I do not exist in the past or the future. I exist now, in the present. If God is real, I can only experience God in the present. Excessive thought and concern about past and future takes me away from where I really am, takes me out of reality, takes me away from God. — Art48

Furthermore, if God is only in the present moment also as you say, and that present moment is always the present moment, then distance/space and time is also a product of memories and the illusion of separations they create - the comparisons made by distinctions between memories of place and moment, the separation of the many "nows" into chronological order and dimension for which it must occupy. What separates you as a 7 year old with you now but space and time.

So "if" God exists, one would imagine they are accesible not by being "at the right place at the right time" to point them out and say "Hey there he/she/it is! Everyone look! I found where God's at/been hiding all this time!"

In essence that they're non-local and non-temporal. I would imagine such a state is prudent for an entity to qualify as everything, everywhere, all at once (the "omnis").

The only remaining way to "meet" such an entity is through contemplation from the present moment using ones mind. So if you're looking for "proof" of a God, it's unlikely that you can point to anything in specific. One must ask what form the "proof" must come in. What format? What type of proof is required and is it satisfying enough? You can simply know for yourself what the answer is. Perhaps you can explain it to someone else, perhaps they might believe you if you explain it well enough? Perhaps it enriches your experience or doesn't. Thats up to you - your free will/choice.

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

I haven't seen a reasonable rebuttal from you yet, only mention of measurement principles, and straw man representations which are irrelevant. You refuse to address the actual argument, just insisting that the conclusion is inconsistent with what you believe about "the present", therefore you claim that the argument cannot be sound and refuse to address it directly..

Your questioning here is more of the same. In essence, you are asking me, how can it be that the present is not as I believe it to be. The answer is simple, your belief is incorrect. And so you will inevitable continue with more of the same sort of so-called rebuttals. Instead of looking at the argument, and understanding it, you will continue to ask "how can it be that the present is ..., when I understand it to be ..."?

s a part of your present conscious experience in the past and part in the future? — Luke

Yes part is in the past and part is in the future.

How can your present conscious experience be in the future or the past? — Luke

Present consciousness is very complex, therefore it consists of parts, many, many events occurring at the same time, as the parts which compose it. And just like any event, some parts are before others. When an event occurs at the present it has a temporal duration and so some parts are in the past (have already occurred), and some are in the future (have not yet occurred). Therefore the "present conscious experience" is both in the future and in the past by virtue of its parts being thus situated temporally.

I know from the way you treated my examples (the present is 2023) that this idea is what you object to. You say that if the event (2023 for example) is "the present" then all of it is at the present, and anything before the entirety of it is past, and anything after the entirety of it is future. This would leave the entirety of that event (2023 in the example) as "the present" with no part inf the future or past.

The problem with that way of looking at it, is that it makes the temporal duration of the event which is "at the present" (2023 in the example) as unintelligible. In reality, if there is an event which occurs at the present, then by the fact that it is an "event" it is logically necessary that it has temporal duration and time passes during the occurrence of that event (2023). Therefore within the event itself, there are before parts and after parts. And it also follows that during the event, the present event (2023), while that event is occurring and time is passing during its occurrence, some of it in the past and some of it in the future. Therefore within the occurrence of the event which is "at the present" (2023 in the example) we can only understand its temporal progression by assuming that part is past and part is future. If we insist that all the event (2023) is present, and there is no past or future, there is no grounds for apprehending any temporal progression within the occurrence of the event. So the temporal dimension of the event is rendered as unintelligible.

Therefore we can conclude with a very high degree of certainty, because the premises are very strong, that within the event which we call "present conscious experience", some parts are in the past and some are in the future.

Wouldn't they just be your past and future conscious experiences? — Luke

Conscious experience occurs in the present. That is the principle premise. Conscious experience in the past, and in the future, contradict this premise. So, we start with that premise, and then position past and future relative to conscious experience. Therefore past and future are apprehended as distinct parts of the conscious experience, at the present, as explained, rather than independent things which conscious experience might be a part of. The latter is incoherent by the terms of the principle premise by way of the contradiction mentioned above. The former is not.

The future is memories. — Art48

Say what?

I know from the way you treated my examples (the present is 2023) that this idea is what you object to. You say that if the event (2023 for example) is "the present" then all of it is at the present, and anything before the entirety of it is past, and anything after the entirety of it is future. This would leave the entirety of that event (2023 in the example) as "the present" with no part inf the future or past. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you define "the present" as the entirety of 2023, then the duration of the present is - the present lasts for - the entirety of 2023, by definition. Furthermore, it does not follow that 2023 (the duration of the present) therefore has "no part in the future or past", as it was preceded by 2022 (which is presently in the past) and will by followed by 2024 (which is presently in the future).

In reality, if there is an event which occurs at the present, then by the fact that it is an "event" it is logically necessary that it has temporal duration and time passes during the occurrence of that event (2023). — Metaphysician Undercover

That time passes is presupposed regardless of your argument that the present contains parts of the future and past or not. Your stipulation that the present contains parts of the future and past does not make time pass, logically or otherwise.

Therefore within the event itself, there are before parts and after parts. — Metaphysician Undercover

Within both the past and future, there are "before" parts and "after" parts. Does it follow from this that the future is in the past and that the past is in the future? This is simply a misuse of language. "Before" and "after" are not synonymous with "past" and "future". "Before" and "after" can be used independently of the present moment whereas "past" and "future" are relative to it. WWII came after WWI yet both are in our past. 2035 is before 2065 yet both are in our future.

And it also follows that during the event, the present event (2023), while that event is occurring and time is passing during its occurrence, some of it in the past and some of it in the future. Therefore within the occurrence of the event which is "at the present" (2023 in the example) we can only understand its temporal progression by assuming that part is past and part is future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but none of the duration of the present is in the past or the future. By definition, it is the duration of the present, not the duration of the past nor the duration of the future. We seem to agree that the present moment is defined by your conscious experience, and it is the duration of your conscious experience that defines the duration of the present moment, and only the present moment. Otherwise, it would not be the duration of the present moment, but the duration of the present moment +/- some duration of the past and/or some duration of the future.

If we insist that all the event (2023) is present, and there is no past or future… — Metaphysician Undercover

I”ve never said that there is no past or future.

…[then] there is no grounds for apprehending any temporal progression within the occurrence of the event. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why not? There were many years before 2023 and will be many afterwards.

Therefore we can conclude with a very high degree of certainty, because the premises are very strong, that within the event which we call "present conscious experience", some parts are in the past and some are in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which premises?

Conscious experience occurs in the present. That is the principle premise. Conscious experience in the past, and in the future, contradict this premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do they contradict the principle premise? They would need to state that conscious experience occurs in the past and in the future in order to contradict it. To avoid contradiction, we could simply state that conscious experience occurred in the past and will occur in the future.

If you define "the present" as the entirety of 2023, then the duration of the present is - the present lasts for - the entirety of 2023, by definition. — Luke

That is an example, "the present is 2023". It is not a definition of "the present". That's why all the other examples were examples too, none of them defined "the present". They were examples of possible particular instances.

That time passes is presupposed regardless of your argument that the present contains parts of the future and past or not. Your stipulation that the present contains parts of the future and past does not make time pass, logically or otherwise. — Luke

If, "time passes" is presupposed, then you'll understand exactly why "the present" cannot be defined as 2023, or any such named "time", because the name of the present time would always be changing.

