A discussion on space seems necessary first. Imagine X, an early human, trekking through the African savannah. The savannah are vast stretches of grassland with a few scaterred trees here and there. So, X, walks and comes across a tree, no fruits but still a tree. Then he continues along for another mile or so and then he encounters another tree - this one has fruits. In essence, he's met two trees and assuming he knew how to count up to two - it's said that early math began with the ability to count up to two - and assuming he was capable of ordinal math [the ability to order, sequence, as like first, second, etc.], X would've ordered the trees as such: first tree, no fruits; second tree, fruits. This ordering, this sequencing, must be contextualized, it requires a...dimension. The dimension in which the trees are first and second is space. — TheMadFool

Actually, the ordering described here as "first" and "second" is temporal rather than spatial. The one tree is first and the other is second because that is the temporal order in which the person encountered them, according to the person's approach from a particular direction. "First" and "second" is always based in a temporal priority, and can never be based in a "spatial dimension" because such a designation (first and second) with only spatial reference would be completely arbitrary, or subjective, depending on the perspective.

There is a problem which manifests from the modern tendency to portray time as a spatial dimension, and that is that temporal priority becomes an arbitrary, or subjective designation. You can see this in Kenosha Kid's threads where it is argued that time is reversible. Modeling time as a dimension of space robs us of the capacity for an objective concept of "priority" because such a designation become arbitrary, rather than being based in an objective passing of time.

However, the tree and the fruits haven't moved at all - they were there, they're still where they were. Ergo, X concludes, the sequence/order has nothing to do with space. In what context is the order/sequence of the fruits' condition occuring? In other words, in which dimension is the order/sequence of the ripening of the fruits taking place? Time. X has now developed the concept of time. — TheMadFool

There is no sense in asking "in which dimension is the order/sequence of the ripening of the fruits taking place?", because dimensions are the property of space, and as described above, the concept of "space" does not provide us with the principles required for an objective concept of "ordering". Therefore we must allow that temporal ordering, and "priority" in general, cannot be properly conceptualized if we think of time as a dimension of space.

Actually, the ordering described here as "first" and "second" is temporal rather than spatial. The one tree is first and the other is second because that is the temporal order in which the person encountered them, according to the person's approach from a particular direction. "First" and "second" is always based in a temporal priority, and can never be based in a "spatial dimension" because such a designation (first and second) with only spatial reference would be completely arbitrary, or subjective, depending on the perspective. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was approaching it from the perspective of a queue, a line, as it were. Two trees would always form a line, a straight one but that's beside the point. The two trees can be viewed to be a sequence in terms of relative distance from X, the closer one being first and the farther one being second. A queue, a line of trees?! Ordering in space?! What are your thoughts on that? Of course it's also true that the sequence is temporal too but that wouldn't be quite so apparent to X as he has no real reason, no necessity rather, to think of time at this point and spatial ordering is the low hanging fruit, something rather obvious, perhaps too obvious to miss or overlook.

Too, there's a sense in which the two trees are at the same time just as a queue can form at 12:00 AM but there's a first person and a second person in the queue. I suppose the idea is to force X to think about an aspect of reality different from space.

At the second, fruiting tree, X has to make sense of the fruits' condition as the days progress. Space is no longer available to him as a context for the tree and the fruits haven't changed their positions. X is forced to think of an alternative - another way to make sense of the sequence: first, green; second, red. He can't do that in spatial terms, obviously, and so, he, in that moment, gets the first glimpse of the concept of time. X realizes, as it were, that the sequence is in another aspect, if you have issues with the concept of dimensions, of reality.

There is a problem which manifests from the modern tendency to portray time as a spatial dimension, and that is that temporal priority becomes an arbitrary, or subjective designation. You can see this in Kenosha Kid's threads where it is argued that time is reversible. Modeling time as a dimension of space robs us of the capacity for an objective concept of "priority" because such a designation become arbitrary, rather than being based in an objective passing of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Care to expand on this a bit? What means you by "arbitrary", "subjective", and "objective passing of time"? As far as I'm concerned, all I want to achieve is to construct a plausible theory on the origins of the concept of time. I think secondary features like "subjectivity", "objectivity" come later and can be safely ignored. Unless, of course, you feel that they're relevant in which case you'd need to give me more to go on.

There is no sense in asking "in which dimension is the order/sequence of the ripening of the fruits taking place?", because dimensions are the property of space, and as described above, the concept of "space" does not provide us with the principles required for an objective concept of "ordering". Therefore we must allow that temporal ordering, and "priority" in general, cannot be properly conceptualized if we think of time as a dimension of space. — Metaphysician Undercover

Definition of "dimension" (Merriam-Webster): (mathematics): any of the fundamental units (as of mass, length, or time) on which a derived unit is based

