Yes, there are particular forms. But if a particular form is given to matter, the temporal nature of matter denies the possibility that this form could maintain its existence as a particular. In other words particulars exist prior to the passing of time, and as time passes each particular form loses that status of being particular through its commingling with other forms. This commingling is what we call material existence, or temporal existence.

Particular forms? What sort of thing, ontologically, is a form in your view?

I don't know why you're mashing up "particular" and the idea of something permanent or static, by the way, but I'm trying to figure out your views one piece at a time. The more you type the crazier/more incoherent it seems to me, but in not at all convinced yet that you're not just having fun and staving off boredom.

A form is "what" a thing is. Let's say it's a quality.

But what sort of ontological item is it? An idea?

What do you mean what sort of ontological item? It is an ontological category itself. Ideas are commonly believed to be a type of form, but not all forms are ideas.

So you take "form" to be a kind of ontic simple then. That doesn't make much sense to me, but not much of your view does. Where do forms exist, exactly?

Forms do not have spatial existence, so your question doesn't make much sense to me. As I said, they are prior to the passing of time, and spatial existence refers to what is now, as time is passing. So they are in the future, always prior to now. You do realize that there is no spatial existence in the future don't you?

I can't make any sense of positing things that have no location or that are somehow "outside of time"

Consider a temporal model of the universe. All that we experience is at the present, so spatial existence, existence as we know it, is at the present. But the present is a very insignificant, tiny slice of the temporal existence of the universe, our model must allow for all that has been in the past, and all that will be in the future. Do you not agree that there must be something in the future?

When we speak about what will occur in the future, we speak about possibilities, because we can change things, and influence what will occur. So the location of a thing in the future is only a possible location because actions at the present may determine that things future location. If a thing has only possible locations, such as when we refer to the future location of a thing, then it is impossible that it has an actual location. Therefore future things have no actual location. But it still makes sense to talk about, and refer to future things, despite the fact that they have no location Can you make sense of that?

Consider a temporal model of the universe. All that we experience is at the present, so spatial existence, existence as we know it, is at the present. But the present is a very insignificant, tiny slice of the temporal existence of the universe, our model must allow for all that has been in the past, and all that will be in the future. Do you not agree that there must be something in the future? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't agree that there's a past or future that exists and in which "there are things." Only the present exists. Only the changes that are currently happening exist.

But yeah, it defiitely makes sense to speak of the future. Anything that happens in the future will have a location, of course, once it happens. But it's not that the future exists and doesn't have a location. The future doesn't exist. It rather will exist.

I don't agree that there's a past or future that exists and in which "there are things." Only the present exists. Only the changes that are currently happening exist. — Terrapin Station

If this were the case, that only the present exists, and only changes which are currently happening exist, then it would be the case that any random thing could be currently happening. The past and the future, having no real existence could not have any influence on what happens at the present, so absolutely anything could happen at any moment of the present.

But it is not the case that any random thing is currently happening, as is evident from our observations of a continuity of from the deep and distant past. Because of this observation of a continuity of existence in the past, we also assume a continuity into the future. This observed contiuity is why any reasonable ontology must allow that existence is composed of more than just the present.

If this were the case, that only the present exists, and only changes which are currently happening exist, then it would be the case that any random thing could be currently happening. The past and the future, having no real existence could not have any influence on what happens at the present, so absolutely anything could happen at any moment of the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

That doesn't follow. The present IS a set of changes, a set of processes. That includes causal relationships.

Causal relations require a prior and posterior time, a before and after. There is no such before and after at the present unless they are past and future.

Causal relations require a prior and posterior time, a before and after. There is no such before and after at the present unless they are past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time requires change, which can be a casual change, of course. If there's no change, there's no time.

Right, so if only the present is real, there is no time. Time requires before and after, future and past, as does change.

Right, so if only the present is real, there is no time. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. That's incoherent nonsense. The present is comprised of the changes that are happening.

If that's really what you believe, then I challenge you to describe a change which isn't one of the following three: all in the past, all in the future, or part in the past, and part in the future.

Any change would do. To have time, period, you have to have a change. Change is what time is. Changes that are happening are the present. The scope of that is simply relative to other changes.

You haven't addressed my challenge.

Just name any change--a clock moving from one state to another--say a digital clock changing numbers. I said any change counts.

OK, so my clock just changed from 9:31 to 9:32. How is 9:31 not in the past?

9:31 isn't a change, is it?

No, it's not the change, it's part of the change, the part that's in the past.

You don't have time if you don't have a change. So 9:31 isn't time. 9:31 changing to 9:32 is time.

Right, and that whole change is in the past now. I want an example of a change which has no part in the past or in the future. Otherwise we should agree that the past and future are just as real as the present.

Right, and that whole change is in the past now. — Metaphysician Undercover

The change (A) would be in the past relative to some other change (B), when relative to that other change (B), change (A) happened but is no longer happening.

Again, ANY change is an example of a present change. You could pick a mountain eroding to nothing.

The change (A) would be in the past relative to some other change (B), when relative to that other change (B), change (A) happened but is no longer happening. — Terrapin Station

I don't see where you pull this notion of "a present change" from. You've described (A) as in the past relative to (B), so I assume that (B) is in the future relative to (A). I assume that the temporal existence of all changes would be described in these terms, past and future, or before and after, relative to other changes. What validates "a present change"?

ANY change is an example of a present change. — Terrapin Station

This is what you keep insisting, but you've given me no reason to believe that "a present change" even makes sense.

I don't see where you pull this notion of "a present change" from. You've described (A) as in the past relative to (B), so I assume that (B) is in the future relative to (A). — Metaphysician Undercover

No, relative to any change, there can't exist changes that haven't happened yet, and relative to any change, there can't still exist changes that happened already (past changes existed, they no longer exist). Present changes are changes that are happening, Relative to either themselves or relative to other changes.

This is what you keep insisting, but you've given me no reason to believe that "a present change" even makes sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't want to say anything too cruel, but I'm not of the opinion that it would be my problem if it doesn't make sense to you.

Present changes are changes that are happening — Terrapin Station

So back to my question. If a change is happening right now, how is it possible that part of the change is not already in the past?