That the present contains parts of the future and parts of the past is not a stipulation, it is the conclusion of the logical argument I presented, whether you like it or not. It is a conclusion, not a stipulation.

Within both the past and future, there are "before" parts and "after" parts. Does it follow from this that the future is in the past and that the past is in the future? — Luke

Events only occur at the present, so this is not relevant, because I was talking about the occurrence of an event, something which only happens at the present.

By definition, it is the duration of the present, not the duration of the past nor the duration of the future. — Luke

As I've been busily demonstrating to you, this is the faulty definition of "the present", which you cling to even though it renders the present as something incoherent and unintelligible. That's why I've been telling you that you ought to approach this topic with n open mind, and allow that perhaps the definition of "the present" which you cling to is wrong, instead of continually insisting that what I say is wrong "by definition".

Since what I say accords very well with the reality of time, and the conclusion of the very sound argument I've presented is in discordance with your definition of "the present", it's very clear that you ought to reject, and replace your definition.

We seem to agree that the present moment is defined by your conscious experience, and it is the duration of your conscious experience that defines the duration of the present moment, and only the present moment. — Luke

You say that you agree with me that the present is defined by conscious experience, but then you want to define "the present" as either a point in time, or an interval of time with beginning and ending points. Points in time are not at all consistent with our experience of time as continuous. Therefore if you really believed that the present is defined by our conscious experience you would have rejected this idea of points in time which mark "the present", way back when I first explained that such a thing is not consistent with our conscious experience of time. Instead you insist on clinging to this faulty ideas of points.

Why not? There were many years before 2023 and will be many afterwards. — Luke

Because there is no occurrence of any event if there is no passing of time. And passing of time only occurs at the present, as our experience indicates. We have no experience of any events ever occurring at any time other than the present. Events occur at the present, and only at the present. We can create an artificial representation of events occurring in the past or in the future, by artificially projecting the present to that time. But if the entirety of 2023 is already designated as "the present", we cannot artificially project another present to sometime within 2023 without contradiction. Therefore the occurrence of events within that designated "present" are unintelligible, as I explained in a slightly different way, last post.

Which premises? — Luke

How can you assert that you've rebutted my argument when you cannot even state the premises? 1 conscious experience indicates that the present is not a point, it consists of duration. 2. A duration consists of parts which are before and parts which are after. 3. Before and after in relation to the present are past and future. I suggest you reread.

How do they contradict the principle premise? They would need to state that conscious experience occurs in the past and in the future in order to contradict it. To avoid contradiction, we could simply state that conscious experience occurred in the past and will occur in the future. — Luke

Then you are not talking about the present any more, which would be inconsistent with the premise. To avoid contradiction we'd have to say that conscious experience occurred when that time which is now past, was present, to ensure that conscious experience is always at the present.

That is an example, "the present is 2023". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, you returned to your example, so I addressed it.

It is not a definition of "the present". — Metaphysician Undercover

You defined it as such when you introduced it:

This year, 2023, is the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

You say that you agree with me that the present is defined by conscious experience, but then you want to define "the present" as either a point in time, or an interval of time with beginning and ending points. Points in time are not at all consistent with our experience of time as continuous. — Metaphysician Undercover

Points in time are consistent with a duration. A duration is a determinate period of time with beginning and end points. It is your premise that the present consists of a duration.

Why not? There were many years before 2023 and will be many afterwards.
— Luke

Because there is no occurrence of any event if there is no passing of time. And passing of time only occurs at the present, as our experience indicates. — Metaphysician Undercover

That was my point: 2022 was present, 2023 is present, and 2024 will be present.

How can you assert that you've rebutted my argument when you cannot even state the premises? 1 conscious experience indicates that the present is not a point, it consists of duration. 2. A duration consists of parts which are before and parts which are after. 3. Before and after in relation to the present are past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for clarifying. However, there seems to be some hidden premises because I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that "time passes" from these premises alone.

Also, if we take a closer look, premise 1 states that the present consists of a duration and premise 2 states that a duration consists of before and after parts. This implies that the present consists of before and after parts. This does not imply that those before and after parts are past and future parts, because it is the present which consists of those before and after parts.

We could add that, relative to the present moment, the past comes before the present moment and the future comes after the present moment, but we are not committed to any conclusion that the before parts of the present are past nor that the after parts of the present are future. The before and after parts are only what the present consists of.

You are still using two different senses of the present moment. On the one hand you treat the present as a duration. However, on the other hand, you also treat the present as some mid-point within the duration, which has some parts before it and some parts after, and you treat these as being past and future. You should instead treat what is outside the duration of the present as being past and future, rather than what is inside it on either side of the duration of the present's mid-point.

How do they contradict the principle premise? They would need to state that conscious experience occurs in the past and in the future in order to contradict it. To avoid contradiction, we could simply state that conscious experience occurred in the past and will occur in the future.
— Luke

Then you are not talking about the present any more, which would be inconsistent with the premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wasn't talking about the present or the principle premise that "conscious experience occurs in the present". I was talking about what contradicts the principle premise.

To avoid contradiction we'd have to say that conscious experience occurred when that time which is now past, was present, to ensure that conscious experience is always at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

This was implied by my use of tensed language. Conscious experience occurs in the present, occurred in the past, and will occur in the future. The contradiction is thus avoided.

Points in time are consistent with a duration. A duration is a determinate period of time with beginning and end points. It is your premise that the present consists of a duration. — Luke

Points in time are not consistent with our conscious experience of duration. As I said, the duration of the present is indefinite. I said the present consist of "duration", not "a duration", and if I sometimes mentioned "a duration", I meant an indefinite duration.

This seems to be our principal disagreement. If you want to understand, then drop the points. But if this is where you think the weakness of the argument lies, then explain to me how you think there are points within our conscious experience of the present. Because that lack of points is a fundamental premise which I believe is very sound.

Thanks for clarifying. However, there seems to be some hidden premises because I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that "time passes" from these premises alone. — Luke

The conscious experience of the present is the experience of time passing. We could discuss whether or not it's properly called "passing", or if some other word would be better. As I explained in the original argument it is the experiencing of a continuous passing which cannot be pinpointed.

Also, if we take a closer look, premise 1 states that the present consists of a duration and premise 2 states that a duration consists of before and after parts. This implies that the present consists of before and after parts. This does not imply that those before and after parts are past and future parts, because it is the present which consists of those before and after parts. — Luke

The premise is "duration", not "a duration".

I don't see how the matter described is relevant. It's an issue of defining the terms. "Before and after" in relation to "the present" are known as past and future. If you like, we could adhere to "the present consists of before and after parts", and discuss what this means. But what it means is that the present consists of future and past parts, because if it consisted of only past, or only future parts, this would not be consistent with the conscious experience.

We could add that, relative to the present moment, the past comes before the present moment and the future comes after the present moment, but we are not committed to any conclusion that the before parts of the present are past nor that the after parts of the present are future. The before and after parts are only what the present consists of. — Luke

But we have no "present moment". You are inserting an unwarranted "moment" into the scenario. This is the manifestation of your desire to utilize "points". There is not "moment" in the conscious experience of the present. We only have the continuous experience of time passing to deal with, and this manifests as duration, indefinite duration.