Time is real if and only if it's a an aspect of reality itself — TheMadFool

"Time" is real, in the sense that the concept exists in human imagination, within the context of Reality. But Time is not out-there in physical 3D space. It exists only in the fourth dimension of Mind-space. What is "out there" in reality is meta-physical Change. And Time is simply an artificial measurement system for recording Changes in memory. So, whether Time is Real or Imaginary depends on how inclusive your definition of Reality is. Does it include immaterial Minds? Is your personal mind "an aspect of reality"? Dude, are you real?? :joke:

The Illusion of Time : To many physicists, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real. At the deepest foundations of nature, time is not a primitive, irreducible element or concept required to construct reality. The idea that time is not real is counterintuitive.
https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html

Mindspace : The residence of one's state of dudeness, or the place in which this essence is located.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mindspace

I was approaching it from the perspective of a queue, a line, as it were. Two trees would always form a line, a straight one but that's beside the point. The two trees can be viewed to be a sequence in terms of relative distance from X, the closer one being first and the farther one being second. A queue, a line of trees?! Ordering in space?! What are your thoughts on that? — TheMadFool

The point I was making is that with only spatial reference, which tree is first and which is second, is completely arbitrary. You might add an additional spatial point, and say that relative to this point, one tree is closer and the other further, but this does not justify handing priority to one over the other. That the closer one is "first" and the further is "second" is not justified from a spatial perspective.

Ask you why the closer is first and the further is second. Maybe you can get to the closer one before you can get to the further, but that means your designation of "first" is based in time.

Too, there's a sense in which the two trees are at the same time just as a queue can form at 12:00 AM but there's a first person and a second person in the queue. I suppose the idea is to force X to think about an aspect of reality different from space. — TheMadFool

Again, "a first person and a second person in the queue" is a temporal reference. It refers either to the temporal order by which they assembled, or the temporal order by which they will be served.

Care to expand on this a bit? What means you by "arbitrary", "subjective", and "objective passing of time"? As far as I'm concerned, all I want to achieve is to construct a plausible theory on the origins of the concept of time. I think secondary features like "subjectivity", "objectivity" come later and can be safely ignored. Unless, of course, you feel that they're relevant in which case you'd need to give me more to go on. — TheMadFool

Imagine your two trees at two different spatial locations. To say that one is the first and the other is the second is a completely arbitrary designation. If you add a perspective, and say that you base first and second on this perspective, then your designation is subjective. The only thing which can make your designation of first and second into a true objective determination, is to provide a real, objective passing of time, and base "first and second" in this passing of time.

Of particular importance is the past (before) in the sense that for any given moment in time, we can always inquire "and before that?" This line of questioning is an ad infinitum process as must be clear to you by now. — TheMadFool

To look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective. Our perspective is always the present. And from the perspective of the present, the future is always before the past. Here's an example. Today is our perspective, and this is November eighth. Tomorrow is November ninth, and it is in the future. November ninth is in the future before it is in the past. Likewise, all things are always in the future before they are in the past, so the future is really before the past. How something will be is always prior to how it actually has been.

It is only when we remove the present as the proper temporal perspective, and place things in a temporal order, like a chronological order, saying that one thing is before the other, in that chronological order, that we produce the illusion that a past event is before a future event. But this is a manufactured model, and it is faulty in that sense, because it does not portray the true relation of past to future, by portraying the existence of the event in the future as prior to its existence in the past

If so, time must be extend to infinity into the past for there seems to be no real reason, at least I can't think of any, not to ask, "and before that?" Now, if time is real then it implies an infinite past but the universe is in the present moment as I write this. In other words, the universe has experienced, gone through, infinite time. But, infinity can't be experienced for, by its very nature, it can't be completed and if the past is infinite as it must be (if time is real) then that would imply a completed infinity. This only because we assumed time is real, an aspect of reality the mind didn't invent. Ergo, time is not real. — TheMadFool

When the present is established as the proper temporal reference point, it doesn't make sense to say that there could be an infinity of past time. This is because there must always be a future before there is a past. Time cannot pass, and create a past, unless there is future which is ready to move into the past. So prior to there being any past time, there must have necessarily been a future. Something must have been available to move into the past. This implies that it is impossible for the past to be infinite because it is necessary that there was always a future prior to any past. Therefore the past is limited in this way.

This is because there must always be a future before there is a past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nice idea you have here although I am confused about a couple things. Would the proposition above require the existence of an origin to be valid? In other words, would it hold in an always-existing reality (no origin AND no end)? What about cyclic time? Would the proposition hold in a scenario in which what once was will be again?

I don't think an "always-existing reality" makes any sense from the perspective I described. If it is necessary that there is always a future before there is a past, this implies a point in time when there was a future, but no past. This would indicate that no time had passed at that point, thus signifying a beginning of time.

To say that if there is a future, there is necessarily a past, or vise versa, if there is a past there is necessarily a future, is a conclusion not supported by any logic. So we must allow for the logical possibility of a future without a past, and a past without a future, which would represent the beginning and ending of time. Now, when we bring this into the context of real physical existence, we see that any physical event has a future (is possible) before it has a past (is actual), as I described above. So putting time in relation to physical existence in general, we can say that physical existence had a future before it had a past, and this would represent what we apprehend as the beginning of time.

