"The present" is defined by human experience. This implies human judgement. The distinct judgements of distinct human beings varies on this matter. — Metaphysician Undercover
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think the major difference in ideas here is, is "the present" a global state? (Perhaps universal would be more clear than global) Or is it a "local" or perhaps even "personal" state?
People often intuitively think of the universe as this big 3d grid, and the universe, as a whole, moves forward one moment at a time, and the grid moves to its next state in unison. That's a really convenient and easy to digest way of looking at how we "move into the future". I'm not sure that relativity necessarily proves that view categorically wrong, per se, but it does at least bring it into question. — flannel jesus
One might think that philosophy ought to begin with the concept of “beginning” itself. Yet for Hegel such a concept is, paradoxically, too complex to serve as the real beginning of thought. The concept of “beginning” (Anfang) is that of “a nothing from which something is to proceed” (SL 73/1: 73 [181]). It thus takes for granted from the start that what is being thought is the beginning of something yet to emerge...
Hegel’s account of being begins not with a full sentence but with a sentence fragment: “being, pure being, without any further determination” (SL 82/1: 82 [193]). In this way, Hegel indicates through his language that what we are to focus on is not a determinate subject of discourse or “thing” nor a predicate of some assumed thing (such as the “Absolute”) but rather utterly indeterminate being. Such being is to be thought of not as existence or nature but as sheer being as such—what Hegel calls "indeterminate immediacy.”
Such being is abstract, but it is not a mere illusion for Hegel... At this point, Hegel confronts us with the first of many surprising paradoxes: for he maintains that by virtue of its utter indeterminacy pure being is actually no different from nothing at all: “being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing (Nichts), and neither more nor less than nothing” (SL 82/1: 83 [195]). Of all Hegel’s statements in the Logic, this is the one that has perhaps invited the most ridicule and elicited the greatest misunderstanding. In Hegel’s view, however, it is trivially true: pure being is utterly indeterminate and vacuous and as such is completely indistinguishable from sheer and utter nothingness. This is not to say that we are wrong to talk of pure being in the first place. There is being; it is all around us and is, minimally, pure and simple being, whatever else it may prove to be. Insofar as it is pure being, however, it is so utterly indeterminate that logically it vanishes into nothing. Presuppositionless philosophy is thus led by being itself to the thought of its very opposite.
This nothing that pure, indeterminate being itself proves to be is not just the nothingness to which we frequently refer in everyday discourse. We often say that there is “nothing” in the bag or “nothing” on television when what we mean is that the specific things we desire are not to be found and what there is is not what we are interested in... .By contrast, the nothingness Hegel has in mind in the Logic is the absolute “lack” or “absence” of anything at all, or sheer and utter nothing. It is not even the pure void of space or the empty form of time, but is nothing whatsoever... as the sheer “not.”
Being and nothing are utterly different from one another but collapse logically into one another because of the indeterminate immediacy of their difference.
Being and nothing thus both prove to be absolutely necessary and to be endlessly generated by one another. Yet neither has a separate stable identity apart from its vanishing since logically each vanishes straight away into the other.
What Hegel’s philosophy shows... is that logically, purely by virtue of being “being,” being turns out to be “becoming.” Becoming is thus what being is in truth: immediacy as the restless vanishing and reemergence of itself.
I'm not sure if relativity explicitly outlaws a universal now, or if it just means we could in principle never figure out which reference frame decides the universal now. That's something I'd like to hear an expert's opinion on tbh. It's a question I've had for a long time.
We have seen that SR rules out the idea of a unique, absolute present: if the set of events that is simultaneous with a given event O depends upon the inertial reference frame chosen, and in fact is a completely different set of events (save for the given event O) for each choice of reference frame in inertial motion relative to the original, then there clearly is no such thing as the set of events happening at the same time as O. As Paul Davies writes (in a variant of the example given by Penrose above), if I stand up and walk across my room, the events happening “now” on some planet in the Andromeda Galaxy would differ by a whole day from those that would be happening “now” if I had stayed seated (Davies 1995, 70).
