'Where you live' is in your brain's model of reality, which is generated in part based on the light that hit your retina (on the order of 100 milliseconds) earlier.

And in that model nothing is synchronized enough to be called 'the present'. If you see a bird flying in the sky near the sun, the light that bounced off the bird hit it a fraction of a second ago, but the rays coming for the Sun left it eight minutes ago. That is, what you perceive as contemporary is not – the Sun might have suddenly ceased to exist four minutes ago, long before that bird even got near you. Your perception 'the bird flies when the sun shines' would be false in that case.

The same goes for all your senses, of course. If you step on something sharp, you feel it about 0.3 s after the fact. If you think that you have heard something at the exact same moment - you did not, as your auditory impulses are also delayed, but less than touch. And of course both stimuli occurred even earlier, before they were processed by your brain. What you perceive as 'the present' is a jumble of of various occurences that have already happened at different times. 'Reality itself' it is not.

Exactly. Thank you for explaining.

May I use you, as a demonstration to other forum members, of something apropos to discussion going on in the "Simplisticators and Complicators" thread? :nerd:

I am always in the present, even if my mind is elsewhere. — Art48

More or less, depending on the duration of "the present".
But if your mind is elsewhere, where are you and where is that else where your mind is?
What are you without your mind, and what is your mind without your body?

And what's any of it to do with God?

And what's any of it to do with God? — Vera Mont

I wrote,if God exists. The point being if we are only really in the present (not the past or the future), then if God is real, our only point of contact where we could possibly meet is the present.

hen if God is real, our only point of contact where we could possibly meet is the present. — Art48

So? For Him, that's all times and every time. For us, it's a microsecond, and the next microsecond, and the next. He can comprehend everything about us from conception to disintegration, but we, who need time to process information, can comprehend nothing about Him in that infinitesimal moment. The very process of living necessarily takes you away from that microsecond in which you met God - if, indeed, that happened at all: You can't ever be sure, because you didn't have time to commit the experience to long-term memory.

Sure :)

As to the OP, what is important, I think, is not what we say of it, but what we do. I can imagine two outcomes. 1) Someone practices trying to often reflect on how now is always the same, until they actually see the world that way. Or 2) someone doesn't. For 2), it doesn't really matter if they agree with the OP or not; the result is the same.

This approach sees a purpose of philosophy as transformation. This may seem as aiming too high. Maybe transformation of a human being into a person more in accord with reality is better left to psychology and/or religion?

I don't mean to belittle any other purpose of philosophy but I think it's valid including transformation among those purposes.

I don't mean to belittle any other purpose of philosophy but I think it's valid including transformation among those purposes. — Art48

Is all transformation assumed to be an improvement? Or should a transformation be purposeful and directed to some specified end?

Here's something to think about. Try to pinpoint the present, the exact point in time, which divides the future from past. Every time you say "now', by the time you say "now" it is in the past. So the present cannot be a point in time which separates past from future, because that point will always be in the past.

Now consider the way you sense things in your existence, or being at the present. We always sense things happening, activity, motions. And all activities and motions require a period of time during which the activity occurs. So if we sense things at the present, and we sense activities, then the present must consist of a duration of time rather than a point in time.

But if the present consists of a duration of time, then some of that duration must be before, the other part which is after. So if the present separates future from past, and it consists of a duration of time, then part of the present must be in the future, and part of it in the past.

Here's something to think about. Try to pinpoint the present, the exact point in time, which divides the future from past. Every time you say "now', by the time you say "now" it is in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

A bullet at any instant is at some point in space but my perception limits me to perceiving it in some region of space in that I cannot tell exactly where it is. Ontologically, the now may be a point in time even if I perceive it as a small region of time.

A bullet at any instant is at some point in space but my perception limits me to perceiving it in some region of space in that I cannot tell exactly where it is. Ontologically, the now may be a point in time even if I perceive it as a small region of time. — Art48

As I explained, the idea of "an instant", as a point in time, is not really consistent with reality as we know it. It's a useful ideal, but not at all real.

