As discussed in the other thread, it is a mistake to treat time as a concrete thing composed of individual moments whose contents are individual events, and past/present/future as abstract qualities or relations that are predicated of time as a whole or of those moments and events. Instead, time is truly continuous, and past/present/future are its three general determinations at which different states of things are realized.

That sounds like what I just described--time extends infinitely into the past, but events began with the Big Bang. — aletheist

That is something I can agree on. :ok:

Instead, time is truly continuous, and past/present/future are its three general determinations at which different states of things are realized.


...And? aletheist, were you able to answer my questions, through the lens of propositional logic?

I mean, I agree with you that it is continuous. But can we agree that it is either paradoxical or somehow contradictory (does it transcend logic)?

But can we agree that it is either paradoxical or somehow contradictory (does it transcend logic)? — 3017amen

No, again, time is not a concrete thing and past/present/future are not abstract qualities or relations that we predicate of it. It is a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can (and do) receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time. All our perception is of the present, and all our knowledge is of the past, while we can only anticipate the future.

No, you assumed that an infinite past would entail an actual infinity, and that this is impossible. As I mentioned upstream, an alternative is that time itself had no beginning, but there was nevertheless a first event (e.g., Big Bang). Time would then be a potential infinity, rather than an actual infinity, which is not problematic. — aletheist

If time is a potential infinity and it had no beginning and time as an actual infinity too has no beginning, there's no difference between actual and potential infinity re time is there?

This is getting interesting. I await further word from you.

If time is a potential infinity and it had no beginning and time as an actual infinity too has no beginning, there's no difference between actual and potential infinity re time is there? — TheMadFool

Time is not something actual at all, because it does not act on or react with anything. In other words, time does not exist, even though it is real--it is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. That is why time itself could be infinite, even if there was a first event--i.e., a beginning of actuality.

No, again, time is not a concrete thing and past/present/future are not abstract qualities or relations that we predicate of it. It is a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can (and do) receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time. All our perception is of the present, and all our knowledge is of the past, while we can only anticipate the future. — aletheist

Okay, let me try to understand you. You are saying that Time is " a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can and do receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time."

You seem to saying that Time is then paradoxical or somehow contradictory, no?

Also, when you said " All our perception is of the present, and all our knowledge is of the past, while we can only anticipate the future".

That would be incorrect. When we think of a thing (cognize), it requires the future. It requires the phenomenon of Time itself. How do you reconcile that against your "anticipation"?

In other words, what do you mean by the act of anticipation? Thinking itself, does not require any volitional act of "anticipation". Thinking can also be involuntary. In cognitive science, it is known as the stream of consciousness. Otherwise, in the context which we are discussing, to think about a thing by choice, does not involve any conscious anticipation or sense of wonder.

Again, please explain whether Time is paradoxical or somehow contradictory (or specifically address my previous questions). I'm not exactly following you aletheist. It doesn't square with your notion that " time is not concrete...are not abstract qualities... ."

So in your view, if Time is neither concrete or abstract, what is it?? An unexplained phenomenon, a metaphysical construct, something beyond logic... ?

You seem to saying that Time is then paradoxical or somehow contradictory, no? — 3017amen

No, why do you keep saying that? Please specify the alleged paradox or contradiction.

When we think of a thing (cognize), it requires the future. — 3017amen

Nonsense, all thinking (cognition) takes place in the present.

Thinking itself, does not require any volitional act of "anticipation". Thinking can also be involuntary. — 3017amen

Who said that anticipation is volitional? Most anticipation is involuntary, which is why surprises have such a forceful effect.

So in your view, if Time is neither concrete or abstract, what is it? — 3017amen

You already quoted my answer: "a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can and do receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time."

No, why do you keep saying that? Please specify the alleged paradox or contradiction. — aletheist

"And by maintaining the OP/paradox, if we are saying that the past, present and future all consist of Time itself, is that not somehow a contradiction?

For example:

1. Time is both present and not present.
2. Time is both past and not past.
3. Time is both future and not future.
4. For me to simply cognize or think (i.e., the act of thinking itself about items 1thru 3), it requires perception of all three at the same Time.

Are those propositions sound? If they are true, then the infamous apple can't be red and not red at the same time (bivalence/vagueness/law of non-contradiction). It has to be either true that its color is red, or false that it is red. The properties of Time then, can't be exclusively one or another. It is vague. It is a mottled color of red. It transcends the principle of bivalence, correct?"

Nonsense, all thinking (cognition) takes place in the present. — aletheist

Really? Thinking requires Time (past, present, and future) in order to perform cognition/consciousness. Otherwise, explain how you can remove one component of Time, and still cognize properly, about any thing?