To look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective. Our perspective is always the present. And from the perspective of the present, the future is always before the past. Here's an example. Today is our perspective, and this is November eighth. Tomorrow is November ninth, and it is in the future. November ninth is in the future before it is in the past. Likewise, all things are always in the future before they are in the past, so the future is really before the past. How something will be is always prior to how it actually has been. — Metaphysician Undercover

The allegation that "to look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective" is important as far as I'm concerned. I'll ask you a simple question based on dates, your contribution to the discussion. Today is 9/11/2020. Yesterday was 8/11/2020 and tomorrow will be 10/11/2020. What was the date before 9/11/2020? You wouldn't say 10/11/2020 (tomorrow) is the date before 9/11/2020, right? You would say 8/11/2020 but then 8/11/2020 is in the past and so, I conclude, "to look at the past as before..." isn't a mistaken perspective.

To drive home the point note the common expression "the day before". Today is Monday where I am and If I say, "I ate broccoli the day before" on which day did I eat broccoli? The correct answer is Sunday, I ate broccoli on Sunday, but Sunday is in the past; in other words, "to look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective" is a dubious claim.

What is interesting though is why you thought "to look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective"?

Can you give me more to go on?

It is only when we remove the present as the proper temporal perspective, and place things in a temporal order, like a chronological order, saying that one thing is before the other, in that chronological order, that we produce the illusion that a past event is before a future event. But this is a manufactured model, and it is faulty in that sense, because it does not portray the true relation of past to future, by portraying the existence of the event in the future as prior to its existence in the past — Metaphysician Undercover

Read above.

When the present is established as the proper temporal reference point, it doesn't make sense to say that there could be an infinity of past time. This is because there must always be a future before there is a past. Time cannot pass, and create a past, unless there is future which is ready to move into the past. So prior to there being any past time, there must have necessarily been a future. Something must have been available to move into the past. This implies that it is impossible for the past to be infinite because it is necessary that there was always a future prior to any past. Therefore the past is limited in this way. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm going to focus on the last underlined statement, "...it is impossible for the past to be infinite because it is necessary that there was always a future prior to any past". What makes you say that? The most reasonable interpretation of this would be your claim is that we've only experienced a finite part of the future and so the past can't be infinite. But that, as it turns out, is based on an unfounded assumption viz. that the part of the future we've experienced is finite. How do you know that? :chin:

The point I was making is that with only spatial reference, which tree is first and which is second, is completely arbitrary. You might add an additional spatial point, and say that relative to this point, one tree is closer and the other further, but this does not justify handing priority to one over the other. That the closer one is "first" and the further is "second" is not justified from a spatial perspective. — Metaphysician Undercover

Does the arbitrariness of X's point of view somehow prevent him from developing the concept of space in this setting? :chin:

Again, "a first person and a second person in the queue" is a temporal reference. It refers either to the temporal order by which they assembled, or the temporal order by which they will be served. — Metaphysician Undercover

Really? If a queue forms at 12:00 Noon exact. How are you going to order it temporally? To make it clearer consider this. Imagine a computer program that displays 4 balls on the screen simultaneously, say at 4:00 AM. How are you going to order this temporally?

Imagine your two trees at two different spatial locations. To say that one is the first and the other is the second is a completely arbitrary designation. If you add a perspective, and say that you base first and second on this perspective, then your designation is subjective. The only thing which can make your designation of first and second into a true objective determination, is to provide a real, objective passing of time, and base "first and second" in this passing of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, the arbitrariness is inconsequential to X's first contact with the concepts of space and time.

A discussion on space seems necessary first. Imagine X, an early human, trekking through the African savannah. The savannah are vast stretches of grassland with a few scaterred trees here and there. So, X, walks and comes across a tree, no fruits but still a tree. Then he continues along for another mile or so and then he encounters another tree - this one has fruits. In essence, he's met two trees and assuming he knew how to count up to two - it's said that early math began with the ability to count up to two - and assuming he was capable of ordinal math [the ability to order, sequence, as like first, second, etc.], X would've ordered the trees as such: first tree, no fruits; second tree, fruits. This ordering, this sequencing, must be contextualized, it requires a...dimension. The dimension in which the trees are first and second is space.

Noticing the fruits on the second tree, X decides to camp at the spot. The fruits look green and his experience tells him they can't be eaten as of yet - they won't taste good. He has supplies that'll last him a few days. A few days go by, X is still camping next to the tree, but the fruits have now taken on a reddish tone. Ah! X thinks, they're good to eat and he does with relish. Now, to X, something happened to the fruits, expressible as: first, it was green; second, it became red. In essence, there's an order, a sequence, as it were. However, the tree and the fruits haven't moved at all - they were there, they're still where they were. Ergo, X concludes, the sequence/order has nothing to do with space. In what context is the order/sequence of the fruits' condition occuring? In other words, in which dimension is the order/sequence of the ripening of the fruits taking place? Time. X has now developed the concept of time. — TheMadFool

If X knows the green fruits will be good to eat in a few days, and that his supplies will last him roughly the same length of time, then doesn’t he already have a concept of time?