Ontologically, the now may be a point in time even if I perceive it as a small region of time. — Art48

Ontological principles need to be supported by something. If no experience, nor logic can demonstrate the reality of a point in time, then there is no room for it in ontology. Since time is known as what is passing, and what always has some duration, then such a proposed point must be something other than time. So we can't really say it's "in time". The point is in our minds, as the useful tool, it's not in time.

And in that model nothing is synchronized enough to be called 'the present'. If you see a bird flying in the sky near the sun, the light that bounced off the bird hit it a fraction of a second ago, but the rays coming for the Sun left it eight minutes ago. That is, what you perceive as contemporary is not – the Sun might have suddenly ceased to exist four minutes ago, long before that bird even got near you. Your perception 'the bird flies when the sun shines' would be false in that case. — Jabberwock

This implies that 'the present' is the time at which we each find ourselves to be conscious; when we each perceive the occurence of things in the world to be contemporary. Obviously, this isn't a universal time measure, but is similar enough for those of us on Earth (travelling at approx. the same velocity).

Every time you say "now', by the time you say "now" it is in the past. So the present cannot be a point in time which separates past from future, because that point will always be in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

It seems that your "by the time you say "now"" is equivalent to "after you say "now"". It could be argued that the present time is that time while or during your saying of the word "now", and that (at that time) the past precedes this act and the future procedes it.

As I explained, the idea of "an instant", as a point in time, is not really consistent with reality as we know it. It's a useful ideal, but not at all real. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then the same could be said of any period of time - not just an instant - and so all periods of time are "useful ideals" that are not "consistent with reality". In fact, the whole of language could be considered as "useful ideals". Congratulations then, MU: we must not use language as it is "not really consistent with reality".

It could be argued that the present time is that time while or during your saying of the word "now", and that (at that time) the past precedes this act and the future procedes it. — Luke

Yes, and that\s what comes later in the post. If activity occurs at the present, then the present must consist of duration, not a point.

Then the same could be said of any period of time - not just an instant - and so all periods of time are "useful ideals" that are not "consistent with reality". — Luke

Yes, exactly. Any proposed period of time is actually indefinite, having an imprecise beginning and ending because of this issue.

we must not use language as it is "not really consistent with reality". — Luke

This does not follow though. As I said, it's a useful ideal. Usefulness is not dependent on accuracy, precision, or even truth in the sense of correspondence.

Yes, and that\s what comes later in the post. If activity occurs at the present, then the present must consist of duration, not a point. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see what difference it makes, especially to your argument.

Any proposed period of time is actually indefinite, having an imprecise beginning and ending because of this issue. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you mean a period of time, such as a minute or an hour, then I disagree that these are indefinite periods of time. If you mean any measurement of time, then I suppose there might be at least some imprecision involved with any measurement, but I don't see why it matters.

As I explained, the idea of "an instant", as a point in time, is not really consistent with reality as we know it. It's a useful ideal, but not at all real.
— Metaphysician Undercover

...we must not use language as it is "not really consistent with reality".
— Luke

This does not follow though. As I said, it's a useful ideal. Usefulness is not dependent on accuracy, precision, or even truth in the sense of correspondence. — Metaphysician Undercover

But if "an instant" is "not really consistent with reality" as a point in time, then "a minute" is "not really consistent with reality" as a period of time.

If you mean a period of time, such as a minute or an hour, then I disagree that these are indefinite periods of time. If you mean any measurement of time, then I suppose there might be at least some imprecision involved with any measurement, but I don't see why it matters. — Luke

I didn't say that "it matters", only pointing out the reality and truth of it. It might matter to you, or it might not, depending on your interest. But it seems to me like you are trying to make an argument where none is called for.

But if "an instant" is "not really consistent with reality" as a point in time, then "a minute" is "not really consistent with reality" as a period of time. — Luke

Right, and as I said above, this might matter to you or it might not, depending on your interest.