Who said that anticipation is volitional? Most anticipation is involuntary, which is why surprises have such a forceful effect. — aletheist

Not according to most dictionaries, hence:
Anticipation: The act of expecting or foreseeing something; expectation or presentiment.

The only exception I know of would relate to subconsciousness.

You already quoted my answer: "a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can and do receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time." — aletheist

1. Who is "they"? The laws of Time itself? Who wrote the laws?
2. "Contrary determinations" are what phenomena? Are they logical?

Rather than repeating a blizzard of words, please summarize in one sentence what you find paradoxical or contradictory about time as I have outlined it.

Thinking requires Time (past, present, and future) in order to perform cognition/consciousness. — 3017amen

How so? Again, all thinking takes place in the present. It indeed requires time, but that is why the present must be an indefinite lapse rather than a durationless instant.

Otherwise, explain how you can remove one component of Time, and still cognize properly, about any thing? — 3017amen

I have no idea what you mean by "remove one component of Time." Also, why are you consistently capitalizing "Time"?

[Time] is a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can (and do) receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time. — aletheist

Who is "they"? — 3017amen

Concrete things.

"Contrary determinations" are what phenomena? — 3017amen

Possessing vs. not possessing an abstract quality or relation.

Rather than repeating a blizzard of words, please summarize in one sentence what you find paradoxical or contradictory about time as I have outlined it. — aletheist

Well, I tried to be helpful. You seem unable to address my argument. If you wish, I will abide by your request: Time is paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence. Surely that's not going to help you, does it? If not, pass go, and repeat step one (read my explanation-or your interpretation of my 'blizzard of words')… .

How so? Again, all thinking takes place in the present. It indeed requires time, but that is why the present must be an indefinite lapse rather than a duration-less instant. — aletheist

Be careful not to dichotomize. It's not an all or nothing campaign here. Yes, I agree some so-called phenomenal features of consciousness occur in a nanosecond. However, a complete thought, using logic, would take longer, even much longer depending on the context. Otherwise, an interesting factoid here:

I have no idea what you mean by "remove one component of Time — aletheist

Excuse me? Now, you had said "all thinking takes place in the present". Yet you are saying Time is "continuous..." , so which is it? I'm asking you to remove, in your case, either the past or future, from the concept of Time itself, in order to see what that would look like. Get it?

Concrete things. — aletheist

What are concrete things relative to the discussion of Time?

Possessing vs. not possessing an abstract quality or relation. — aletheist

But, as you say ( and I agree) if Time is continuous, then are we possessing and not possessing abstract relations/qualities at the same Time?

You seem unable to address my argument. — 3017amen

Only because I have been unable to discern your argument.

Time is paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence. — 3017amen

Bare assertion. How is time paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence? What two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other?

Yes, I agree some so-called phenomenal features of consciousness occur in a nanosecond. — 3017amen

I said nothing whatsoever about a nanosecond. I said that the present is an indefinite lapse of time.

I'm asking you to remove, in your case, either the past or future, from the concept of Time itself, in order to see what that would look like. Get it? — 3017amen

No, I still have no clue what you are talking about.

What are concrete things relative to the discussion of Time? — 3017amen

Concrete things endure and change over time, such that they can (and do) possess different abstract qualities and relations at different determinations of time.

But, as you say ( and I agree) if Time is continuous, then are we possessing and not possessing abstract relations/qualities at the same Time? — 3017amen

No, a thing that possesses a certain quality/relation at one determination of time can only not possess the same quality/relation at a different determination of time--never at the same determination of time, because that would violate the principle of contradiction.

Bare assertion. How is time paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence? What two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other? — aletheist

Let's take one at a time (no pun intended):

And by maintaining the OP/paradox, if we are saying that the past, present and future all consist of Time itself, is that not somehow a contradiction?

For example:

1. Time is both present and not present.
2. Time is both past and not past.
3. Time is both future and not future.
4. For me to simply cognize or think (i.e., the act of thinking itself about items 1thru 3), it requires perception of all three at the same Time.

Are those propositions sound? If they are true, then the infamous apple can't be red and not red at the same time (bivalence/vagueness/law of non-contradiction). It has to be either true that its color is red, or false that it is red. The properties of Time then, can't be exclusively one or another. It is vague. It is a mottled color of red. It transcends the principle of bivalence, correct?"

altheist, we agree that Time is continuous, but when you try to make it mutually exclusive to one or the other (past , present, future) is where you encounter the illogical phenomenon and/or paradox. And you tried to make it that by saying Time is only present... .

Let's take one at a time (no pun intended): — 3017amen

And yet what followed was the same incoherent mess that you keep repeating. If I could not make heads or tails of it the first three times, what makes you think that it will magically make sense to me the fourth time? I asked for two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it that are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then we have nothing further to discuss.

we agree that Time is continuous, but when you try to make it mutually exclusive to one or the other (past , present, future) is where you encounter the illogical phenomenon and/or paradox. And you tried to make it that by saying Time is only present — 3017amen

Where have I ever said that time is only present? Please use the quote function.

