...this conception, the conventional one, gives us "the present" as a perspective, a view point, and it does not provide for a "present" which is a part of time — Metaphysician Undercover

...the conventional definition "present" is defined in reference to past and future, but what I propose is that past and future be defined in reference to the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the present does not go by, nor is it yet to come. Both of these refer to time, as what goes by. But the present is the perspective from which it is observed to go by. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand your above quotes to be claims emanating from the core of your thesis.

My preliminary takeaways (subject to revision or rejection): a) the present is outside of time; b) the present is the standard of reference against which past/future are defined; c) events evolve over past/future through the lens of the present which is outside of time.

a) the present is outside of time; — ucarr

This is not what I am arguing for, it is what I called the "conventional" perspective, which I am arguing against as a misconception.. What I called "the conventional definition" (which Luke took exception to because it is inconsistent with what he thinks of as "the conventional definition) , puts the present outside of time. It puts the present outside of time as a derivation of the perspective from which the passing of time is observed. I am arguing that this is a misunderstanding of time, and that we ought to conceive of "the present" as a feature of time itself.

b) the present is the standard of reference against which past/future are defined; — ucarr

That's what I propose, to define past and future with reference to the present. But I argued that the convention makes past and future the reference against which "present" is defined. (again, Luke disputed that this is conventional). The convention, I say, is based in the distinction between memories and anticipations, events which have passed and those not yet come, and this distinction produces the conclusion of a "present moment" which separates these two distinct aspects of our experience. So this convention, I have claimed, defines "the present", as the separation or distinction between past and future.

If you are wondering how this puts the present outside of time as per my response to your (a) above, it is because this separation becomes, in practise, an arbitrary application of a non-dimensional point. The non dimensional point has no temporal extension, and cannot be understood as a part of passing time. So this, what I call "the conventional definition" (disputed by Luke, as not really the convention), cannot include "the present" as a part of time, because anytime we try to insert this observational perspective into the passing of time, whether as non-dimensional, infinitesimal, a short duration, etc., it requires arbitrarily placed points of separation between the present, and the rest of time, past and future. Therefore this "present", what I call the conventional one, is always incompatible with a true understanding of the passing of time.

c) events evolve over past/future through the lens of the present which is outside of time. — ucarr

This is what the conventional definition (again with the appropriate qualifications on "conventional") provides us with. We employ "the present", as we would employ a point in space, for the purpose of measurement. The so-called "lens" is the mode of employment. Depending on the purpose, the point which marks "the present", when we start the stopwatch (or whatever device of measurement), varies in precision and other features of arbitrariness.

The employment of "the present" thus described, is always an attempt to put the observational perspective (the present of the conscious being) into the thing being observed (the passing of time). However, what I've argued is that this does not provide us with a representation of "the present" which is consistent with "the passing of time", because of this assumed separation between observer and thing observed.

What I have been arguing, is that to properly understand time, we need to proceed from a different starting point. We ought to start with a conception of "the present", which allows for the flow of time within the present, therefore past and future within the present. Then there would be no incompatibility between the present, and the flow of time, because we would not start with the assumption that the present is a separate observational point, from which we observe the passing of time. The passing of time would be understood as occurring within the observational point, which we call "the present".

I note that you were not referring to convention here, but to your own opinion.
— Luke

Yes I was referring to the convention, and I really think that's obvious. I also think it's very childish of you to be arguing in this way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Please see the full quote from page 3:

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

I think I may have said that earlier, that past and future are defined relative to present. But now I see I may have misspoke on this as well. I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future, which are defined relative to conscious experience. This means that conscious experience gives to us, past and future, as the memories and anticipations which I mentioned, and from this we derive a present. "The present" is derived from conscious experience, but from an understanding of the elements of it (past and future).