From these considerations Gödel concludes that time lapse loses all objective meaning. But from the same considerations Davies concludes, along with other modern philosophers of science, that it is not time lapse that should be abandoned, but the idea that events have to “become” in order to be real. "Unless you are a solipsist."
As I argued in Chap. 3 above, events “exist all at once” in a spacetime manifold only in the sense that we represent them all at once as belonging to the same manifold. But we represent them precisely as occurring at different times, or different spacetime locations, and if we did not, we would have denied temporal succession...
...in each case we are presented with an argument that begins with a premise that all events existing simultaneously with a given event exist (are real or are deter- mined), and concludes that consequently all events in the manifold exist (are real or determined). But the conclusion only has the appearance of sustainability because of the equivocation analysed above in Chap. 3.If a point-event exists in the sense of occurring at the spacetime location at which it occurs, it cannot also have occurred earlier. But if the event only exists in the sense of existing in the manifold, then the conclusion that it already exists earlier—that such a future event is “every bit as real as events in the present” (Davies), or “already real” (Putnam)—cannot be sustained. Thus, far from undermining the notion of becoming, their argument should be taken rather to undermine their starting premise, that events simultaneous with another event are already real or already exist for it in a temporal sense. For to suppose that this is so, on the above analysis of their argument, inexorably leads to a conclusion that denies temporal succession.
This, in fact, was Gödel’s point. As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, he had already anticipated the objection that the relativity of time lapse “does not exclude that it is something objective”. To this he countered that the lapse of time connotes “a change in the existing”, and “the concept of existence cannot be relativized without destroying its meaning completely” (Gödel 1949, 558, n. 5).To this he countered that the lapse of time connotes “a change in the existing”, and “the concept of existence cannot be relativized without destroying its meaning completely” (Gödel 1949, 558, n. 5).As we saw in Chap. 3, however, the sense in which events and temporal relations “exist” in spacetime is not a temporal sense. This would amount to a denial of the reality of temporal succession.20
So the root of the trouble with the “layer of now’” conception of time lapse is a failure to take into account the bifurcation of the classical time concept into two distinct time concepts in relativity theory. The time elapsed for each twin—the time during which they will have aged differently—is measured by the proper time along each path. The difference in the proper times for their journeys is not the same as the difference in the time co-ordinates of the two points in some inertial reference frame, since they each set off at some time t1 and meet up at a time t2 in any one ...
We may call this the Principle of Chronological Precedence, or CP. As can be seen, it presupposes the Principle of Retarded Action discussed in Chap. 4, according to which every physical process takes a finite quantity of time to be completed.Note that so long as CP holds for the propagation of any physical influence, it will not matter whether light or anything else actually travels with the limiting velocity.41
As Robb showed in 1914, this means that—restricting temporal relations to these absolute relations only—a given event can be related in order of succession to any event in its future or past light cones, but cannot be so related to any event outside these cones (in what came to be called the event’s “Elsewhere”).There are therefore pairs of events that are not ordered with respect to (absolute) before and after, such as the events happening at the instants A and B on Robb’s “Fig. 6.1" The event B, being too far away from A for any influence to travel between them, is neither before nor after A.
For example, B could be the event on some planet in the Andromeda Galaxy that Paul Davies asked us to imagine, in the Elsewhere of me at the instant A when I am considering it. It is true that by walking this way and that I could describe that event as being in the past or in the future according to the time coordinate associated with the frame of reference in which I am at rest. But that event is not present to me in the sense of being a possible part of my experience. It bears no absolute temporal relation to my considering it...
All the events I experience, on the other hand, will be either before or after one another, and therefore distinct. In fact, they will occur in a linear order.They will lie on what Minkowski called my worldline.
There is nothing unique about my worldline, however. On pain of solipsism, what goes for me goes for any other possible observer (this is the counterpart in his theory to Putnam’s “No Privileged Observers”).42 Thus if we regard time as constituted by these absolute relations, time as a whole does not have a linear order: not all events can be ordered on a line proceeding from past to future, even though two events that are in each other’s elsewhere (i.e. lying outside each other’s cones) will be in the past of some event that is suitably far in the future of both of them. In this way, all events can be temporally ordered, even if not every pair of events is such that one is in the past or future of the other. This is Robb's "conical order." In the language of the theory of relations, it is a strict partial order, rather than a serial order.