So I don't see any reason for your limiting of the naming of the before and after parts. You impose an unwarranted "moment", in order to define "past" and "future" as relative to this moment. Then by this unwarranted definition you exclude "past" and "future" from the naming of the parts of "the present", because they have already been used as names relative to the "present moment". But there is no "moment" in the conscious experience so we must deny this proposition as false and this frees up "past" and "future" to be used relative to "the present", as I described, without any "moment" .

You are still using two different senses of the present moment. — Luke

I do not use "present moment". You introduced this. The present is duration, not a moment. That is the principal premise. Any time we try to assign "a moment", or "a point" to the present, the assignment fails, because the present does not consist of moments, nor is it "moment" in general.

However, on the other hand, you also treat the present as some mid-point within the duration, which has some parts before it and some parts after, and you treat these as being past and future. — Luke

Saying "before parts and after parts" does not imply a mid-point. There is no mention as to how any division into parts is to be carried out here, it is only implied that there is distinct parts. The mode of division is not mentioned so "mid-point" is not implied.

You should instead treat what is outside the duration of the present as being past and future, rather than what is inside it on either side of the duration of the present's mid-point. — Luke

This proposal is the manifestation of your faulty way of looking at the present, as a moment. Since there are no moments, only an apprehension of duration, which is indefinite, we have no boundary which would enable us to go "outside" the present. The principles for this "going outside" have not yet been established. We need a thorough understanding of the fundamentals before making such complex proposals.

Points in time are not consistent with our conscious experience of duration. As I said, the duration of the present is indefinite. I said the present consist of "duration", not "a duration", and if I sometimes mentioned "a duration", I meant an indefinite duration. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you think it would make sense to distinguish between the nature of our subjective experiences of 'the present' and the nature of time in the larger reality we are a part of?

It seems to me that you and Luke are both right in ways, but this discussion seems a muddled mess due to not making such a distinction.

Also, if we take a closer look, premise 1 states that the present consists of a duration and premise 2 states that a duration consists of before and after parts. This implies that the present consists of before and after parts. This does not imply that those before and after parts are past and future parts, because it is the present which consists of those before and after parts.
— Luke

I don't see how the matter described is relevant. It's an issue of defining the terms. "Before and after" in relation to "the present" are known as past and future. If you like, we could adhere to "the present consists of before and after parts", and discuss what this means. But what it means is that the present consists of future and past parts, because if it consisted of only past, or only future parts, this would not be consistent with the conscious experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is relevant because you are misusing the terms "past" and "future", which are not part of the present, but distinct periods which - as you yourself have stated - are defined relative to the present. You appear to grasp this issue and my main point here:

...you exclude "past" and "future" from the naming of the parts of "the present", because they have already been used as names relative to the "present moment". — Metaphysician Undercover

Precisely. "Past" and "future" cannot be used as names of parts of the present because they are used as names relative to the present. Your use of two different senses for each of these terms indicates your use of two different senses of "the present".

Do you think it would make sense to distinguish between the nature of our subjective experiences of 'the present' and the nature of time in the larger reality we are a part of? — wonderer1

I don't think that this would be possible at this point. The only thing we have to go on is our subjective experiences. So I think it's necessary to get a good understanding of our subjective experiences of time before we can proceed toward speculating about the nature of time in a larger reality. This is because our subjective experiences of time have a very significant impact on our speculations concerning any larger reality. I think that how one interprets one's subjective experience of time influences whether God may or may not enter the speculations about the larger reality.

It seems to me that you and Luke are both right in ways, but this discussion seems a muddled mess due to not making such a distinction. — wonderer1

The muddled mess is due to Luke's assumption that we can step outside of our experience of the present, and make assumptions about the nature of time outside of this experience of the present. See below, Luke puts forward an unwarranted and unjustified proposition that the future and past are "outside" of our experience of the present. So Luke seeks to define "present" in such a way that the future and past are outside of the present, leaving them as impossible to experience, therefore unknowable and unintelligible to empirical knowledge.

This is the problem with "presentism". By assuming Luke's premise, future and past get placed outside of the present. Then future and past become unintelligible to presentism when Luke\s premise is adopted without a thorough understanding of how we really experience "the present".

I, on the other hand define "present" in a way which is completely consistent with our experience of the present, and in a way which also brings "past" and "future" into our experience of the present, as part of it. This makes activity at the present (as we do sense motion at the present) coherent and intelligible, and it also brings past and future into our experience of the present, making these empirically knowable.

It is relevant because you are misusing the terms "past" and "future" — Luke

This supposed "misuse" is a product of your incoherent definition of "present", as I've already shown to you. You have an incoherent definition of "present" which puts past and future outside of the present, and this renders all aspects of time as unintelligible. By the terms of this incoherent definition, I misuse "past" and "future".

Your use of two different senses for each of these terms indicates your use of two different senses of "the present". — Luke

In the course of this discussion, I have on occasion, used "the present" in your way, solely for the purpose of demonstrating the incoherency of that way of using "the present".

This supposed "misuse" is a product of your incoherent definition of "present", as I've already shown to you. You have an incoherent definition of "present" which puts past and future outside of the present, and this renders all aspects of time as unintelligible. By the terms of this incoherent definition, I misuse "past" and "future". — Metaphysician Undercover

I'll make a final attempt then leave you to your confusion.

Most people use the following terms to refer to three distinct periods of time:

1. Past (A)
2. Present (A)
3. Future (A)

You have also noted more than once that the past and the future are determined relative to the present, e.g.:

...present is logically prior to past and future, and human beings determine past and future relative to their existence at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

However, you simultaneously maintain that the present also consists of past and future periods. Let us denote these subdivisions of duration of the present as:

4. Past (B)
5. Future (B)

If 1 and 3 above are determined relative to 2, then 4 and 5 are determined relative to what? That is, 4 and 5 are in the past and in the future of what?

The answer can only be a second present - Present (B) - that is nested within Present (A).

And so on, ad infinitum.

Most people use the following terms to refer to three distinct periods of time: — Luke

Yes, and I've discussed the problems with this way that most people think. "Distinct periods of time" requires points, dimensionless boundaries to separate them. These points are inconsistent with our experience. Furthermore, if we assume that there are dimensionless points, boundaries, within time, then these points cannot themselves consist of time, but must be composed of something other than time. Then we have something other than time within time, and this produces the incoherency.

If 1 and 3 above are determined relative to 2, then 4 and 5 are determined relative to what? That is, 4 and 5 are in the past and in the future of what? — Luke

We've been through this a number of times, 1 and 3 are simply rejected as incoherent, false ideas of what past and future are. There are no points or dimensionless boundaries separating distinct parts of time. That idea is completely inconsistent with our conscious experience of time. Then after these are dismissed, we adopt 4 and 5 as a more realistic representation of past and future, a representation which is consistent with our empirical knowledge.

We might then proceed toward understanding a "past and future" which is outside the realm of experience and empirical knowledge, and this would be a "past and future" which is outside of the present, like your 1 and 3, with the difference being that they are not based on distinct boundaries. Then we have a way to properly understand past and future as they are, outside the realm of the present , and this understanding will be consistent with our experience, and therefore our empirical knowledge, as not based in distinct boundaries.