So what we call "conscious awareness", or the conscious experience of the present, is really an awareness of the difference between past and future. Since these two are radically different, yet appear to be in some way a continuum, we conclude that there must be a "present" which separates them. What I am arguing is that this separation between past and future is a misrepresentation, a misunderstanding, as the present is really a unity of the past and future. This unity would be the basis for the conception of the "unit", parts united. The "unit" you mentioned above fails as being completely arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover

My question and your original reply will provide greater context for my responses below.

It is my opinion, of the convention, read through it. It continually refers to "us", and how we have produced these conceptions. It is a correction of what I said earlier, because earlier I said that I could see no coherent way to define the present by reference to past and future. But then I realized that this is actually the convention for defining time, and it is coherent. It is coherent, but as I argue from that point onward, mistaken. It is mistaken because it is not properly grounded with true premises (it divides future and past instead of uniting them) but it is still logically coherent. — Metaphysician Undercover

My question to you was whether you agreed that past and future are defined relative to the present time. I did not ask you about what you had said earlier, that "the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present". I did not ask what is "coherent" to you, or whether you find it coherent to define the terms this way. I find it odd, then, that this is how you understood my question about whether you agreed that past and future are defined relative to the present time. I find your present explanation - that your response to my queston was a correction to what you said on page 1 about coherency - dubious at best.

So, I was definitely referring to convention at that point, not to my opinion of how "Present" ought to be defined. Also, I said that I was mistaken earlier, in reference to having said that I could think of no coherent way to define present by reference to past and future. That was my mistake, because I later realized that this is the conventional way, and it actually is logically coherent, just flawed in premises — Metaphysician Undercover

You expect us to believe that, on page 3, you were expressing the conventional view of how "past",
"present" and "future" are generally used or defined? In that case, I find it incredible that the conventional view you presented there was exactly the same as your own view, that "the present" is defined relative to past and future, which are defined relative to conscious experience. As you originally went on to explain, "This means that conscious experience gives to us, past and future, as the memories and anticipations which I mentioned, and from this we derive a present."

Obviously, you didn't need to give your opinion of how "present" should be defined, because the conventional view you are now pretending to have expressed on page 3, and your own argument or opinion, were both 100% identical. But I think we both know that expressing the conventional view is not what you were trying to do.

The past is defined as what has gone by in time
— Metaphysician Undercover

The past is defined as what has gone by what (or gone by when) in time?

The future is defined as what will come in time
— Metaphysician Undercover

The future is defined as what will come to what (or come to when) in time?The answer to both of these questions is: the present.
— Luke

No, the present does not go by, nor is it yet to come. — Metaphysician Undercover

I never said that the present goes by or is yet to come. In case it was unclear, I asked:

What is it that the past goes by in time?
What is it that the future will come to in time?

The answer to both these questions is: the present.

I agree that the present is defined relative to experience or being, but I disagree that it is not conventionally defined this way. The present is conventionally defined in relation to (or as the time of) being, existing or happening, and the past and future are conventionally defined relative to this, with the past as what has been, has existed or has happened, and the future with what will be, will exist or will happen.
— Luke

I've never seen "the present" defined like this. — Metaphysician Undercover

Presentism defines the present in terms of existence. Most conventional/dictionary definitions define the present in terms of things happening or occurring now or at this time. In philosophy and grammar, it is common for the present to be defined in terms of the time of an utterance.

I've never seen "the present" defined in terms of your argument, despite your dubious claim that you were presenting the conventional view on page 3.

How do you propose that we proceed to define "past" and "future" in reference to this duration of time as being or existing at the present? — Metaphysician Undercover

I've already answered this. The present is what is happening or occurring; the past is what did happen or occurred; and the future is what will happen or occur.

If the present is a flowing stream of time that commingles with the past on one side & the future on the other side, most we conclude logically that past/future, like the present, are flowing streams of time?

If the present is a flowing stream of time that commingles with the past on one side & the future on the other side, most we conclude logically that past/future, like the present, are flowing streams of time? — ucarr

Only one “stream of time” is required.