And yet what followed was the same incoherent mess that you keep repeating. If I could not make heads or tails of it the first three times, what makes you think that it will magically make sense to me the fourth time? I asked for two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it that are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then we have nothing further to discuss. — aletheist

Where have I ever said that time is only present? Please use the quote function.

altheist said: "...all thinking takes place in the present..." .

So, if all this makes no sense to you then, I agree, we will agree to disagree. I'm not sure what else I can say other than repeating myself. Accordingly, this may or may not help you (otherwise, thanks for the opportunity to engage):

Where have I ever said that time is only present? — aletheist

altheist said: "...all thinking takes place in the present..." — 3017amen

Please notice: I did not say that time is only present, I said that all thinking takes place in the present. Those are two completely different statements, and you are misinterpreting the latter if you believe that it entails the former.

I'm not sure what else I can say other than repeating myself. — 3017amen

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result. The best way to make a paradox or contradiction evident is to identify two (or more) propositions that are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other. Unless you can do that regarding time as I have outlined it, I have no reason to believe that there is anything paradoxical or contradictory about it.

Accordingly, this may or may not help you — 3017amen

That video again? Seriously? The entire thread on "The Reality of Time" is my rebuttal to it.

Oh, I apologize for the redundancy. I did take the opportunity to do a cursory read of your previous OP and couldn't find where you were able to reach any consensus on your arguments. (Were you able to determine whether time was an illusion or a reality?)

Please notice: I did not say that time is only present, I said that all thinking takes place in the present. Those are two completely different statements, and you are misinterpreting the latter if you believe that it entails the former. — aletheist

Can you elucidate a bit more on that aletheist? I think you draw an interesting distinction, however, you may need to give some more thought and/or examples of the point you're trying to make.

Just sayin

I did take the opportunity to do a cursory read of your previous OP and couldn't find where you were able to reach any consensus on your arguments. — 3017amen

You would need to read the entire thread, not just the OP.

Were you able to determine whether time was an illusion or a reality? — 3017amen

The thread title is "The Reality of Time," and the OP directly rebuts McTaggart's claim that time is unreal.

Can you elucidate a bit more on that aletheist? — 3017amen

All I can do is point out once more what should be quite obvious: We are never thinking in the past or in the future, only in the present. Put another way, the temporal present always directly corresponds to whatever is present to the mind.

can do is point out once more what should be quite obvious: We are never thinking in the past or in the future, only in the present. Put another way, the temporal present always directly corresponds to whatever is present to the mind. — aletheist

I will challenge you to support your claim. Explain how the conscious mind does not involuntarily use Time ( past present and future) in order to express/convey/verbalize logic and intellect.

The thread title is "The Reality of Time," and the OP directly rebuts McTaggart's claim that time is unreal. — aletheist

Of course. Unless I'm mistaken I don't believe you were successful in making your case. ( From what I read, the majority did not agree with you--myself included.)

Be well!

I will challenge you to support your claim. Explain how the conscious mind does not involuntarily use Time ( past present and future) in order to express/convey/verbalize logic and intellect. — 3017amen

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not claim that we never use past/present/future to express/convey/verbalize thought, I said that all thinking takes place in the present. We can (and do) think about the past and the future, but we are always and only thinking at the present.

Unless I'm mistaken I don't believe you were successful in making your case. ( From what I read, the majority did not agree with you--myself included.) — 3017amen

The success of a philosophical argument is not ultimately determined by majority vote of a small subset of participants in an online forum. Most of us are pretty confident in our preexisting opinions, and my observation over the years is that persuasion otherwise is extremely rare.

Be well! — 3017amen

You, too.

We can (and do) think about the past and the future, but we are always and only thinking at the present. — aletheist

I will ask you again, in order to support your claim, explain how the conscious mind does not involuntarily use Time ( past present and future) in order to express/convey/verbalize logic and intellect.

Most of us are pretty confident in our preexisting opinions, and my observation over the years is that persuasion otherwise is extremely rare. — aletheist

Two things seem to be emerging:

1. Does that mean you are unable to engage in discourse?
2. Are you unable to answer my questions because you simply can't support your arguments? In other words, are you acquiescing by your silence?

How about a psychological viewpoint!

We can with no trouble imagine an interminable future, but it is impossible to comprehend what an eternal past would be in comparison to the content of human experience; we know of nothing that has no origin, with our cognition being hardwired to look at everything as caused. An infinite regress of causes defies our mental makeup to seek the root of things, which in circumstances of the ordinary leads us by increments to a closed system of mechanisms that further phenomena fit into as progress. This enigma is reinforced by incipience of our own perception at infancy; to have existed forever as potential in a past that never began is nearly inconceivable.