Only the present is real. — Art48

A nonsensical statement due to the fact that neither past nor future are escapable in – separable from – the present.

If you mean a period of time, such as a minute or an hour, then I disagree that these are indefinite periods of time. If you mean any measurement of time, then I suppose there might be at least some imprecision involved with any measurement, but I don't see why it matters.
— Luke

I didn't say that "it matters", only pointing out the reality and truth of it. It might matter to you, or it might not, depending on your interest. But it seems to me like you are trying to make an argument where none is called for. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was seeking clarification.

Are you saying that (e.g.) a minute is an indefinite period of time? Isn't it exactly 60 seconds?

Or are you saying that any measurement of time is indefinite?

If the latter, then what bearing does it have on your views/comments regarding the present moment?

But if "an instant" is "not really consistent with reality" as a point in time, then "a minute" is "not really consistent with reality" as a period of time.
— Luke

Right, and as I said above, this might matter to you or it might not, depending on your interest. — Metaphysician Undercover

My interest is that I didn't find your argument - that the present moment cannot be an instantaneous point in time - to be very convincing.

You could make an argument such that if we imagine an instant of time to be like a photograph, and if we consider that the average shutter speed of a typical photograph is 1/60th of a second, then it follows that an actual instant of time requires some duration, no matter how small.

As (I think) you note, an instantaneous point in time, like a point in space, is a dimensionless concept. However, in reality, if we assume the present to be the time at which we each find ourselves conscious, then a dimensionless point in time with zero duration would seem to be an insufficient "time window" in which to be conscious. A point in time with zero duration is no time at all, and there is nothing to be conscious of in no time at all. Or something like that.

Are you saying that (e.g.) a minute is an indefinite period of time? Isn't it exactly 60 seconds?

Or are you saying that any measurement of time is indefinite? — Luke

Both, defining one period of time with another doesn't clarify anything because it would lead to an infinite regress, without ever giving any indication as to how to actually apply those measurement principles in practise. And, in practise any measurement is imprecise due to the problem with the start and end point.

My interest is that I didn't find your argument - that the present moment cannot be an instantaneous point in time - to be very convincing. — Luke

If you are interested in my argument, then address the argument itself, rather than some other vague ideas about measurement problems, which seem to be irrelevant to my argument anyway.

You could make an argument such that if we imagine an instant of time to be like a photograph, and if we consider that the average shutter speed of a typical photograph is 1/60th of a second, then it follows that an actual instant of time requires some duration, no matter how small. — Luke

That's a better question, more directed at the argument itself. What you propose here would not resolve the issue because that 1/60th of a second time period would require a beginning and end point. So defining an "instant" as a specific time length does not remove the need for points to mark the beginning and ending to that time length. Whether the "instant" is defined as the time between the points, or defined as the points, makes no difference to the actual issue which still remains despite such attempts at annihilation by definition.

As (I think) you note, an instantaneous point in time, like a point in space, is a dimensionless concept. However, in reality, if we assume the present to be the time at which we each find ourselves conscious, then a dimensionless point in time with zero duration would seem to be an insufficient "time window" in which to be conscious. A point in time with zero duration is no time at all, and there is nothing to be conscious of in no time at all. Or something like that. — Luke

Right, that was the first part of the argument, arguing that "the present" must consist of duration. And, this is consistent with our sense experience. We sense things as moving, therefore duration is implied within the present of our consciousness. The second part of the argument is that any duration of time consists of a part which is before and a part which is after. In relation to the present, the prior part is past and the posterior part is future, therefore the present must consist of both future and past.


It appears like it is the first part of the argument which you find unconvincing. But then you say "if we assume the present to be the time at which we each find ourselves conscious", this first part would be correct. So how would you propose to define "the present" in any other way? You could define it as the point which divides future from past, but the argument is designed to show that this is an incorrect representation of the present, inconsistent with empirical evidence. There is no such point which separates future from past.