If we say that “the present” indexically refers to the time at which you are aware, and that the past and future are determined relative to the present, then I think it can be considered in 3 ways:

(1) Time is flowing by you. The past is the time that has flown by you (already) and the future is the time that will flow by you (later).

(2) You are moving/flowing through time. The past is the time you have passed through (already) and the future is the time that you will pass through (later).

(3) A combination of (1) and (2).

Only one “stream of time” is required. — Luke

...“the present” indexically refers to the time at which you are aware... — Luke

From your above quotes I understand (tentatively) that the present streaming of time is a directory that gives a person overview of and access to the tripartite structure of time.

If there is only one stream of time, the present streaming of time, must we conclude that the past streaming of time can only stream as the present streaming of the past; it cannot stream as the past streaming of the past? In a similar fashion, must we conclude that the future streaming of time can only stream as the present streaming of the future; it cannot stream as the future streaming of the future?

If these restrictions hold, must we conclude that past/future are tricks of perspective emanating from an insuperable present streaming of time? Another way of saying this is to say past/future exist only within the neural networks of the brain whereas, in the material world outside of the brain, past/future have no existence?

My question to you was whether you agreed that past and future are defined relative to the present time. I did not ask you about what you had said earlier, that "the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present". I did not ask what is "coherent" to you, or whether you find it coherent to define the terms this way. I find it odd, then, that this is how you understood my question about whether you agreed that past and future are defined relative to the present time. I find your present explanation - that your response to my queston was a correction to what you said on page 1 about coherency - dubious at best. — Luke

As I said, your original question was incomprehensible to me. The part which followed "if not..." was a very poor representation (straw man) because the "view" I am arguing is how I think "present" ought to be defined, not how I think it is defined. The difference between these two is the point of this discussion. So I just addressed the first part, which was to answer "not", and explain my answer. The question after "if not..." made not sense.

Furthermore, I don't see any point to pursuing this issue. When we are discussing the writing of a third party, like we've discussed Wittgenstein in the past, it is often useful to compare different interpretations, the author not being there to answer our questions. In this case, I am the author, so I can explain what I meant by any particular passage. It's ridiculous for you to think that you can interpret what I meant better than I can myself, and then claim that what I meant was to contradict myself. Some other authors might be insulted by your behaviour, but I just find it very childish and silly

Presentism defines the present in terms of existence. Most conventional/dictionary definitions define the present in terms of things happening or occurring now or at this time. In philosophy and grammar, it is common for the present to be defined in terms of the time of an utterance. — Luke

In my understanding, presentism is inconsistent with the conventional definition of "present", because presentism treats past and future as unintelligible, which is clearly not the common convention.

I've already answered this. The present is what is happening or occurring; the past is what did happen or occurred; and the future is what will happen or occur. — Luke

We have no reference for "what did happen", or "what will happen". Based on what we agree on, we have only "the present", defined in terms of being and existing. How does "did happen", or "will happen" enter your conception?

If the present is a flowing stream of time that commingles with the past on one side & the future on the other side, most we conclude logically that past/future, like the present, are flowing streams of time? — ucarr

I would say that if the present is analogous to a flowing stream, then the future is the part flowing toward you, and the past is the part flowing away from you.

I would say that if the present is analogous to a flowing stream, then the future is the part flowing toward you, and the past is the part flowing away from you. — Metaphysician Undercover

If the arrow of time has only one direction (forward), as seems to be the case, does it make sense to say the past flows towards (not away from) the present? Time flowing away from the present towards the increasingly distant past, reverse time, supposes the arrow of time has two directions.

I'm sorry ucarr, I did not make myself clear. I cannot conceive of the present itself as a flowing stream. It would have to be the perspective from which the stream is observed. The changes we see all around us are evidence of the flowing time. Time is flowing from future to past, as the date of tomorrow, which is in the future, will become the date of yesterday. Death is a case of being forced by the flow of time, away from your observational point of the present, into the past.