In a paper of 1967 the Russian mathematician Alexandrov showed how the topology of Minkowski spacetime is uniquely determined “by the propagation of light or, in the language of geometry, by the system of the light cones”, noting the equivalence of this derivation to Robb’s derivation on the assumption of chronological precedence.
The Reality of Time Flow: Local Becoming in Modern Physics
Firstly, how do you know that judgements vary on this matter? — Luke
Secondly, I don't believe that it does vary; at least, not to any significant degree. There is general consensus and conventional agreement over the present time, down to the microsecond, thanks to GPS satellites. Almost anyone with a working mobile phone or computer can verify the present time. — Luke
We, at least, agree that "the present" time is defined in terms of conscious experience. — Luke
ou are attempting to change the conventional meaning of the concept of "the present" to account for all potentially different "present times" — Luke
There is no conventional definition of "the present" which states that it consists of parts of the past and/or the future. — Luke
Presumably, this "overlap" is due to the fact that the duration of one person's "present" is different from the duration of another person's "present". — Luke
Maybe they have the same duration. It does not necessarily follow that the durations are different or that there must be some overlap. So how do you know that different people must have a different duration of "the present" in the first place? — Luke
To begin with, yours and mine vary, obviously. And, I've had numerous similar discussions on this forum which indicate variance among others. Also the google search you cited indicates a range between "a couple of hundred milliseconds to a couple of seconds" — Metaphysician Undercover
Obviously we disagree on what constitutes "significant". Engineers today are working in timescales of nanoseconds and shorter, so clearly the difference you derived from google, of over a second is very significant — Metaphysician Undercover
We, at least, agree that "the present" time is defined in terms of conscious experience.
— Luke
You assert this, but display otherwise with your expressions, insisting that the difference between various subjective experiences in this matter is insignificant. — Metaphysician Undercover
You've also been insisting that there is no overlap between past and present, or present and future. This implies that there are two points in time, dimensionless boundaries, one which separates past from present, and one which separates future from present. But you agree that such dimensionless points are not consistent with the subjective experience of time — Metaphysician Undercover
You don't seem to grasp the fact that assuming that there is no overlap between such segments of time implies dimensionless boundaries, points within the experience of time, to provide these separations, — Metaphysician Undercover
Can you honestly tell me that your experience of time provides a boundary between past and present so that there is no overlap? How do you identify this boundary? Do you see it, or otherwise sense it? Or, is it the case that this is just an ideal which you impose on your experience, insisting that your experience must be like this in order that your experience be consistent with your definition of "present", even though you do not really experience any such boundary between present and past, whatsoever? You just think that there must be a boundary because that's what your conception tells you, but you do not experience any such boundary. — Metaphysician Undercover
Conventional definitions are outdated, coming from a time when we had less understanding of what being present meant. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no conventional definition of "the present" which states that it consists of parts of the past and/or the future.
— Luke
That is exactly the problem with conventional definitions of "the present". None of these proposed definitions are consistent with the reality of the present according to human experience. This has created a significant problem, which is that many people have been led to deny the reality of the present. So, what is most basic, and fundamental to human experience, being at the present, is now completely denied by many people who insist that "the present" is not something real.
Therefore we have the very significant problem which is the denial of the reality of the human experience. Some insist for example, that we live in a simulation. This denial of the reality of human experience is the result of there being not a single conventional definition of "the present" which is consistent with reality. There are only false representations of "the present", like what you propose, ones which utilize arbitrary points in time. Since the subjective experience is inconsistent with the conventional definitions of "the present", instead of rejecting the definitions, as I do, people accept these representations of "the present" as true representations of the present, and reject the human experience of "the present" as not real. — Metaphysician Undercover
Presumably, this "overlap" is due to the fact that the duration of one person's "present" is different from the duration of another person's "present".