What you seem to be referring to in terms of first and second is yet another dimension: value/potential. This is where early math begins: an awareness of variability in order/sequence of ‘first’ and ‘second’ trees according to values of distance, time or potential relative to X on his journey through the savannah.

If X knows the green fruits will be good to eat in a few days, and that his supplies will last him roughly the same length of time, then doesn’t he already have a concept of time? — Possibility

It would mean that. However, consider the possibility that the ripe fruits were on one tree and the unripe ones on another. He could've gotten the idea that the red ones are tastier than the green ones from that and since the variable space hasn't been controlled for, there's nothing to stop X from inferring the ripening of fruits was a non-spatial phenomenon.

As for the knowledge that X's supplies will last a few days, again, space becomes a confounding factor - is it the different loci he occupies the cause of his hunger? As long as there's change in space, X will lack the motivation to think about time.

The fruits look green and his experience tells him they can't be eaten as of yet - they won't taste good. — TheMadFool

Sorry - your use of ‘experience’ and ‘yet’ implied an existing awareness of time.

I know I’m being nit-picky, but I think awareness of time is a function of interoception. For a human to be unaccustomed to thinking of time as distinct from space, they would need to have been unconscious for most of their life, I would think.

Sorry - your use of ‘experience’ and ‘yet’ implied an existing awareness of time.

I know I’m being nit-picky, but I think awareness of time is a function of interoception. For a human to be unaccustomed to thinking of time as distinct from space, they would need to have been unconscious for most of their life, I would think. — Possibility

No problem. I'll get back to you later!

Sorry - your use of ‘experience’ and ‘yet’ implied an existing awareness of time. — Possibility

It implies an existing awareness of time for me. Consider me as an omniscient narrator, a literary device I'm sure you're familiar with.

The allegation that "to look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective" is important as far as I'm concerned. I'll ask you a simple question based on dates, your contribution to the discussion. Today is 9/11/2020. Yesterday was 8/11/2020 and tomorrow will be 10/11/2020. What was the date before 9/11/2020? You wouldn't say 10/11/2020 (tomorrow) is the date before 9/11/2020, right? You would say 8/11/2020 but then 8/11/2020 is in the past and so, I conclude, "to look at the past as before..." isn't a mistaken perspective. — TheMadFool

That this is the conventional way of describing these things does not mean that it is not a mistaken way. To be understood I speak according to convention, but I do not necessarily agree that the conventions which I follow for the sake of being understood, provide a correct description.

To drive home the point note the common expression "the day before". Today is Monday where I am and If I say, "I ate broccoli the day before" on which day did I eat broccoli? The correct answer is Sunday, I ate broccoli on Sunday, but Sunday is in the past; in other words, "to look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective" is a dubious claim. — TheMadFool

Yes, I agree that it is a dubious claim, but one I believe. Are we not moving in time? And, when we move we say that what is in front of us is before us. What lies before me is the rest of today and tomorrow, and what lies behind me is yesterday.

You look at the order of days as something independent from yourself, and independent from the very thing which creates the existence of days (which is the passing of time, at the present), and you assign a direction to that order which dictates that one day is before another. That is the convention, and I will readily agree that to be understood in this world, I will say that yesterday was the day before today. But I think this is a misrepresentation of how time really appears to us.

Consider that all existing days are in the past. We can speak about future days, but they really have no existence, having not come into being yet. So we can say that things which have actual existence (like all the days of the past) are coming into being at the present. Future days have not come to be yet so they have no real existence. Now, the past begins at the present. The most recent day is yesterday, so it ought to be the first day in our count of days. What we call "the day before yesterday" ought to be counted as the second day, and so on. Remember, it is us who is counting the days, so we ought to count them in the order that they appear to us, starting with the day which is present to us. How would it even be possible to start counting days from some undefined, indefinite point in the past? In order for us to have a real count of days, we need a real starting point, like today, and if we start counting from today, yesterday is counted as the first full day, and it is before the next day, which is further into the past, and after that there are many days in the past.

I'm going to focus on the last underlined statement, "...it is impossible for the past to be infinite because it is necessary that there was always a future prior to any past". What makes you say that? The most reasonable interpretation of this would be your claim is that we've only experienced a finite future and so the past can't be infinite. But that, as it turns out, is based on an unfounded assumption viz. that the part of the future we've experienced is finite. How do you know that? :chin: — TheMadFool

I think I explained why I say that. But I'll try again in a slightly different way. There might have been a point in time, at which time there was future but no past. This is what we would commonly call the beginning of time, a point at which no time has yet passed. But if time is passing, there is necessarily a future. Since time is passing, then it is impossible that there was ever a past with no future. This means that future is necessary for the existence of time, but past is contingent on the existence of time. And, it is impossible that a contingent thing could be infinite because it is limited by its causes. An infinite thing has no such causes. Therefore it is impossible that the past is infinite.