Both, defining one period of time with another doesn't clarify anything because it would lead to an infinite regress, without ever giving any indication as to how to actually apply those measurement principles in practise. And, in practise any measurement is imprecise due to the problem with the start and end point. — Metaphysician Undercover

You said earlier:

Any proposed period of time is actually indefinite, having an imprecise beginning and ending because of this issue. — Metaphysician Undercover

It was this claim about any proposed period of time being "indefinite" and "imprecise" that I was querying and criticising. As you confirm above, this relates only to measurement. There is nothing indefinite or imprecise about a stipulated measure of time, such as a minute. Your introduction of how to "actually apply measurement principles in practise" are not relevant to your statement that "any proposed period of time is indefinite [and] imprecise". A minute is exactly 60 seconds long - no more, no less.

If you are interested in my argument, then address the argument itself, rather than some other vague ideas about measurement problems, which seem to be irrelevant to my argument anyway. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have stated more than once, including immediately above in bold, that "in practise any measurement is imprecise due to the problem with the start and end point". I have not introduced "some other vague ideas about measurement problems". This is very clearly your argument.

You could make an argument such that if we imagine an instant of time to be like a photograph, and if we consider that the average shutter speed of a typical photograph is 1/60th of a second, then it follows that an actual instant of time requires some duration, no matter how small.
— Luke

That's a better question, more directed at the argument itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

It wasn't a question.

Whether the "instant" is defined as the time between the points, or defined as the points — Metaphysician Undercover

Points have zero dimension or length, so it would make no difference either way. There would be a difference if an "instant" were defined as a single point of zero duration, rather than as the time between two points, which would then be of some duration.

The second part of the argument is that any duration of time consists of a part which is before and a part which is after. In relation to the present, the prior part is past and the posterior part is future, therefore the present must consist of both future and past. — Metaphysician Undercover

This makes little sense to me. The present is neither past nor future. I see no reason to accept why it must "consist" of either past or future. Nobody is attempting to measure the present moment. If we could measure the present moment, then there would be no reason to say that the present therefore consists of both future and past. If we knew of any measurement errors, then we'd account for them in our measurement of the duration of the present.

It was this claim about any proposed period of time being "indefinite" and "imprecise" that I was querying and criticising. As you confirm above, this relates only to measurement. There is nothing indefinite or imprecise about a stipulated measure of time, such as a minute. Your introduction of how to "actually apply measurement principles in practise" are not relevant to your statement that "any proposed period of time is indefinite [and] imprecise". A minute is exactly 60 seconds long - no more, no less. — Luke

I thought it was quite clear that I was talking about the thing measured, the passage of time, hence my statement "time is known as what is passing, and what always has some duration".

This makes little sense to me. The present is neither past nor future. I see no reason to accept why it must "consist" of either past or future. — Luke

If you would like to address the argument, then I'd be happy to oblige you, and reply to any questions you have about it, or explain further any parts which you say that you do not understand. But to simply state that the conclusion makes no sense to you, and claim "I see no reason to accept" that conclusion, (regardless of the argument given), gives me nothing to discuss with you.

I thought it was quite clear that I was talking about the thing measured, the passage of time, hence my statement "time is known as what is passing, and what always has some duration". — Metaphysician Undercover

I spent several posts trying to clarify whether you were talking about the measurement of time or of stipulated time periods such as seconds and minutes, and your latest reply was: both. So, no, it was far from clear that you were talking about the thing measured. I believe I've helped to clarify that for you.

If you would like to address the argument... — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, I'll address it. The argument you gave was:

if the present consists of a duration of time, then some of that duration must be before, the other part which is after. — Metaphysician Undercover

Before and after what?

So if the present separates future from past, and it consists of a duration of time, then part of the present must be in the future, and part of it in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see how the conclusion follows, and you have offered no reason to accept it.