If we want to give "present" an objective referent, as something other than the subjective point of view, Then it would be the process which is the future becoming the past. This is what we observe at the present, as change. It is a feature of the flow of time, yet not the flow of time itself.

a) the present is outside of time;
— ucarr

This is not what I am arguing for, it is what I called the "conventional" perspective, which I am arguing against as a misconception.. What I called "the conventional definition" (which Luke took exception to because it is inconsistent with what he thinks of as "the conventional definition) , puts the present outside of time. It puts the present outside of time as a derivation of the perspective from which the passing of time is observed. I am arguing that this is a misunderstanding of time, and that we ought to conceive of "the present" as a feature of time itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

How I understand the above quote: One of the main objectives of your thesis is to establish the present within the flowing stream of time.

If you are wondering how this puts the present outside of time as per my response to your (a) above, it is because this separation becomes, in practise, an arbitrary application of a non-dimensional point. The non dimensional point has no temporal extension, and cannot be understood as a part of passing time. So this, what I call "the conventional definition" (disputed by Luke, as not really the convention), cannot include "the present" as a part of time, because anytime we try to insert this observational perspective into the passing of time, whether as non-dimensional, infinitesimal, a short duration, etc., it requires arbitrarily placed points of separation between the present, and the rest of time, past and future. Therefore this "present", what I call the conventional one, is always incompatible with a true understanding of the passing of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

How I understand the above quote: The crux of your correction of the misconception of present time is the show that the present, being rooted within the flowing stream of time, differs existentially from a notion of the present as a static POV artificially demarcated by non-dimensional points.

I cannot conceive of the present itself as a flowing stream. It would have to be the perspective from which the stream is observed. — Metaphysician Undercover

How I understand the above quote: You have flipped your position to coincide with the conventional conception of the present as a non-flowing i.e., static perspective. Henceforth, one can only conclude you've renounced you earlier plan to correct the convention.

The changes we see all around us are evidence of the flowing time. Time is flowing from future to past, as the date of tomorrow, which is in the future, will become the date of yesterday. Death is a case of being forced by the flow of time, away from your observational point of the present, into the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

How I understand the above quote: We're inhabiting a temporal universe running in reverse. If our universe has a finite lifespan, it began (inexplicably) at its endpoint and now runs backwards toward its beginning and, presumably, will continue beyond its conception into non-existence. I'm pondering whether that means our reverse-temporal universe is a one-cycle only universe. Also, I observe that our reverse-temporal universe is rigidly deterministic. Everything populating the present was always assured of existing exactly according to its current manifestation with the proviso that the evolving present keeps transitioning to younger manifestations of all existing things.

If we want to give "present" an objective referent, as something other than the subjective point of view, Then it would be the process which is the future becoming the past. This is what we observe at the present, as change. It is a feature of the flow of time, yet not the flow of time itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

How I understand the above quote: You have flipped your position back to positing the present as a flowing stream, albeit a reverse-temporal flowing stream that, paradoxically, you claim is a feature of the flow of time, yet not the flow of time itself.

Can you explain how the reverse-temporal flowing of present time is not the flow of time itself?

As I said, your original question was incomprehensible to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Before now, I don't believe you ever said my question was incomprehensible. When did you say this? What do you find incomprehensible about the question: "Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time"? Your original response did not express any incomprehension.

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? — Metaphysician Undercover

The part which followed "if not..." was a very poor representation (straw man) because the "view" I am arguing is how I think "present" ought to be defined, not how I think it is defined. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yet, you now claim to have been providing the conventional definition of "the present" in your initial response. It's quite a coincidence that the "conventional" definition you provided there was identical to how you thought it ought to be defined.

Also, how was my question a straw man? I was seeking clarification of your position.

I am arguing is how I think "present" ought to be defined, not how I think it is defined. The difference between these two is the point of this discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hence my questions seeking clarification of where your position differs from the conventional view.