Does the arbitrariness of X's point of view somehow prevent him from developing the concept of space in this setting? :chin: — TheMadFool

Not at all, but "first" and "second" are not parts of a spatial concept. Nor do they have any spatial reference.

Really? If a queue forms at 12:00 Noon exact. How are you going to order it temporally? — TheMadFool

A queue takes time to form, and the first person there (temporally) is the first in the queue. Otherwise you have a mob showing up at exactly twelve, each person insisting on having the first spot. That is not a queue.

Again, the arbitrariness is inconsequential to X's first contact with the concepts of space and time. — TheMadFool

But arbitrariness is consequential to demonstrating that your assignment of "first" and "second" is faulty..

This is because there must always be a future before there is a past. — Metaphysician Undercover

I question whether a future is necessary and not merely sufficient for a past.

Mindspace : The residence of one's state of dudeness — Gnomon

Right out of the 1960s, man! :joke:

I question whether a future is necessary and not merely sufficient for a past. — jgill

It's necessary, and that is because time cannot pass unless there is a future. A future is required and therefore necessary in order for time to pass And, there cannot be a past unless time passes. Therefore a future is necessary for a past.

What this indicates to me, is that the force, or cause of time passing is in the future. The way I look at it is that the future is always being forced upon us. We cannot stop time or prevent the future from continuously forcing itself upon us. And it is a force which would, if we let it, annihilate us, as demonstrated by the law of entropy. What we do is attempt to cope with the future, or even make the best of it by planning and shaping events as they come at us out of the future, thus we may actually use this force to our advantage. However, it is a battle for each of us to stay present, and as time passes the future continues in its act of forcing us toward the past, so much so that all mortals are eventually forced into the past.

If it were possible for something to stay present forever this would deny the necessity of the future. But this is not possible, because the future is necessary.

That this is the conventional way of describing these things does not mean that it is not a mistaken way. To be understood I speak according to convention, but I do not necessarily agree that the conventions which I follow for the sake of being understood, provide a correct description. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have my doubts regarding the matter of referring to the past with "before" but the fact is, at least I think it is, conventions come to be usually when there are good reasons for them. Granted some conventions are completely arbitrary e.g. handshaking instead of a namaste but others, usually those that need some rationale to be accepted, are not.

Let's go over it together to see if we can come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Why did you say that the future comes before the past? To me, the answer to that question is simple: The future has to first become the present and only then, second, can it become the past. So far so good.

Imagine that, on this day 10/11/2020, the two of us plan two events: event 1 on 11/11/2020 and event 2 on 12/11/2020. As of now, these two events are in the future and not in the past meaning you're right about the future coming before the past. There's no doubt that event 1 on 11/11/2020 will be experienced first and that event 2 on 12/11/2020 will be experienced second. Right? Say, three days go by and our plans for the events have taken place. We've arrived at the date 13/11/2020, the two events we planned are now in the past. We already know that event 1 took place before event 2 and that was the precisely the same sequence they were in when they were in the future. How will you answer the question, "what event happened before event 2 on 12/11/2020?" Surely, there's no valid answer other than "event 1 on 11/11/2020". But event 1 is in the past. In short, "before" can refer to the past.

This point of this small exercise is to show you that my use of the word "before" is specific to the temporal sequence of events and that your use of the word "before" is about the three divisions of time viz. past, present and future.

There might have been a point in time, at which time there was future but no past. — Metaphysician Undercover

My thinking is slightly different. Sticking to your bewildering theory, it can't be that we've experienced an infinite future through many moments of presents because infinity can't be completed. Ergo, the past has to be finite i.e. time has to have a beginning since we could've experienced only a finite amount of the future.

Not at all, but "first" and "second" are not parts of a spatial concept. Nor do they have any spatial reference. — Metaphysician Undercover

The first mile was tough - the road was terrible, and it rained. We got our break on the second mile - the road was smooth, sunshine and fresh mountain air.

A queue takes time to form, and the first person there (temporally) is the first in the queue. Otherwise you have a mob showing up at exactly twelve, each person insisting on having the first spot. That is not a queue. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok, if you want to go at it this way, what happens when more than one person arrive to join the queue at exactly the same moment. There's an ordering but it can't be temporal.

But arbitrariness is consequential to demonstrating that your assignment of "first" and "second" is faulty.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Once something is arbitrary, there really can't be a fault in it unless you insist on being objective. Spatial objectivity in the sense you seem to be interested in is impossible for positions in space as spatial positions are relative/arbitrary.

"Time'' as something allegedly contained by the cosmos is purely a theoretical construct set forth by humans, who are, thereby, simply projecting the structure of their own consciousness onto the physis/cosmos. Our consciousness is a constant engagement in what is not yet accomplished ,i.e., future. As consciousnesses perpetually pursuing our future, we each perceive a present passing into past. Time is a strictly human milieu limited to the parameters of consciousness and, the cosmos only contains time in so far as it contains us. Time has no being-in-itself which stands independent of human consciousness, which consciousness is the author and the locus of time. We derived number via our conscious awareness of our own structure as engaged in future/present/past, 1 2 3...Hence, time is only real as and existent as human consciousness.