Before and after what? — Luke

Before and after each other. That's what I said explicitly "some of that duration must be before, the other part which is after". How could I be more clear? I'll try though. One part of the duration is before the other, which is after the part which is before.

I don't see how the conclusion follows, — Luke

OK, in other words you do not understand the argument. It seems you are having difficulty with "before" and "after". Is my usage unfamiliar to you? Do you understand the following example? "Last night was before this morning, which is after last night. So if the time duration we are talking about consists of last night and this morning, the part which is called last night is before the part which is called this morning, which is after the part called last night.

Before and after each other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good. Im glad you did not mean before and after the present. Now all that’s left to explain is how your conclusion follows:

So if the present separates future from past, and it consists of a duration of time, then part of the present must be in the future, and part of it in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why must part of the present be in the future and part of it in the past?

Good. Im glad you did not mean before and after the present. Now all that’s left to explain is how your conclusion follows: — Luke

I said, "in relation to the present". The present was already described as the period of time within in which we find our conscious existence. And, it was shown that this is necessarily a period of time, not a dimensionless point. That was the first part of the argument.

Why must part of the present be in the future and part of it in the past? — Luke

I really can't believe that this is so difficult for you. I think you are faking it. Anyway, I'll recap the argument for you in case you might come around. The "present", as described, is a period of time, not a point in time. Any, and every period of time has one part before the other part which is after, as explained. In relation to the present, the before is called "past", and the after is called "future". Therefore when we talk about this period of time which we call "the present", part is in the past and part is in the future.

Perhaps a couple examples will help you to understand. This year, 2023, is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Today, July 2, is the present. Part is in the past, part is in the future. This minute is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Etc..

In relation to the present, the before is called "past", and the after is called "future". Therefore when we talk about this period of time which we call "the present", part is in the past and part is in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

The second sentence does not follow from the first. What is before the present is called "past" and what is after the present is called "future". Therefore, neither the past nor the future are part of the present.

The present is a duration with start and end points. What is before the start of the present is the past, and what is after the end of the present is the future.

Perhaps a couple examples will help you to understand. This year, 2023, is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Today, July 2, is the present. Part is in the past, part is in the future. This minute is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover

If 2023 is the present, then the past is everything before 2023 and the future is everything after 2023.
If July 2 is the present, then the past is everything before July 2 and the future is everything after July 2.
If this minute is the present, then the past is everything before this minute and the future is everything after this minute.

There is no part of the past or the future in the present.

The second sentence does not follow from the first. What is before the present is called "past" and what is after the present is called "future". Therefore, neither the past nor the future are part of the present. — Luke

"Present" is not defined that way in my argument. It is defined by our conscious experience. So your objection is based in equivocation, and is irrelevant.

Furthermore, it is this definition of "present", which requires a non-dimensional divisor between different parts of time, and this is dealt with in the first part of the argument. So you are really just relying on a definition of "present" which is demonstrated by the first part of the argument as incorrect, unreal, or false.

The present is a duration with start and end points. — Luke

Start and end points are what is demonstrated by the first part of the argument as incorrect, unreal, false. Remember, you wanted to give the "instant" temporal extension, duration, with start and end points. But I explained that the problem is with the assumption of points, so you cannot avoid the problem this way. If you do not understand this, I can probably give you a better explanation.

If 2023 is the present, then the past is everything before 2023 and the future is everything after 2023.
If July 2 is the present, then the past is everything before July 2 and the future is everything after July 2.
If this minute is the present, then the past is everything before this minute and the future is everything after this minute. — Luke

Now you are neglecting the second part of the argument. If the present is a period of time, part of the present is before, and part is after. And in relation to "present" before is past and after is future. Part of 2023 is in the past and part is in the future, despite the fact that 2023 is the present. You can deny this all you want, with your use of imaginary points, but that's just your way of denying the reality of time.

There is no part of the past or the future in the present. — Luke

So says the person with the demonstrably incoherent idea of "present".