In this case, I am the author, so I can explain what I meant by any particular passage. It's ridiculous for you to think that you can interpret what I meant better than I can myself, and then claim that what I meant was to contradict myself. Some other authors might be insulted by your behaviour, but I just find it very childish and silly — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't believe that you were providing the conventional view on page 3, as you now assert in defence of your contradictory statements. If that were the case, then why was the conventional view that you provided there precisely the same as your argument (at that time)? If you have been arguing for an unconventional definition from the outset, then how is it that the conventional definition you provided was exactly the same as your unconventional definition (at that time)?

What's childish and silly are the obvious lies you have given to account for your contradictory statements, rather than acknowledging that your shifting position has been a result of my questioning and that your argument cannot support your attempts to overturn conventional grammar.

In my understanding, presentism is inconsistent with the conventional definition of "present", because presentism treats past and future as unintelligible, which is clearly not the common convention. — Metaphysician Undercover

The definition of "present" is independent of the definitions of "past" and "future". The present is defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc; not in terms of the past and future. As I have repeatedly told you, it is the past and future which are defined in terms of the present, not the other way around.

Based on what we agree on, we have only "the present", defined in terms of being and existing. How does "did happen", or "will happen" enter your conception? — Metaphysician Undercover

I've explained this several times and it's not difficult. If "the present" is defined in terms of being and existing, then "did happen" is synonymous with "has been" or "did exist" and "will happen" is synonymous with "will be" or "will exist". The past is what was present. The future is what will be present.

How I understand the above quote: One of the main objectives of your thesis is to establish the present within the flowing stream of time. — ucarr

The flowing stream of time is a specific description from the perspective of the human presence. This is the perspective which gives us the continuous time. What I argue is that this is really an illusion and not a true representation, so I apologize for accepting it initially, and misleading you. What I argued is that to put the present within time itself requires that we conceive of the conscious experience as being within time. This produces the conclusion that past and future must inhere within the conscious experience of being present.

So to model the present as an independent feature, instead of being a feature of the observer, requires that we find real substantial points in time which can be employed to distinguish past features from present features within the conflated unity of what we experience as "the present" As Luke argued, points or boundaries are a logical necessity to distinguish distinct parts. But the convention of continuity is to arbitrarily place a point at any time. This is what marks the difference between conceiving of the present as outside of time, and the present as inside time.

How I understand the above quote: The crux of your correction of the misconception of present time is the show that the present, being rooted within the flowing stream of time, differs existentially from a notion of the present as a static POV artificially demarcated by non-dimensional points. — ucarr

From the "static POV" of "the present", time appears to be a continuous flow., into which we can arbitrarily insert points of separation. From the "active POV", the continuous flow is replaced by an interaction of past aspects with future aspect. The need for "interaction" is the result of a mix of causal determination form the past, and freely willed selections from future possibilities. This implies that within any arbitrarily placed point of "the present", there are spatial aspects which are already determined (necessarily past), and also spatial aspects which are possibilities (still in the future). So the distinguishing features (points) appear to be spatial features.

How I understand the above quote: You have flipped your position to coincide with the conventional conception of the present as a non-flowing i.e., static perspective. Henceforth, one can only conclude you've renounced you earlier plan to correct the convention. — ucarr

No, as explained above, the "continuous flow" of time is what I believe to be the mistaken representation. When "the present" is the external perspective, or POV, sense observation appears to imply a continuous flow. But when the present is conceived of as within time, then there appears to be interaction between past and future. It is the need to account for the reality of interaction which inclines me to reject the "continuous flow".