I have my doubts regarding the matter of referring to the past with "before" but the fact is, at least I think it is, conventions come to be usually when there are good reasons for them. Granted some conventions are completely arbitrary e.g. handshaking instead of a namaste but others, usually those that need some rationale to be accepted, are not. — TheMadFool

Yes there are reasons for such conventions, they describe the way things appear to us. But sometimes they are based in common misunderstanding. We say that the sun comes up, and the sun goes down, but really the earth is spinning around and around. So the convention, is a convenient description of how things appear to us, but it is based in a misunderstanding. The convention has us saying something other than what the reality of the situation is.

The future has to first become the present and only then, second, can it become the past. So far so good. — TheMadFool

Yes, let's say that anything which is going to come to be in the past, must first be in the future, as a possibility, before it comes to be in the past.

There's no doubt that event 1 on 11/11/2020 will be experienced first and that event 2 on 12/11/2020 will be experienced second. Right? — TheMadFool

We cannot move to this proposition. Any event in the future is indefinite, it is a planned event, so we cannot assign one as necessarily before the other, because neither are necessary. A future event, as a possibility has a completely different status, and because it has not come to exist in time, it cannot be given a definite temporal order. It may be the case that event 1 would exclude the possibility of event 2, and so on and so forth, so the order we give these possible events is an order based in our intentions, a priority of importance, rather than a temporal order.

Say, three days go by and our plans for the events have taken place. We've arrived at the date 13/11/2020, the two events we planned are now in the past. We already know that event 1 took place before event 2 and that was the precisely the same sequence they were in when they were in the future. — TheMadFool

This is exactly the faulty perspective I am talking about. When we look at the two possible future events, one is closer than the other temporally. When we look at those same two events as they have come to be, and are now in the past, they have switched places, the opposite one is now closer. This inversion is a true fact of reality which cannot be neglected. The sequence is not the same. Looking backward in time, and looking forward in time is similar to the inversion created by looking into a mirror. We cannot say that things in the mirror are the same as they are without the mirror. You could create a system of imaginary numbers or something like that in an attempt to justify your claim, but it will not work out, because there are differences which cannot be accounted for.

his point of this small exercise is to show you that my use of the word "before" is specific to the temporal sequence of events and that your use of the word "before" is about the three divisions of time viz. past, present and future. — TheMadFool

There is no such thing as "the temporal sequence of events". That is just a manufactured description which is inadequate as a description of reality, just like "the sun comes up" is an inadequate description. From our perspective, event 1 is proposed as before event 2, when they are possible events in the future, as closer, but when they are actual events, in the past, event 2 is before event1, as closer.

Yes there are reasons for such conventions, they describe the way things appear to us. But sometimes they are based in common misunderstanding. We say that the sun comes up, and the sun goes down, but really the earth is spinning around and around. So the convention, is a convenient description of how things appear to us, but it is based in a misunderstanding. The convention has us saying something other than what the reality of the situation is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for the tidbit about the misconception regarding the sun going "up" and "down". It'll be useful to me at some point I'm sure. However, as a point of clarification, the use of the word "before" with regard to time isn't a "mistaken perspective". This doesn't mean I don't accept that all things have to be in future before they're in the past. Just think back to a time when you had the pleasure of attending a series of events - remember to numerically sequence them (dates will do fine) - and ask yourself "what happened before <event>?" You'll see that the answer will be in terms of the numerical sequence even if they're in the past.

Yes, let's say that anything which is going to come to be in the past, must first be in the future, as a possibility, before it comes to be in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

it cannot be given a definite temporal order. — Metaphysician Undercover

:chin:

Today is 10/11/2020. The following dates are in the future: 11/11/2020; 12/11/2020; 13/11/2020. Are you saying you don't know what the date will be tomorrow? :chin:

The sequence is not the same. — Metaphysician Undercover

A sequence is numerical. Every point of time in the future is sequenced i.e. ordered in terms of which ones you will encounter first, second, third and so on. Say you've experienced a series of events in a certain order. Once these have been experienced, does their order - the sequence - change in the sense that the first, second, third, so on swap positions on the timeline? To illustrate, in the year 1999, the Y2K bug was in 2000, and 9/11 was in 2001, both in the future. Right now, it's 2020, two decades have passed. Is there any confusion regarding when the Y2K bug was projected to occur and when 9/11 took place? Are you sure that "the sequence is not the same"?

There is no such thing as "the temporal sequence of events". — Metaphysician Undercover

What are clocks, calendars, diaries, etc?

Let's not get bogged down in this, what I feel, is just a minor issue. Let's agree to disagree.

What I'm interested in is your theory of time. You said a couple of things - especially the part where you said that there has to be a future for there to be a past - that were very thought-provoking. I'd like to hear more of it if that's ok with you.

Ill throw a new perspective in the pot for contemplation .
The future and the past are just figments of the imagination and a kind of tool that we use in order to make since of the change that we see take place in the world

So in a since it is are brains way of understanding why things change .