"Present" is not defined that way in my argument. It is defined by our conscious experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, so you are using "present" in two different senses. It is defined by our conscious experience and it is the year 2023, or July 2, or whatever. This is the only way your argument makes any sense, but it contains a fallacy of ambiguity. This is what I have been attempting to show you. It was why I asked: before and after what, because I anticipated that the answer to this would be before and after your present conscious experience. That is, I could see that you were also using "the present" to refer to some moment (of consciousness) in the middle of the (other, larger) present moment (of 2023).

Your ambiguous model looks like this:

Past---------------Future
--------<Present>-------
P---R---E---S---E---N---T

your objection is based in equivocation, and is irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

The equivocation is yours.

Start and end points are what is demonstrated by the first part of the argument as incorrect, unreal, false. — Metaphysician Undercover

How can there be a duration without start and end points? If there is a duration of some length, then that length must have end points.

Furthermore, it is this definition of "present", which requires a non-dimensional divisor between different parts of time, and this is dealt with in the first part of the argument. — Metaphysician Undercover

To be clear, can you link to the post(s) that contains the argument?

Part of 2023 is in the past and part is in the future, despite the fact that 2023 is the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

How can the present both be defined by our conscious experience and also be 2023? Is a part of your present conscious experience in the past and part in the future? How can your present conscious experience be in the future or the past? Wouldn't they just be your past and future conscious experiences? Unless you wish to argue that you consciously experience 2023 all at once?

It is defined by our conscious experience and it is the year 2023, or July 2, or whatever. — Luke

Actually, I provided those dates as examples you might be able to relate to. I now see that trying to talk your language was a mistake. Remove the examples, and the argument is logically sound, but it makes no sense to you. This is because you will not allow "present" to be defined by conscious experience. So it appears like my argument makes no sense to you because you insist on an incoherent definition of "present".

The difference is this. You insisted that "present" be defined by past and future. I say that the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present. The reverse of what you desire, and what makes "the present" require the incoherent dimensionless points. This is because present is logically prior to past and future, and human beings determine past and future relative to their existence at the present. They do not determine the present from past and future, like you say.

How can there be a duration without start and end points? If there is a duration of some length, then that length must have end points. — Luke

We went through this already, the duration is indefinite. it is not "a duration of some length", simply duration. It is your tendency to fall back on measurement which makes you insist on points. However, we can and do experience time, and duration without measuring it.

How can the present both be defined by our conscious experience and also be 2023? Is a part of your present conscious experience in the past and part in the future? How can your present conscious experience be in the future or the past? Wouldn't they just be your past and future conscious experiences? Unless you wish to argue that you consciously experience 2023 all at once? — Luke

Sorry for the misleading examples, let's just go back to the argument itself, if you will. I suggest that if you want to understand, release your preconceived notion of "the present", and start with an open mind. Are you willing to start with your conscious experience of being at the present, experiencing the passing of time, without reference to measurement?

This is because you will not allow "present" to be defined by conscious experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've never said that.

They do not determine the present from past and future, like you say. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've never said that.

We went through this already, the duration is indefinite. it is not "a duration of some length", simply duration. It is you tendency to fall back on measurement which makes you insist on points. — Metaphysician Undercover

It was your argument that measurement is the cause of the duration's imprecision and indefiniteness (remember you agreed that a stipulated time period such as a minute is not indefinite or imprecise?). Unless you are merely defining the duration to be imprecise and indefinite?

Sorry for the misleading examples, let's just go back to the argument itself, if you will. I suggest that if you want to understand, release your preconceived notion of "the present", and start with an open mind. Are you will to start with your conscious experience of being at the present, experiencing the passing of time, without reference to measurement? — Metaphysician Undercover

I've already provided you with several rebuttals to your argument. You are welcome to address them. You could start with this:

Is a part of your present conscious experience in the past and part in the future? How can your present conscious experience be in the future or the past? Wouldn't they just be your past and future conscious experiences? — Luke