The answer can only be a second present - Present (B) - that is nested within Present (A). — Luke

Not at all, Present (A) is simply incoherent, and wrong, as explained above. It is inconsistent with experience and is a faulty idea which cannot be justified, because it is wrong. That is the point I made when I first entered this thread, and you still do not get it, wanting to nest Present (B) with present (A). The point is that Present (A) is incompatible with conscious experience, and incompatible with present (B) which is compatible with conscious experience. Therefore there can be no nesting, and present (A) must be rejected as a misleading idea.

Most people use the following terms to refer to three distinct periods of time:

— Luke

Yes, and I've discussed the problems with this way that most people think. "Distinct periods of time" requires points, dimensionless boundaries to separate them. These points are inconsistent with our experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't acknowledge any duration called "the present" that is distinct from past and future times? I thought your argument depended on it.

Furthermore, if we assume that there are dimensionless points, boundaries, within time, then these points cannot themselves consist of time, but must be composed of something other than time. Then we have something other than time within time, and this produces the incoherency. — Metaphysician Undercover

You believe that linguistic distinctions are composed of something physical?

We've been through this a number of times, 1 and 3 are simply rejected as incoherent, false ideas of what past and future are. There are no points or dimensionless boundaries separating distinct parts of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

You said that the past and future are determined relative to the present. Now you reject the past and future as incoherent? If there are no distinctions between different parts of time, then why is your argument based on the distinctions between past, present and future? If there is no present time that is distinct from past and future times, then what the hell have we been talking about?

Then after these are dismissed, we adopt 4 and 5 as a more realistic representation of past and future, a representation which is consistent with our empirical knowledge. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, there is no past or future times outside of the present time, there is only the present time which consists of past and future times? In that case - for the umpteenth time - what are these past and future times relative to; they are in the past and in the future of what? It cannot be the present time if these past and future times constitute the present time.

We might then proceed toward understanding a "past and future" which is outside the realm of experience and empirical knowledge, and this would be a "past and future" which is outside of the present, like your 1 and 3, with the difference being that they are not based on distinct boundaries. Then we have a way to properly understand past and future as they are, outside the realm of the present , and this understanding will be consistent with our experience, and therefore our empirical knowledge, as not based in distinct boundaries. — Metaphysician Undercover

You reject my 1 and 3, which you state "are simply rejected as incoherent, false ideas of what past and future are", but now you reclaim them as being "consistent with our experience, and therefore our empirical knowledge".

Your "imprecise boundaries" do not affect my argument. Your "imprecise boundaries" simply make you vacillate over maintaining the distinction between past, present and future or not. If you maintain the distinction, then you must face my argument. If you reject the distinction, then your argument (which relies on the distinction) collapses in a meaningless heap.

The point is that Present (A) is incompatible with conscious experience, and incompatible with present (B) which is compatible with conscious experience. Therefore there can be no nesting, and present (A) must be rejected as a misleading idea. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, but presumably Present (B) will follow your same argument as before:

1 conscious experience indicates that the present is not a point, it consists of duration. 2. A duration consists of parts which are before and parts which are after. 3. Before and after in relation to the present are past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore, you still need to address the same criticism that I levelled at your argument regarding Present (A) for your argument regarding Present (B). That's the problem with your argument: it's nested presents all the way down.

Do you think it would make sense to distinguish between the nature of our subjective experiences of 'the present' and the nature of time in the larger reality we are a part of?
— wonderer1

I don't think that this would be possible at this point. The only thing we have to go on is our subjective experiences. So I think it's necessary to get a good understanding of our subjective experiences of time before we can proceed toward speculating about the nature of time in a larger reality. This is because our subjective experiences of time have a very significant impact on our speculations concerning any larger reality... — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, we have different subjective experiences, and based on my subjective experiences it is not only possible, but extremely valuable to recognize difference in our subjective experiences of a present, and happenings in time in the world.

One of my subjective experiences involves watching basketball games and recognizing that I'm not processing visual data at the rate that neurotypical people do, and therefore miss details of the action that other people catch. But even neurotypical people don't have visual processing speeds all that much faster than mine, and that is why slow motion replay is common with televised sporting events, to allow people to catch details of action which they would otherwise miss.

Along similar lines, scientists, studying how baby birds learn to sing an attractive song, realized that because birds have higher flicker-fusion (visual processing) rate than humans, the scientists might need slow motion video of birds to find out what is going on. I posted a link in the shoutbox recently, but if you are interested I can look it up again.

Another factor in my subjective experience is looking at signals captured by oscilloscopes that represent things at time resolutions down to around a nanosecond. I have very good reasons for thinking events really are happening on extremely small time scales regardless of the fact that my unaided perceptions don't reveal things on such small time scales.

Might it be the case that there is a relevant lack of diversity to the sort of subjective experiences you have had?

ou don't acknowledge any duration called "the present" that is distinct from past and future times? — Luke

That's exactly right, and the principal premise of my argument. Since there are no points in time the past and future cannot be distinct from the present. Therefore our only means for understanding the nature of time is through our conscious experience of the present. And within our conscious experience of the present, we encounter the past and future.

Sorry Luke, but I see a whole lot of straw men in your post, and nothing worth replying to, very little effort, if any, on your part. If you put some effort into an attempt to understand, I would be very willing to reply.

Well, we have different subjective experiences, and based on my subjective experiences it is not only possible, but extremely valuable to recognize difference in our subjective experiences of a present, and happenings in time in the world. — wonderer1

Yes, this is another good point. Since we all have somewhat different subjective experiences of "the present", this is a very good reason why there cannot be an objective, and to use Luke's word, "distinct", separation between present, past, and future. There are no objective points of distinction within time, those distinctions are subjective and somewhat arbitrary

Another factor in my subjective experience is looking at signals captured by oscilloscopes that represent things at time resolutions down to around a nanosecond. I have very good reasons for thinking events really are happening on extremely small time scales regardless of the fact that my unaided perceptions don't reveal things on such small time scales. — wonderer1

I agree, things happen on a very large time scale, and also on a very small time scale. And we observe this, in one way or another. That's another good reason why we cannot limit "the present" to one particular time scale. If we designated "the present moment" as a tenth of a second, or something like that, then a whole lot of nanoseconds would be going past at the present moment. This would mean that within "the present moment" some nanoseconds would be in the future, and some would be in the past.

Might it be the case that there is a relevant lack of diversity to the sort of subjective experiences you have had? — wonderer1

I don't understand the question. Diversity in the conscious experience of the present is what this conception of the present is aimed at accounting for.

Since there are no points in time the past and future cannot be distinct from the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

If there is no distinction between "past", "present" and "future", then what does each word mean?

Yes, this is another good point. Since we all have somewhat different subjective experiences of "the present", this is a very good reason why there cannot be an objective, and to use Luke's word, "distinct", separation between present, past, and future. There are no objective points of distinction within time, those distinctions are subjective and somewhat arbitrary — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm curious about your theory, as to how it is we are communicating with each other. However, I can tell you, that you can't understand much about the answer without a more accurate theory of time than you currently have. I suspect you haven't subjected your theory of time to the many falsifying tests which could be done. Thus you haven't seen the need for a more accurate paradigm.

Think about what you said earlier:

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are correct that we can't think thoughts without a period of time elapsing but look at the inability to clearly distinguish between past and future that comes with your perspective. Do you think it is your thought processes which determine what is past and what is future?