So this is why we are convinced that time is real because we "see it" in everything around us
However just because we see it doesn't mean that what we see is in fact what we label it to be.

If the future is necessary for there to be a past, there is an origin of time, but there cannot be an end of time.

So we must allow for the logical possibility of a future without a past, and a past without a future, which would represent the beginning and ending of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Past without a future = the ending of time.

The ending of time could be described as a point in time with no future, as you said. However, if there is no future beyond this point, this point cannot ever become past, for it would require a point in time beyond itself to become such a thing. Anything that is past was present at some point in time. Therefore, for something to be present, it would also require the future. This point at the end of time would then not be able to ever be present without a future beyond it; that is, it would never exist. If there is an end of time, any point before that could not exist since there is no "ultimate" future that supports their existence. Therefore, if the future is required for the past to exist, there is an origin of time but there is not an end of time. What do you think?

Just think back to a time when you had the pleasure of attending a series of events - remember to numerically sequence them (dates will do fine) - and ask yourself "what happened before <event>?" You'll see that the answer will be in terms of the numerical sequence even if they're in the past. — TheMadFool

As I said, I completely agree that this is the convention, and I will readily speak about such a sequence, and use "before" and "after" in this way, just like I will readily speak about the sun coming up and the sun going down. What I am saying is that I think that the convention is wrong.

It's pointless for you to keep insisting that this is the conventional use of "before" and "after", and trying to get me to recognize this fact, because I already fully recognize and accept that this is the convention. What you need to do is provide an argument concerning the nature of time which supports the convention, to show me that the convention is correct. I have already provided you with the counter argument. So like my analogy, if you really believe that it is the sun which comes up and goes down, as the conventional way of speaking says, then provide an argument for this, rather than just insisting that it is the convention.

Today is 10/11/2020. The following dates are in the future: 11/11/2020; 12/11/2020; 13/11/2020. Are you saying you don't know what the date will be tomorrow? :chin: — TheMadFool

No, I'm saying that past days have actual existence, as events which have actually occurred in the past, while future days have no actual existence, having not yet occurred. So future days ought not be put into a sequence with past days. Because of this fundamental difference between them, they need to be categorized separately. Would you categorize things which you have, with things which you want?

What I'm interested in is your theory of time. You said a couple of things - especially the part where you said that there has to be a future for there to be a past - that were very thought-provoking. I'd like to hear more of it if that's ok with you. — TheMadFool

OK, I'll try to stay on track, but the mind wanders.

If the future is necessary for there to be a past, there is an origin of time, but there cannot be an end of time. — Daniel

Right, and isn't this in concordance with your experience? The indication we get from science is that time had a beginning. And, time is still proceeding so definitely there is no end in time. The issue you seem to be questioning is whether or not an end in time is possible.

The ending of time could be described as a point in time with no future, as you said. However, if there is no future beyond this point, this point cannot ever become past, for it would require a point in time beyond itself to become such a thing. Anything that is past was present at some point in time. Therefore, for something to be present, it would also require the future. This point at the end of time would then not be able to ever be present without a future beyond it; that is, it would never exist. If there is an end of time, any point before that could not exist since there is no "ultimate" future that supports their existence. Therefore, if the future is required for the past to exist, there is an origin of time but there is not an end of time. What do you think? — Daniel

I think I agree with what you say here. It is consistent with my conclusion that the future is necessary. What I think is evident, is what I was describing in the earlier post to jgill, is that the future is what is responsible for what we call the passing of time, or the flow of time. So as odd as it might seem (I'll pass this one to The Mad Fool to figure out), the "origin" of time is the future, because it is what causes the existence of time.

The future is out of the grasp of empirical knowledge because it is in no way experienced by the senses, while the past has been sensed. So empirical knowledge is strictly of the past, while knowledge of the future is speculative in nature. Suppose that we as human beings occupy a perspective called the present. The future is always ahead of us, imperceptible from our perspective, but the cause of all that we perceive as happening at the present. We could think of this future analogously as a film projector. What we see, and the world we live in is the projection, which is projected from the future. The projecting mechanism is always in the future relative to us, moving along in time, just like us, but just in front of us, so it is imperceptible to us, and all that we perceive is the projection.

However, there is a little twist of reality which we need to come to grips with, and that is our capacity to interfere with the projection, through our free willing actions. So there must be a part of us which partakes in the projection mechanism itself, such that we can actively interfere with, and influence what is being projected, to an extent.

What would constitute the end of time? The projection mechanism would stop doing what it is doing. Of course this is possible, but only because the necessity which I've granted to the future is derived from our experience of the present. And our concept of time is based in this experience of the present. So as soon as we start talking about a future which is outside of our experience of time and presence, then we are free to entertain any logical possibilities which we want, concerning this future which is not constrained by the principles we derive from empirical (sense) knowledge.

Yeah, this is basically it.

and fucking references?! This guy grabs by the balls.

Hi!