— Luke
No, this is a bit of a misunderstanding of what I've argued. The overlap is not due to the fact that one person's present is different from another. The overlap is the true nature of what the present is, and what time is. We do not know why time exists like this, so we cannot say what the overlap is due to. The fact that the duration of one person's present is different from the duration of another person's present, is evidence that this overlap is the real, or true nature of the present.
So you need to reverse the order of implied causation in your statement. The overlap is not caused by one person's present being different from another's, the overlap causes one person's present to be different from another's. That's why we can say that the difference between one person's present and another's, is evidence of overlap. — Metaphysician Undercover
The unfortunately common claim that "physics shows that time is illusory," is quite misleading. — Count Timothy von Icarus
It'd be more accurate to say that "many physicists agree with philosophical interpretations of empirical findings in physics that suggest that the passage of time is illusory." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Right, but as an empirical matter, have you done any measurements of anyone's duration of the present? Even on yourself? If not, then how do you know that judgements vary? — Luke
If you accept the Google results, then where's the dispute? — Luke
My "insistence" (I've only said it once) that the difference between various subjective experiences in this matter are insignificant does not affect, and is completely unrelated to, our agreement that the "present" time is defined in terms of conscious experience. — Luke
I do not agree that "dimensionless points are not consistent with the subjective experience of time". Dimensionless points may be inconsistent with your view of the subjective experience of time, but they are not inconsistent with my view. Earlier in the discussion, I suggested an improvement to your argument that the present consists of a duration rather than a dimensionless point. However, even if I were to agree that the present consists of a duration rather than a dimensionless point, then I would only agree that the duration of the present itself is not a dimensionless point; that the present has a duration, and that that duration is bounded by definite end-points which separate it from the past and the future. I have maintained this position regarding definite distinctions between past, present and future throughout the discussion. — Luke
Can you honestly tell me that your experience of time provides an overlap between past and present so that there is no boundary? How do you identify this overlap? — Luke
What updated "understanding of what being present" means leads you to believe that there is an overlap of past/present and present/future? I thought your knowledge of this "overlap" was derived from your own personal experience, rather than from scientific knowledge? — Luke
What does any of this have to do with your proposed "overlap" between past/present and present/future? — Luke
If there is no distinction between past, present and future, then the duration of the present must be infinite, right? — Luke
Otherwise, what is the duration of your personal present time? How do you know if something is still present or if it is now in the past? Likewise, how do you know if something is still in the future or if it is now present? — Luke
If there is no distinction between them, then past, present and future just blur into one single time period. — Luke
But, in that case, there cannot be any differences between the duration of the "present" for different people because there really is no present time distinct from past and future times, and therefore there cannot there be any overlap of past/present and present/future. — Luke
The theory is a starting point, a launch pad toward a more accurate understanding of the reality of time. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.
There are implications to that, relevent to having a theory of time that is explanatory in a general way of a great many events that go on in the world. Your theory of time defines time in terms of your subjective experience. It suggests solipsism. — wonderer1
The way things are in reality, is that in the period of time it takes you to have a subjective recognition of PRESENT-NOW, zillions of things happen, one after the other, all around you, and within you. — wonderer1
You lack sufficient resolution on your metric for time, because your metric for time is part of a paradigm that doesn't really work for communicating with people about time with accuracy. — wonderer1
Do you see how it's a bit egocentric to base your metric of time on your subjective experience? — wonderer1
There are no such events which mark the beginning and ending of one's present, unless of course we make arbitrary ones. Therefore any such measurement of one's present would be completely arbitrary, and that is not a measurement at all. Without such points it is impossible to measure one's present...