If there is no distinction between "past", "present" and "future", then what does each word mean? — Luke

You have an unbelievable way of associating meaning with words Luke. That is why it is very difficult to hold a discussion with you. Obviously what I mean by "distinct" is not the same as what you mean by "distinction" here. So your criticism of my argument has just turned into an exercise in equivocation. My use of "past" and "future" (A) is inconsistent with, and cannot support yours (B), therefore my use is problematic. What you apparently fail to understand is that my use is designed to be incompatible with yours, because of the problems I associate with yours. The principal problem is that you require points in time to distinguish your three aspects, and these points are not real, but arbitrary.

I'm curious about your theory, as to how it is we are communicating with each other. However, I can tell you, that you can't understand much about the answer without a more accurate theory of time than you currently have. I suspect you haven't subjected your theory of time to the many falsifying tests which could be done. Thus you haven't seen the need for a more accurate paradigm. — wonderer1

The theory is a starting point, a launch pad toward a more accurate understanding of the reality of time.
It is designed and intended to avoid many of the current problems associated with the conventional understanding of time. I don't see how your comment about communication is relevant. Clearly communication is a difficult task, as my attempt at discussion with Luke indicates, and the capacity to communicate is not something which ought to be taken for granted. However, I don't see how this bears on my temporal theory.

Perhaps you could explain the "falsifying tests" which could be carried out. I've described the theory as well grounded in conscious experience, and extremely sound, therefore I clearly believe that the required falsifying tests have already been carried out in human practise.

You are correct that we can't think thoughts without a period of time elapsing but look at the inability to clearly distinguish between past and future that comes with your perspective. Do you think it is your thought processes which determine what is past and what is future? — wonderer1

Distinguishing between past and future is a judgement which is carried out by human beings. I do not think that any other creatures could do such a thing because they would have to form an understanding of the meanings of these words, "past" and "future", and then make a judgement according to some criteria. So I think human beings are the only creatures we know of who attempt to make such a judgement. In any case, it is only thought which makes such a judgement, whether it's your thought, mine, Luke's, anyone else, or everyone. So I think it is very clear that it is thought processes which determine what is past and what is future, whether it's yours, mine, or some other. Can you think of anything else which might determine what is past and what is future?

Since there are no points in time the past and future cannot be distinct from the present.
— Metaphysician Undercover

If there is no distinction between "past", "present" and "future", then what does each word mean?
— Luke

You have an unbelievable way of associating meaning with words Luke. That is why it is very difficult to hold a discussion with you. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have not answered the question. If you make a distinction between these, then what is it?

Obviously what I mean by "distinct" is not the same as what you mean by "distinction" here. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is not obvious at all. It might help if you answer my question.

So your criticism of my argument has just turned into an exercise in equivocation. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no evidence of that because you have not answered my question.

My use of "past" and "future" (A) is inconsistent with, and cannot support yours (B)... — Metaphysician Undercover

I thought that you rejected "past" (A) and "future" (A) times in favour of "past" (B) and "future" (B) times?

As a reminder, (A) represents past and future times that are external to the present time (A), whereas (B) represents past and future times that are internal to the present time (A); of which the present time (A) consists. Except you later reclaimed (A) times but with imprecise boundaries. However, I note that I never mentioned anything about sharp or imprecise boundaries with regard to (A) times (in the post where I first referred to (A) and (B) times).

What you apparently fail to understand is that my use is designed to be incompatible with yours — Metaphysician Undercover

You designed it that way?

...because of the problems I associate with yours. — Metaphysician Undercover

You advanced your argument before I entered this discussion. It seems you would prefer to attack straw men that you believe represent my position instead of making an honest attempt to defend your own argument.

The principal problem is that you require points in time to distinguish your three aspects, and these points are not real, but arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover

Regardless, your argument is dependent on the distinctions between the "three aspects" of past, present and future. Making a fuss over these distinctions being real or arbitrary, precise or imprecise, does not advance your argument or address my criticisms. It is instead a red herring that you use to hide behind.

Once again: If the present time (A) consists of both past (B) and future (B) times, then what are those past (B) and future (B) times relative to? They are in the past and in the future of what?

If you make a distinction between these, then what is it? — Luke

I've been through this so many times, I don't know why I continue. The distinction is a judgement of before and after in relation to, or if you prefer, from the perspective of, the present.

As a reminder, (A) represents past and future times that are external to the present time (A), whereas (B) represents past and future times that are internal to the present time (A); of which the present time (A) consists. Except you later reclaimed (A) times but with imprecise boundaries. However, I note that I never mentioned anything about sharp or imprecise boundaries with regard to (A) times (in the post where I first referred to (A) and (B) times). — Luke

You referred to |"three distinct periods of time", and that's what I objected to. And I told you why, because to be distinct periods of time requires boundaries of separation. These boundaries, or points in time re what I consider to be a false premise.

If the past and future, as we experience them, are within the present then there is not three distinct periods. But this still allows that the past and future might extend outside the present as well. Think of a Venn diagram of past and future, overlapping at the present, for example. In no way can this be described as three distinct periods of time. However, both past and future are within the present, and also extend outside the present.

You designed it that way? — Luke

Yes, of course, that is the point. The conventional way, which you describe requires arbitrary points, or boundaries in time, to separate distinct periods of time. However, these points and boundaries are nowhere to be found in our experience of time. So I designed a conception which works very well without such points, but it is necessarily incompatible with a conception which employs such arbitrary points.

Once again: If the present time (A) consists of both past (B) and future (B) times, then what are those past (B) and future (B) times relative to? They are in the past and in the future of what? — Luke

As I explained in my last reply to wonderer1, distinctions of past and future are judgements made by the thinking being. So "past" and "future" are conceptions within the mind of the being, at the present, who uses these conceptions to make judgements. So the "past (B) and future (B) times" are past and future relative to those judgements. And the thinking being may use projections to extend one's judgement to things outside of one's mind.

I've been through this so many times, I don't know why I continue. The distinction is a judgement of before and after in relation to, or if you prefer, from the perspective of, the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, so past and future come before and after the present, respectively. In fact, that's what these words are typically used to mean.

You referred to |"three distinct periods of time", and that's what I objected to. And I told you why, because to be distinct periods of time requires boundaries of separation. These boundaries, or points in time re what I consider to be a false premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

And my argument has been that if you want to place the past and the future within the present time, then you need another present time inside that, that these past and future times actually come before and after. The words create the distinction. You are misusing these words.

If the past and future, as we experience them, are within the present then there is not three distinct periods. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do they need to be within the present?

But this still allows that the past and future might extend outside the present as well. Think of a Venn diagram of past and future, overlapping at the present, for example. In no way can this be described as three distinct periods of time. However, both past and future are within the present, and also extend outside the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. But the past is not before the present and the future is not after the present in this example (per your second premise). Of course you will say that some of it is, but then you will need another present which completely is. That's what coming before and after means.

What you apparently fail to understand is that my use is designed to be incompatible with yours
— Metaphysician Undercover

You designed it that way?
— Luke

Yes, of course, that is the point. — Metaphysician Undercover

I meant: did you intend only for your use to be incompatible with mine? Which is how it sounded.

The conventional way, which you describe requires arbitrary points, or boundaries in time, to separate distinct periods of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the meaning of the words requires those arbitrary points. Those words are used to separate distinct periods of time into past, present and future. You aren't using the words correctly. Perhaps you could state why you want the boundaries to be imprecise.