The first mile was tough - the road was terrible, and it rained. We got our break on the second mile - the road was smooth, sunshine and fresh mountain air. — TheMadFool

How do you not see that first and second are a temporal reference in this example? The "first mile" is the one prior in time to the second mile.

Ok, if you want to go at it this way, what happens when more than one person arrive to join the queue at exactly the same moment. There's an ordering but it can't be temporal. — TheMadFool

It is temporal, because it's an ordering of who will get served first in time and second in time, and so on.

Once something is arbitrary, there really can't be a fault in it unless you insist on being objective. Spatial objectivity in the sense you seem to be interested in is impossible for positions in space as spatial positions are relative/arbitrary. — TheMadFool

This I agree with, and that is why we look to time for ordering, rather than space, it provides us with objectivity.

provide an argument concerning the nature of time which supports the convention, to show me that the convention is correct. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've given it my best shot. If that doesn't convince you then I don't know what will. I'll try again. By the way I'm using dates, an aspect of time you were so kind to introduce into the discussion. Here's why "before" to refer to the past is not a mistaken perspective.

Imagine today is 1 Jan 2021. The day following that is 2 Jan 2021 and the day following that is 3 Jan 2021, and so on and so forth. First things first, we have to agree on the sequence/order of the dates: basically, we have to concur that if dates are given a numerical sequence then they will be experienced in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...and so on. Said differently, the date 1 Jan 2021 comes before the date 2 Jan 2021 and that date comes before 3 Jan 2021... Are we on the same page here?

If we are then imagine now that you're living through the month of January 2021. A few days go by and you've now arrived at the date 4 Jan 2021. What date was before 4 Jan 2021? Pause a bit and go back to what we've agreed on viz. the sequence of dates and that Jan 1 2021 comes before 2 Jan 2021 and that comes before 3 Jan 2021 and this date (3 Jan 2021) comes before 4 Jan 2021. You have to answer the question "what date was before 4 Jan 2021?" with "3 Jan 2021" but 3 Jan 2021 is in the past and, as we've found out, it's perfectly reasonable to refer to 3 Jan 2021 as the date before 4 Jan 2021. The bottom line is this: given a sequence of numbers, and dates are that, you have to ask yourself "what comes before a date x?" Surely, the date x - 1, right? But, this is obvious, the date x - 1 is in the past.

Just so you know, you're perfectly correct in saying that the future is before the past. Every event must first be in the future, second become the present and only after that, third, drift away into the past.

Notice the difference between our two points of view. You're talking about the sequence in which we experience the three natural divisions of time viz. past, present, and future. It's correct as far as I can tell that the future comes before the present. My point is that you order the events that will occur - those that are in the future - by assigning them ordinal numbers such as first, second, third, and so on. If ordered thus, it's obvious that you'll experience the said events in the sequence first, second, third, and so on. Allowing that these events are experienced, let them flow through the present into the past and suppose that you're now at the fourth event. At this point ask yourself, "what event occurred before this moment, this moment when I'm experiencing the fourth event?" Obviously, the answer is the third event which we know is in the past. In short, it's ok to refer to the past with the word "before".

And that's all she wrote.

No, I'm saying that past days have actual existence, as events which have actually occurred in the past, while future days have no actual existence, having not yet occurred. — Metaphysician Undercover

:ok:

So future days ought not be put into a sequence with past days. Because of this fundamental difference between them, they need to be categorized separately. — Metaphysician Undercover

You mean to say that calendars are bogus? People seem to plan events with calendars and excepting the odd contingency, their plans seem fairly well executed. I don't see how that's possible if the future weren't sequenced as you seem to be claiming.

Too, your point was the future becomes the past. You'll have to explain to me how things changed so radically between the two that they're, as per your claims, no longer comparable in any sense of that word. To my reckoning, the sequence in which events occurred in the future must be preserved in the past and they are, right? :chin:

OK, I'll try to stay on track, but the mind wanders. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wander some more. Tell me what you find.

How do you not see that first and second are a temporal reference in this example? The "first mile" is the one prior in time to the second mile. — Metaphysician Undercover

Also prior in space. That's the point. If a particular event or phenomena can be contextualized in more than one way, there's no compulsion to think of alternatives. Space being a more immediate experience than time, if it were X that were riding his cycle on that road, X would've no need to consider the temporal aspect of his experience, space being a more familiar, a more direct, a more obvious notion.

It is temporal, because it's an ordering of who will get served first in time and second in time, and so on. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok. I'll agree with you on this one - the queue-sequence is temporal with respect to the time each person in the queue gets served. But, is there a spatial sequence as well with respect to the food counter?

objectivity. — Metaphysician Undercover

I still haven't figured out the reason for your insistence on bringing to the discussion the notions of arbitrariness and objectivity. To me, these ideas comes into play only once there's something to be objective/arbitrary about. First the notion of space needs to be apprehended and only after that does it matter whether it's objective or arbitray unless you mean to say that the arbitrariness of X's experience invalidates the very idea that he can form a concept of space. That you'll have to explain how. Thank you.