What you presented from Google shows a very significant variance, between a couple hundred milliseconds and a couple seconds. Yet you claim this is not significant. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, so now it's your turn. Analyze your own subjective experience, find those points which separate past/present and future/present, and describe them to me. Justify your claim that there is no overlap in your own subjective experience. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's simple. I know there is past because of memories. I know there is future because anticipation. I can identify nothing which marks "the present" in my experience. — Metaphysician Undercover
Analysis of sensation indicates that everything sensed is in the past, therefore memories, and analysis of anticipations indicates that these relate to things in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover
Therefore I can conclude that my entire experience of "the present" is just an overlap of memories and anticipations, as the Venn diagram example I mentioned earlier. — Metaphysician Undercover
"the present" has duration, and there are no real points which mark the beginning and ending of that duration — Metaphysician Undercover
Personal experience needs to be subjected to relevant knowledge in order to understand it. A being looking at one's own experience without any knowledge at the outset would come away with very little. Modern science, physics and engineering, which deals with extremely short periods of time indicates very clearly that what we thought was the present experience, sensations, are really in the past by the time they are apprehended by the mind. So the mind is "ahead of", or in the future, relative to the information it gets from the senses. That information is delayed through electrical processes. This implies that if the human being itself is said to be at the present, some parts of the human being, the mind, are in the future, while other parts, the senses are in the past. This means that the whole act of sensing and apprehending what is sensed, being eventual, and requiring an extended period of time, is part past, and part future. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is not that there is no distinction, it is that they are not "distinct" in the sense of not overlapping. — Metaphysician Undercover
There really is no present time distinct from past and future time. What I said is that the present is the perspective. So it is not a part of time at all... — Metaphysician Undercover
You cannot, on the one hand, claim it is impossible to measure one's present, but, on the other hand, accept the Google search results indicating that the measurement of the present is milliseconds to seconds in duration. — Luke
For example, each word of this post you are reading is read in the present; each word you have finished reading is now in the past; and each word you are yet to read is now in the future. You could also substitute "speaking" for "reading". — Luke
Why do you claim that this "separation" between past, present and future is inconsistent with subjective experience? — Luke
All of your memories are related to your actions and conscious awareness in the present. All of your anticipations of the future are made in the present. If there is no "present" in your experience, then it sounds as though you deny the present. But, until now, the present is what you have been claiming has a duration and has an overlap with the past and the future. I thought that's what was in dispute here. Now you seem to be saying there is no "present". — Luke
Is this your analysis of your own sensation? — Luke
Now you appear to have changed your argument to claim that there is only one overlap, and that the present is an overlapping area between the past and future. — Luke
In that case, there are very "real points which mark the beginning and ending of that [present] duration", which are where the past and future (circles) intersect. — Luke
If the present is the area within the overlap of the past and future (circles) in your Venn diagram, then the present has two distinct boundary lines, which are simply the arcs of the past and future that form the boundaries of the overlapping area (i.e. the present). Those two arcs are distinct, single lines. — Luke
There is no distinction between past, present and future in "the present" area of your Venn diagram, or in the overlapping area of past and future which creates/defines the present. That section contains all three time periods and there is no distinction between them. — Luke
Furthermore, the present is distinct in terms of its boundary, which is formed by the non-overlapping sections of the past and future (times/circles) that lie outside the present. The boundary created by the overlap distinctly defines the beginning and end points of the present that you earlier claimed were not distinct. — Luke
Once again, you appear to deny that the present is a part of time. In that case, what have we been discussing? What is it that has a duration? How can a duration exist outside of time? — Luke
I don't think I said it's impossible to measure one's present, only that such a measurement would be quite arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover
Measurements of time rely on the determination of points which mark the moments which begin and end the measured period. Such points are not real, but arbitrary. In practise, we mark a point with the occurrence of an event, (the numbers on a clock for example). There are no such events which mark the beginning and ending of one's present, unless of course we make arbitrary ones. Therefore any such measurement of one's present would be completely arbitrary, and that is not a measurement at all. Without such points it is impossible to measure one's present.
So I know that the judgements of anyone's duration of the present vary because it is impossible to measure one's present.. — Metaphysician Undercover
What are you saying, that the present is as long as it takes to read a word? That supports what I said, that the present is as long as the event which has one's attention. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think that there probably is a "present" that represents the shortest window of consciousness or awareness for each person...
