Objective matters of fact do not seem to depend on our thoughts about them. — Cabbage Farmer
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.