However, these points and boundaries are nowhere to be found in our experience of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Most people have no trouble using the words correctly. Furthermore, those points and boundaries can change with context, such as your use of 2023 as the present.

So "past" and "future" are conceptions within the mind of the being, at the present, who uses these conceptions to make judgements. — Metaphysician Undercover

In simpler terms, people use language.

So the "past (B) and future (B) times" are past and future relative to those judgements. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you saying that everyone uses the words "past", "present" and "future" incorrectly? People really use those terms to mean that the past and future are a little bit inside the present? Then it seems strange that they aren't normally defined that way.

And the thinking being may use projections to extend one's judgement to things outside of one's mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since we can think about the past or the future in the present, then those times are present?

Right, so past and future come before and after the present, respectively. In fact, that's what these words are typically used to mean. — Luke

No, "past or future", "before or after", are judgements made from a perspective. The perspective is said to be "the present". Therefore past and future are before and after each other, from the perspective of the present. Think of the way that first is before second, which is after first. The observer, or counter's perspective is not between first and second. The perspective encompasses both, it is not between the two. This is no different from any other set of opposing terms, right and left, up and down, hot and cold, etc.. The two opposing terms are conceptual, and are used to describe things relative to the perceiver.

And my argument has been that if you want to place the past and the future within the present time, then you need another present time inside that, that these past and future times actually come before and after. The words create the distinction. You are misusing these words. — Luke

No, your argument is based on equivocation. The claimed "need" is the result of you trying to create compatibility between your use of "present" and my use of "present". But your use relies on the false premises of points or boundaries which divide separate parts of time. Therefore it ought to simply be rejected as incompatible with the truth, due to falsity, and there is no such need for your proposed nested present time.

Why do they need to be within the present? — Luke

To be consistent with reality, and this is known as being true. To proceed from true premises, true proposition about the nature of time, in an effort to understand further, the nature of time, we must accept the propositions which position past and future as within present.

As I explained to Wonderer1, this makes presentism into a coherent ontological perspective by making past and future intelligible, and real, to the presentist.

Okay. But the past is not before the present and the future is not after the present in this example (per your second premise). Of course you will say that some of it is, but then you will need another present which completely is. That's what coming before and after means. — Luke

This is your misunderstanding. The past and future are before and after, each other. None of this is before or after the present, as the present is simply the position of perspective, the so-called point of view. The idea that the perspective is a "point" of view is the problem, the false premise. So "before: and "after" are judgements made from that perspective. Think of the way that right and left, up and down, etc;, are judgements made from a perspective.

Therefore there is no need for your proposed "another present", because this is already accounted for within my proposed "present" due to the nature of subjectivity, as I discussed with Wonderer1. The overlap of past and future (as evident in the Venn diagram example), which appears to contradict the premise that past and future are before and after relative to each other, is the result of subjective differences in perspective. This feature of "the present", as the perspective of the observer manifests as the relativity of simultaneity. And, we can extend it even further to cover the unclarity within one person's own subjective experience.

No, the meaning of the words requires those arbitrary points. — Luke

No, the meaning of the words does not require "points". The points are just a mathematical tool applied in the practise of measurement. For example, to my right, and to my left requires no point, to have meaning, up and down requires no point. What is required is a perspective, and the perspective is often referred to as the "point of view", and this is commonly reduced to a "point". The reduction of the perspective to a "point" is done to facilitate measurement, but it is not as you say, a requirement for meaning.

Are you saying that everyone uses the words "past", "present" and "future" incorrectly? — Luke

"Correct" and "incorrect" are a matter of convention, meaning consistent with or inconsistent with a specific conventions. "Truth" is a matter of consistent with reality. What I am saying is that the conventions which are employed for the purpose of measurement are principles which are not consistent with reality. Therefore when people talk about points in time they speak correctly, but not truthfully.

Since we can think about the past or the future in the present, then those times are present? — Luke

Past and future, like before and after, are concepts employed in judgement. We must respect the fact that judgements made by distinct people may be inconsistent with each other, just like whether something is to the right or to the left. Because of this we must look at the judgement as property of the judge (i.e. within the judge), and not as something independent, regardless of whether the thing judged is supposed to be external to the judge. The latter, is a projection of the internal to the external.

No, the meaning of the words requires those arbitrary points.
— Luke

No, the meaning of the words does not require "points". The points are just a mathematical tool applied in the practise of measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover

I misspoke here. I should have said that the use or meaning of the words creates those arbitrary points or boundaries. It is the distinctions between the meanings of the words that creates the distinctions between "past", "present" and "future", or in which those distinctions pre-exist. The different meanings of the different words are themselves the distinctions. These arbitrary boundaries are not based on anything except the usage or meanings of these words. You can forget about mathematical "points". The upshot is that there is no overlap between them; no part of the past or the future "inside" the present. The meanings of those concepts are mutually exclusive. If something is present, then it is neither past nor future; if past, then neither present nor future; and if future, then neither past nor present.

"Correct" and "incorrect" are a matter of convention, meaning consistent with or inconsistent with a specific conventions. "Truth" is a matter of consistent with reality. What I am saying is that the conventions which are employed for the purpose of measurement are principles which are not consistent with reality. Therefore when people talk about points in time they speak correctly, but not truthfully. — Metaphysician Undercover

When have the conventional meanings of "past", "present" and "future" been "employed for the purpose of measurement"?

This feature of "the present", as the perspective of the observer manifests as the relativity of simultaneity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is that what this is all about? You have changed the meanings of "past", "present" and "future" to try and accommodate relativity? Surely, people travelling at different relative speeds to us could just use different conventions; i.e. use those words to refer to different times than we do?

You can forget about mathematical "points". The upshot is that there is no overlap between them; no part of the past or the future "inside" the present. — Luke

The reality is that there is a whole lot of overlap. As I said in my first post, by the time you say "now", it is in the past. By the time someone hears you say "now" it is in the past. That's the unavoidable reality. And if you say that what was meant by "now" is a period of time encompassing both speaking and hearing, then there is both before and after inside the now. So, any time that someone uses "the present" to refer to a period of time, anyone can divide that period of time into past and future, consequently there is "overlap".

The overlap in usage is very real, obvious, and unavoidable, yet you just deny this with "there is no overlap", as if denial makes the obvious overlap not real. If you really believe what you say, tell me how "the present" can refer to anything other than a dimensionless mathematical point separating past from future, which everyone must respect, if there is to be no overlap in the usage of these terms.

When have the conventional meanings of "past", "present" and "future" been "employed for the purpose of measurement"? — Luke

The conventional meanings are put to use anytime that time is measured. A future is presupposed prior to measurement as the time which will be measured. A present moment is designated to start the measurement. The time going past is measured until another designated present moment. Have you ever used a stopwatch?

You have changed the meanings of "past", "present" and "future" to try and accommodate relativity? — Luke

Since relativity is one of the most often used theories in physics, don't you see it as a problem if it is not consist with the conventional (correct) meanings of "past", "present", and "future"? Obviously, something needs to be changed. Perhaps it is the case that conventional usage is actually based in false premises, as I've been telling you.