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. — Luke
I explained that already, it has to do with the "point" in time which separates past from present, and the point in time which separates present from future. Why do you keep asking me this? Are you having difficulty understanding that such a separation requires a point? Or do you find points in time in your subjective experience of time? I even asked you to explain your experience of these points which separate these parts of time? — Metaphysician Undercover
For example, when you are reading, do you find that there is temporal points of separation between each word you read? I do not. In fact, I don't find that reading is anywhere near like how you described it. I have to understand the words in context, so I'm always reading a bunch of words at a time. Proper understanding requires that the entire sentence is present to my mind, so I often reread. I don't find these points of separation anywhere. — Metaphysician Undercover
You have a habit of saying things like 'then there is no present for you' when what I describe as the present is contrary to your description. — Metaphysician Undercover
I can identify nothing which marks "the present" in my experience. — Metaphysician Undercover
You say that you agree with me that the present is defined by conscious experience — Metaphysician Undercover
Analysis of sensation indicates that everything sensed is in the past, therefore memories
— Metaphysician Undercover
Is this your analysis of your own sensation?
— Luke
Yes. — Metaphysician Undercover
as we know, the future slips into the past. Therefore there are no points of overlap, as the overlap is constantly changing continuously, as time is passing. — Metaphysician Undercover
The Venn diagram is not a perfect example. As you can see, it consists of two static circles with an overlap, while time is not static. So what is required for a better illustration is a moving overlap. The time of the future (tomorrow for example) has to move through the period of overlap (today), and then become the time of the past (yesterday), or something like that. — Metaphysician Undercover
The distinction may still exist despite the overlap. For example the wavelength which constitutes green may overlap with the wavelength which constitutes yellow, and this might produce the colour blue. But that does not mean that those wavelengths are no longer there just because a different colour is created. Also, two equal and opposite forces may balance each other as an equilibrium, but that does not mean that the forces are not there. Therefore there is no problem whatsoever with conceiving of the past and future as distinct, yet overlapping at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
There really is no present time distinct from past and future time. What I said is that the present is the perspective. So it is not a part of time at all...
— Metaphysician Undercover
Once again, you appear to deny that the present is a part of time. In that case, what have we been discussing? What is it that has a duration? How can a duration exist outside of time?
— Luke
I don't see the problem here. Temporal things, objects, events, etc., have duration. The human experience of the present is such a thing, it has duration. Duration is not time itself, it is what is measured through the principles of a conception of time. So, what exactly is the problem you are pointing to here? — Metaphysician Undercover
...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 — Metaphysician Undercover
There really is no present time distinct from past and future time. What I said is that the present is the perspective. So it is not a part of time at all, but the perspective from which time is observed. Time consists of the two aspects, past and future, and where these two are observed as overlapping is known as the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
See above. You very clearly said that "it is impossible to measure one's present". In fact, you said it twice. You also added that any arbitrary measurement is "not a measurement at all". — Luke
So I thought we were discussing the possible duration of this "shortest window of consciousness" (or conscious awareness), rather than the colloquial usage denoting longer periods, such as the present hour, day, year or millennium. If it's the latter, then I don't understand what's in dispute, or what you mean by "the duration of the present", as though the colloquial usage might have only one standard duration. Your response to my Google search results did not indicate any surprise on your part of the duration being in the range of only milliseconds or seconds. — Luke
I don't find any "points" in my conscious experience that separate the present from the past and future. Instead, I experience the passage of time in a continuous manner. This continuity may help to explain why some people think of the present moment as having an infinitesimal duration, as it is the shortest discernible "unit" within a continuum. — Luke
While reading, my internal monologue "reads" the words. That is, I "hear" the words in my mind while I am reading them. Since each word is distinct in my mind, then I believe my conscious awareness while reading can be divided into individual words. SInce the present time is defined in terms of my conscious awareness, and since my conscious awareness can be divided into the reading of individual words, then the present time can be associated (or present-time-stamped) with my reading of each word, and the past and future are defined relative to the present time. — Luke
Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time? If not, then how do you reconcile this with your view that the present time is defined relative to one's conscious awareness? — Luke
How do you find that "everything sensed is in the past"? When you are consciously aware of having a sensation, how is that sensation (and everything sensed) in the past? You said that "the present is defined by conscious experience". — Luke
In what sense is the overlap changing? The duration of the present (i.e. the shortest possible window of conscious awareness) is changing over time? Why? — Luke
You consider the past and future to be additive or subtractive forces working in harmony or in opposition with each other to produce the present? — Luke
In your opinion, are "temporal things, objects, events, etc." a part of time at all? — Luke
This appears to contradict your latest statements, such as: — Luke
To clarify what I meant, the "arbitrary" measurement is a type of measurement, but not accurate or precise. I should not have said it is not a measurement at all. — Metaphysician Undercover
There's no such thing as "the shortest window of consciousness", that's what your google search shows. It's an arbitrary designation. That's why I said it's not a measurement at all. But to clarify now, it would be a type of measurement, but not a very accurate or precise one. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't find any "points" in my conscious experience that separate the present from the past and future. Instead, I experience the passage of time in a continuous manner. This continuity may help to explain why some people think of the present moment as having an infinitesimal duration, as it is the shortest discernible "unit" within a continuum.