We thus look to creational explanations for even the universe as a whole, that it is a cycle of big bangs or some other kind of cycle: the closest we can get is a notion of perpetual rebirth. Our profoundest myths and scientific accounts of the cosmos presume a beginning, even though the whole idea is based on mere reflexive presuppositions of our thinking, that what is permanent but changing must come from something or somewhere. There may be a conceptual null set but there is no null substance, and there is a conceptual infinite set but no perceivably infinite substance, the paradox that forces us to choose philosophically between spontaneous generation out of nothing or an uncaused cause, or remain suspended in uncertainty.

I will ask you again, in order to support your claim, explain how the conscious mind does not involuntarily use Time ( past present and future) in order to express/convey/verbalize logic and intellect. — 3017amen

I already did, but apparently I am misunderstanding what you mean by "use Time" in this context. Also, you still have not answered one of my questions--why do you consistently capitalize "Time" as if it were a proper name?

Does that mean you are unable to engage in discourse? — 3017amen

Not at all, I am just realistic about the (un)likelihood of persuading others whose minds are already made up. As you might have noticed, most of the content on this website consists of debates between people who disagree.

Are you unable to answer my questions because you simply can't support your arguments? In other words, are you acquiescing by your silence? — 3017amen

Not at all, I am unable to answer your questions because the way that you pose them is such that I honestly do not know what you are asking. Above is the latest example.

Time is not something actual at all, because it does not act on or react with anything. In other words, time does not exist, even though it is real--it is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. That is why time itself could be infinite, even if there was a first event--i.e., a beginning of actuality. — aletheist

That could be one of the possible inferences of my argument. :up:

And in a succinct fashion, what was your answer, again? The reason I ask to re-visit that so-called phenomena (relative to time) is because both TMF and I are suggesting that there are contradictions associated with same.

But more specifically, your answer in the other thread you linked I believe, was in a different context, no?

So I'll restate the question: can you remove the past, present, and future from the concept of Time itself? (And if you could, what would that look like?) — 3017amen

The idea of a beginning isn't a problem for the notion of past, present, & future. What follows are my findings in this regard:

Suppose time had a beginning and let's call it B. B can't ever be the future because there is no time preceding it for which it can serve as a future to. So, B is either a present or a past. At the instant B becomes "real" B gets the chance to be the present. For all times that follow B, B becomes what I call the absolute past referring to it being the limit of what can be past since there is no time before B.

So, B is a special case in that it breaks from the norm - becoming the present without ever being the future. The usual way things develop is for a moment in time to first be the future, then the present and last but not the least, it becomes the past.

its hypothetical clock. its so far away from the condensed universe, and the clock is traveling at a slow velocity or not at all, it has almost no effect on the other part(s) of the universe. Its a hypothetical (for the sake of argument) clock. — christian2017

I don't think those terms, "far away", and "slow velocity" have any meaning outside the universe.

TMF!

In your scenario, I think about the concept of change.

1. Change and Time: what is the nature of these things...whether it is the idea's of time zones, planck time, being and becoming, cosmology, etc., something had to change before time was created. Like the laws of thermodynamics, something was causing emergent properties to come into existence. That idea alone I think begs at least two questions; is change synonymous with time, and is time a human construct that arbitrarily measures same (AKA: the paradox of time zones).

When we talk about the beginning of time, I think it is just an arbitrary construct that creates an illusion. The concept of change is what should be considered.

2. Consciousness and Time: Can we remove time and change from our process of actual thinking itself(?). The answer of course is probably not. However, what if we thought that we could remove one of the three properties of time (past, present and future), what would that look like... . Our process of cognition (consciousness/subconsciousness) relies on past, present, and future input to process thought itself. For instance, you can't stop the present, otherwise you stop the future. And you can't stop the past because the present and future relies on the past. All three are dependent upon each other for their existence.

ts hypothetical clock. its so far away from the condensed universe, and the clock is traveling at a slow velocity or not at all, it has almost no effect on the other part(s) of the universe. Its a hypothetical (for the sake of argument) clock.
— christian2017

I don't think those terms, "far away", and "slow velocity" have any meaning outside the universe. — Metaphysician Undercover

universe is just another phrase for the known matter and energy, so if you have an extremely condensed universe one end and then trillions of miles away you have the clock that "mad_guy" was talking about, yes these terms do have meaning.

We are both ignorant arm chair physicists. Don't pretend otherwise.

or if you like that hypothetical clock is apart of the other very dense part far away, but that hypothetical clock just happens to be a piece that is trillions of miles away from the very dense part.

I think you understand the concept but you are just playing dead like a dog.

messed up.