As I said in my first post, by the time you say "now", it is in the past. By the time someone hears you say "now" it is in the past. That's the unavoidable reality. And if you say that what was meant by "now" is a period of time encompassing both speaking and hearing, then there is both before and after inside the now. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are repeating your error of conflating "before" with "past" and "after" with "future". These are not interchangeable terms. If before and after are inside the now, it does not follow that past and future are inside the now, because past and future are determined relative to now.

The year 2050 is before 2070 but both years are in the future. 2050 is not in the past, despite being before 2070. 2050 and 2070 are before and after relative to each other, but past and future are only relative to now.

So, any time that someone uses "the present" to refer to a period of time, anyone can divide that period of time into past and future, consequently there is "overlap". — Metaphysician Undercover

Nonsense. Past and future are determined relative to the present. The present is not divisible into past and future, otherwise it would not be the present.

No part of the present can be in the past because if it were then it would no longer be in the present, and no part of the future can be in the present because if it were then it would no longer be in the future. Likewise, no part of the past can be in the present because if it were then it would not yet be in the past, and no part of the present can be in the future because if it were then it would not yet be in the present.

If you really believe what you say, tell me how "the present" can refer to anything other than a dimensionless mathematical point separating past from future, which everyone must respect, if there is to be no overlap in the usage of these terms. — Metaphysician Undercover

The present could be a dimensionless mathematical point or it could be 1,000 years long and, either way, it would still not overlap the past or future. The past is before the present and the future is after the present.

A future is presupposed prior to measurement as the time which will be measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is not part of the measurement, so is not "employed for the purpose of measurement".

A present moment is designated to start the measurement. The time going past is measured until another designated present moment. — Metaphysician Undercover

Clocks and times (numbers) are used; not present moments.

Have you ever used a stopwatch? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not any stopwatch that used the words "past", "present" or "future" for the purposes of measurement.

You are repeating your error of conflating "before" with "past" and "after" with "future". These are not interchangeable terms. If before and after are inside the now, it does not follow that past and future are inside the now, because past and future are determined relative to now. — Luke

I explained this. "Now" is the human perspective. Both, past/future, before/after, are judgements made from within that perspective. The human subject is a sensing being, and such judgements are made from within that being. Therefore past/future are within "the present". "The present" is the temporal position of the sentient being and past/future are judgements made within.. To put past/future outside the present requires projection, extrapolation. Putting past/future outside the present of the sentient being is a further process which can only be understood after a firm grasp of past/future within the sentient being is established.

Nonsense. Past and future are determined relative to the present. The present is not divisible into past and future, otherwise it would not be the present. — Luke

Any example that anyone gives as what is referred to as "the present" can always be broken down by someone else, and denied as the true "present". Look at the examples I already gave. If someone says that 2023 is the present, someone else could say no, July 8 is the present, and the rest of 2023 is past and future. Then someone could state the hour as the present, and the rest of July 8 is past and future. Then the second, nanosecond, etc.. Whatever is referred to as "the present" is always divisible into a smaller present with a past and future. I've explained this to you already. Why is it so hard for you to understand? It's never clear exactly what "now" or "present" refers to when someone uses these terms.

No part of the present can be in the past because if it were then it would no longer be in the present, and no part of the future can be in the present because if it were then it would no longer be in the future. Likewise, no part of the past can be in the present because if it were then it would not yet be in the past, and no part of the present can be in the future because if it were then it would not yet be in the present. — Luke

All you are doing here is explaining why your definition of "present" is not consistent with reality. What you stipulate as required for the meaning of "the present" cannot be upheld in reality. Look at the examples. If 2023 is stipulated as the present, then someone can say part is in the past and part is in the future. And this is the case with any time period which is stipulated as "the present", anyone can argue that part of that time period is in the past and part is in the future.

To avoid this problem, and maintain your stipulated requirements "no part of the present can be in the past...etc.", the present must be reduced to a non-dimensional point in time, which separates future from past. However, such points are not consistent with the reality of our experience of time.

Therefore, what is stipulated as required for "the present" under your proposed definition, "no part of the present can be in the past...etc.", cannot be fulfilled in a way which is both logically rigorous (agreeable to all rational people) and consistent with reality. If a time period is proposed as "the present", any rational person can show how that time period contains both past and future, (as the examples demonstrate). And if "the present" is reduced to a mere point, this is not consistent with reality. So the reasonable response is to reject your stipulated conditions for "the present" as providing nothing but a false premise.

The present could be a dimensionless mathematical point or it could be 1,000 years long and, either way, it would still not overlap the past or future. The past is before the present and the future is after the present. — Luke

Don't you see that if you propose that "the present" is 1,000 years long, or any other period of time, without any overlap of past or future, any reasonable person would reject this proposition, saying that the time period has some past and some future within it. You could insist that this time period is what you stipulate as "the present", but then you are only being unreasonable, as trying to force your own arbitrary stipulated time period as "the present". So to make your stipulation agreeable, and reasonable, it must be reduced to a mathematical point. But then it is not consistent with the reality of time as we experience it. The problem is that your requirement "no part of the present can be in the past.." is impossible to fulfill in a reasonable way. Therefore it is unreasonable.

This is not part of the measurement... — Luke

You and I have such a vastly different idea of what constitutes "measurement", that discussion on this subject would just make the thread a messy digression. That's why I've been insisting that we avoid the topic, as not a requirement for the subject of the op.

As I said in my first post, by the time you say "now", it is in the past. By the time someone [***ELSE***] hears you say "now" it is in the past. That's the unavoidable reality. And if you say that what was meant by "now" is a period of time encompassing both speaking and hearing, then there is both before and after inside the now.
— Metaphysician Undercover

You are repeating your error of conflating "before" with "past" and "after" with "future". These are not interchangeable terms. If before and after are inside the now, it does not follow that past and future are inside the now, because past and future are determined relative to now.
— Luke

I explained this. "Now" is the human perspective. Both, past/future, before/after, are judgements made from within that perspective. The human subject is a sensing being, and such judgements are made from within that being. Therefore past/future are within "the present". "The present" is the temporal position of the sentient being and past/future are judgements made within.. To put past/future outside the present requires projection, extrapolation. Putting past/future outside the present of the sentient being is a further process which can only be understood after a firm grasp of past/future within the sentient being is established. — Metaphysician Undercover

My response was to your previous post and its conditional: "if you say that what was meant by "now" is a period of time encompassing both speaking and hearing, then there is both before and after inside the now". In that post, you referred to the present time as "encompassing both speaking and hearing" of two individuals. You called this "the unavoidable reality".

However, in your latest post, you refer to the present time as "the temporal position of the sentient being" and "the human perspective" of one individual.

Therefore, no, you did not explain this. You simply changed your definition of "the present" to suit your argument, and once again did not address mine.

Any example that anyone gives as what is referred to as "the present" can always be broken down by someone else, and denied as the true "present". — Metaphysician Undercover

Your example was of a present time that encompassed two people. That's what I was replying to.

Look at the examples I already gave. If someone says that 2023 is the present, someone else could say no, July 8 is the present, and the rest of 2023 is past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Disputes over when, or how long, the present time is are irrelevant. Once agreement is reached (or context understood) on that matter, then past and future are determined relative to that.

To avoid this problem, and maintain your stipulated requirements "no part of the present can be in the past...etc.", the present must be reduced to a non-dimensional point in time, which separates future from past. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the present needn't be reduced to a non-dimensional point in time, hence my 1000 years example. You've also given examples of the present time being 2023 or July 8. Once established, the past and future are determined relative to that.