— Luke
There is no such thing as a unit within a continuum. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is a fundamental issue with "the real numbers". The continuum is designated as divisible in any way (infinitely). This means that any division of it is purely arbitrary, and artificial, there are no natural points of divisibility within it. — Metaphysician Undercover
Of course this is just arbitrary. Why not divide your conscious awareness by apprehending each letter of a word, in order, instead of by apprehending each word of a sentence in order? — Metaphysician Undercover
So what we call "conscious awareness", or the conscious experience of the present, is really an awareness of the difference between past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover
So I know that even by the time my consciously aware mind apprehends a sensation, the thing sensed is in the past in relation to my consciously aware mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
"The present" is derived from conscious experience, but from an understanding of the elements of it (past and future). — Metaphysician Undercover
The overlap between past and future is changing because time is passing. For simplicity, the overlap is the present, and the present is changing as time passes. That's why the "now" is a moving target, by the time you say "now" it's in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover
As I said, "the shortest possible window of conscious awareness" makes no sense to me as your Google search supports. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
The past doesn’t exist at the moment. Neither does the future. — Art48
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
Then how could the accuracy or precision of the measurement be improved? — Luke
What would a "natural point of divisibility" look like? — Luke
Because the present is defined in terms of conscious awareness, and I am conscious of reading each word, per my internal monologue, not of reading each letter of a word. — Luke
Are you saying that conscious awareness has nothing to do with what we are consciously aware of (in the present)? It is merely "an awareness of the difference between past and future"? — Luke
The present is defined in terms of your "consciously aware mind". Whenever your "consciously aware mind apprehends a sensation", it does so in the present moment. The present moment is not the time at which you are consciously aware of something plus (or minus?) the time it takes to become aware of it or for your brain/body to produce your conscious mind or anything of the sort. — Luke
No, it is the time at which we consciously experience. Scientific understanding does not change that. — Luke
But the division of time into the periods of past, present and future is unchanging, so I don't see how the passage of time affects your Venn diagram, or its overlap, at all. — Luke
I thought we were talking in terms of the present when defined in terms of conscious experience, and the duration of the present denoting the shortest duration of one's conscious awareness. Or, as you put it earlier: — Luke
It is this meaning of "present" that I thought we were discussing, where uttered words become past once spoken, not longer periods such as hours or days. How can you not understand this "pinpointing" of the present? — Luke
am very sure that I am conscious of each letter in each word, or else I would misread the word. Are you sure that you are not conscious of each letter in each word? — Metaphysician Undercover
I'd ask you to look at the following link. — wonderer1
I checked your link. Notice that each letter still needs to be there. Luke says reading occurs as a temporal order, I disagreed. Your link seems to support my position. — Metaphysician Undercover
Maybe we just experience it differently. — wonderer1
I thought you might recognize that you didn't need to be conscious of every letter to understand the content. — wonderer1
Would you say that for you it was like solving a sort of logic puzzle to determine the following content? — wonderer1
If someone reads a passage very quickly, and mixes up some words so that there is misunderstanding, can this really be called reading it? — Metaphysician Undercover
If you read the article, it's all a hoax anyway, there was no such research. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.