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
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
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
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
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
"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:Time is real if and only if it's a an aspect of reality itself — TheMadFool
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
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
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
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
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
This is because there must always be a future before there is a past. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
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
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
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
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
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
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? — Possibility
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. — Possibility
Sorry - your use of ‘experience’ and ‘yet’ implied an existing awareness of time. — Possibility
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
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
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
Does the arbitrariness of X's point of view somehow prevent him from developing the concept of space in this setting? :chin: — TheMadFool
Really? If a queue forms at 12:00 Noon exact. How are you going to order it temporally? — TheMadFool
Again, the arbitrariness is inconsequential to X's first contact with the concepts of space and time. — TheMadFool
This is because there must always be a future before there is a past. — Metaphysician Undercover
Mindspace : The residence of one's state of dudeness — Gnomon
I question whether a future is necessary and not merely sufficient for a past. — jgill
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
There might have been a point in time, at which time there was future but no past. — Metaphysician Undercover
Not at all, but "first" and "second" are not parts of a spatial concept. Nor do they have any spatial reference. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
But arbitrariness is consequential to demonstrating that your assignment of "first" and "second" is faulty.. — 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. — TheMadFool
The future has to first become the present and only then, second, can it become the past. So far so good. — TheMadFool
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
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
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
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
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
The sequence is not the same. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no such thing as "the temporal sequence of events". — Metaphysician Undercover
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
provide an argument concerning the nature of time which supports the convention, to show me that the convention is correct. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
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
OK, I'll try to stay on track, but the mind wanders. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
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
objectivity. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.