Don't you see that if you propose that "the present" is 1,000 years long, or any other period of time, without any overlap of past or future, any reasonable person would reject this proposition, saying that the time period has some past and some future within it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You asserted that the only way there could be no overlap between past and present or between present and future was if the present was a dimensionless mathematical point. That people might bicker over the "real" duration of the present is irrelevant. If we agree to refer to the current millennium as "the present time" then what comes before the current millennium is the past and what comes after the current millennium is the future, wIthout overlap. Your assertion is therefore refuted.

Don't you see that if you propose that "the present" is 1,000 years long, or any other period of time, without any overlap of past or future, any reasonable person would reject this proposition, saying that the time period has some past and some future within it. You could insist that this time period is what you stipulate as "the present", but then you are only being unreasonable, as trying to force your own arbitrary stipulated time period as "the present". So to make your stipulation agreeable, and reasonable, it must be reduced to a mathematical point. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why must it be "reduced to a mathematical point" in order to be "agreeable and reasonable"? You clearly don't agree with it or find it reasonable.

However, in your latest post, you refer to the present time as "the temporal position of the sentient being" and "the human perspective" of one individual. — Luke

Your addition of "one individual" here is what I described as "unreasonable" in the rest of that post. So read the rest of my post, and keep that in mind. It is unreasonable to reduce "the human perspective" to the perspective of one human being. Each individual human being makes the judgement concerning "the present", past/future, before/after, but the judgement is "unreasonable" if the perspective of other human beings is not considered in that judgement.

Therefore, no, you did not explain this. You simply changed your definition of "the present" to suit your argument, and once again did not address mine. — Luke

The definition is still the same. I just expanded it to explain how we account for the reality of other subjects. This is necessary to avoid solipsism. I touched on this already in my replies to Wonderer1 concerning the subjectivity of the present.

Disputes over when, or how long, the present time is are irrelevant. Once agreement is reached (or context understood) on that matter, then past and future are determined relative to that. — Luke

Obviously, as demonstrated right here, between you and I, it is highly probable that agreement will never be reached in the way you propose. It's simply not realistic to think that people will ever agree on how long a period of time "the present" lasts for.

No, the present needn't be reduced to a non-dimensional point in time, hence my 1000 years example. You've also given examples of the present time being 2023 or July 8. Once established, the past and future are determined relative to that. — Luke

I don't see anyone agreeing with you, that the present is a period of time which lasts for 1,000 years. Nor do I see any one agreeing that the present is one year, one day, one hour, a second, or a nanosecond. So you're simply speaking out of your hat, assuming that people will agree to such proposals. I brought those up as examples of what might be proposed as "the present", but clearly none of these are acceptable, and this demonstrates hoe the present, a a length of time is indefinite.

That people might bicker over the "real" duration of the present is irrelevant. — Luke

No, this is not irrelevant at all, it's the whole point. If the length of the period of time which is called "the present" cannot be justified, and people disagree because it is nothing more than an any arbitrary length, then clearly no one knows the real length of "the present". Therefore the length of "the present" might just as well consist of all past and all future time. That is why I called it "indefinite".

If we agree to refer to the current millennium as "the present time" then what comes before the current millennium is the past and what comes after the current millennium is the future, wIthout overlap. Your assertion is therefore refuted. — Luke

Your statement starts with "if", and ends with what would be the case if that condition, "we agree", would be fulfilled. Obviously we do not agree, nor is agreement likely, therefore it will likely be the end of time before my assertion is refuted. Have a happy time waiting for agreement.

Why must it be "reduced to a mathematical point" in order to be "agreeable and reasonable"? You clearly don't agree with it or find it reasonable. — Luke

Obviously, any proposed length of time, as that length of time which provides a distinct separation between past and future, (as are your conditions for "the present"), will never find agreement. And agreement is what demonstrates "reasonable". Because a specific length of time will never be agreed upon, and is therefore unreasonable, the proposal may be reduced to a point in time which separates past from future. That is why the point in time, as "the present moment" is the common convention for "the present". It is agreeable and reasonable. Therefore we might call it justified. However, it is not true, because it is not consistent with reality.

It is unreasonable to reduce "the human perspective" to the perspective of one human being. Each individual human being makes the judgement concerning "the present", past/future, before/after, but the judgement is "unreasonable" if the perspective of other human beings is not considered in that judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, so we acknowledge relativity and that each person's "judgement" regarding the past, present and future may be a little different. Why does this require there to be any "overlap" of the past, present and future? If I acknowledge relativity and that your present might be slightly different to mine, then I see no reason why your past, present and future must overlap or mine either. I don't see the need to create a singular past, present and future that accommodates everyone, everywhere, travelling at all speeds, especially if relativity is acknowledged.

I don't see anyone agreeing with you, that the present is a period of time which lasts for 1,000 years. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wasn't suggesting that it did last for 1,000 years. I was refuting your assertion that the present needs to be a dimensionless point in order to avoid any overlap. It could be any duration.

clearly no one knows the real length of "the present" — Metaphysician Undercover

I think that there probably is a "present" that represents the shortest window of consciousness or awareness for each person. I also think that for most people this duration will be roughly the same. A quick Google search suggests this duration ranges from a couple of hundred milliseconds to a couple of seconds. I don't believe it's likely that we will never know the answer to this question, nor that there will forever be disagreement about it. Moreover, I don't believe it's a terribly important question.

I also recognise that people use the phrase "the present" in other ways; namely, to represent longer periods such as the present day, present year or other common period. I think there are rarely any disagreements or misunderstandings over this usage.

Why does this require there to be any "overlap" of the past, present and future? — Luke

"The present" is defined by human experience. This implies human judgement. The distinct judgements of distinct human beings varies on this matter. Therefore "the present" as a standard, or principle, varies accordingly, and there is overlap accordingly.

I don't see the need to create a singular past, present and future that accommodates everyone, everywhere, travelling at all speeds, especially if relativity is acknowledged. — Luke

The goal is to understand the nature of time. I was defining "the present". If "present" refers to something completely different in every different situation then we cannot have any definition, Nor will we ever be able to understand the nature of time, because we will not be able to make any true propositions about the present in order to proceed logically. Instead, we look for general, true propositions which we can make, such as the following. The present separates past from future. It is itself a duration of time. Depending on one's point of view, past and future must extend into this duration which is called the present.

. A quick Google search suggests this duration ranges from a couple of hundred milliseconds to a couple of seconds. — Luke

This is clear evidence of the overlap I described. The fact that "the present" has duration, and there are no real points which mark the beginning and ending of that duration, nor is there a standard length of that duration, implies that there must be some overlap between past, present, and future.

Moreover, I don't believe it's a terribly important question. — Luke

Maybe you don't see it as important, but it definitely has implications. That is, that there cannot be distinct boundaries of separation between past, present, and future, if "present" is defined by human experience. There must be overlap of past and future within the present, "the present" being defined as what is common to us all, and possibly even overlap between past and future.

Once we realize, and accept as fact, that the overlap is very real, then we can see that the intuition which inclines us to define these temporal terms so as to exclude overlap, misleads us in this way. Then each one of us can look at one's own personal experience as having such an overlap inherent within, and recognize that the inclination toward exclusion was simply the result of that faulty intuition.