How I understand the above quote: We're inhabiting a temporal universe running in reverse. If our universe has a finite lifespan, it began (inexplicably) at its endpoint and now runs backwards toward its beginning and, presumably, will continue beyond its conception into non-existence. I'm pondering whether that means our reverse-temporal universe is a one-cycle only universe. Also, I observe that our reverse-temporal universe is rigidly deterministic. Everything populating the present was always assured of existing exactly according to its current manifestation with the proviso that the evolving present keeps transitioning to younger manifestations of all existing things. — ucarr

I don't understand this at all. Why do you understand this as reverse? How do you orient yourself? Do you think that facing the future is facing forward, or do you think that facing the past is facing forward? If you think like I, then facing the future is facing forward. Do you see that the (apparently) continual onslaught of the future, is a force against you, which you always have to be thinking about to avoid mishaps? We spend our time thinking about what is coming at us in the future, trying to find the ways and means for making better lives for ourselves. This is what I mean by the flow of time being the future coming at us, and passing into the past, when you try to put the "static POV" into the "flow of time". However, when you consider that we make actions within this position, to change what is coming at us, we must take the "active POV".

How I understand the above quote: You have flipped your position back to positing the present as a flowing stream, albeit a reverse-temporal flowing stream that, paradoxically, you claim is a feature of the flow of time, yet not the flow of time itself. — ucarr

As explained, I think the flow of time is an illusion, which coexists with, and supports the idea of positing arbitrary points. Both of these are actually inappropriate, so I'm sorry to have misled you by initially accepting it.

Can you explain how the reverse-temporal flowing of present time is not the flow of time itself? — ucarr

I really don understand this "reverse-temporal flowing" stuff.

What's childish and silly are the obvious lies you have given to account for your contradictory statements, rather than acknowledging that your shifting position has been a result of my questioning and that your argument cannot support your attempts to overturn conventional grammar. — Luke

I'm sorry Luke, but I see no point in trying to explain anything to anyone who simply disputes my explanation, insisting that I'm being dishonest. When you ask for an explanation, please be prepared to accept it, otherwise you reduce the discussion to disrespectful bickering.

The definition of "present" is independent of the definitions of "past" and "future". The present is defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc; not in terms of the past and future. As I have repeatedly told you, it is the past and future which are defined in terms of the present, not the other way around. — Luke

I agree that "the present" ought to be defined like this. Where we disagree is whether this is the convention. I do not think that it is the common practice. Maybe just some philosophers think that way. I think it is more common to define "the present" as "now", where "now" signifies the division between past and future. However, there are numerous different conventions in practise, so I think we could both support what we believe as "the convention", or "conventional".

Since we both agree that "present" ought to be defined this way, we can take it as a starting point for discussion.

I've explained this several times and it's not difficult. If "the present" is defined in terms of being and existing, then "did happen" is synonymous with "has been" or "did exist" and "will happen" is synonymous with "will be" or "will exist". The past is what was present. The future is what will be present. — Luke

What I ask for is how are these terms conceived. We have the present, as being and existing. The question is how is "has been" different from "will be"? You cannot say that one is past and the other future, because these are what we are trying to define, so that would be circular. What I proposed earlier is that we refer to memory and anticipation, as what distinguishes past and future. Do you agree?

But then we see that "being and existing" gets defined in terms of having memories and anticipations, so the present is then actually defined in terms of past and future, because being and existing are described as having memories and anticipations. So what I proposed earlier is to describe being and existing in terms of sensing, which is the more immediate activity of being present. This leads to the conclusion that the present consists of a duration of time. Still, we are within the present, and have not yet found the means to define past and future.

The definition of "present" is independent of the definitions of "past" and "future". The present is defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc; not in terms of the past and future. As I have repeatedly told you, it is the past and future which are defined in terms of the present, not the other way around.
— Luke

I agree that "the present" ought to be defined like this. Where we disagree is whether this is the convention. I do not think that it is the common practice. Maybe just some philosophers think that way. I think it is more common to define "the present" as "now", where "now" signifies the division between past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see any difference. It follows from the definition of "the present" as that time when things are happening, etc., that the past is what has happened and the future is what is yet to happen. Therefore, the present does signify the division between past and future. What difference do you see?

What I ask for is how are these terms conceived. We have the present, as being and existing. The question is how is "has been" different from "will be"? You cannot say that one is past and the other future, because these are what we are trying to define, so that would be circular. — Metaphysician Undercover

The past and future are both defined in terms of the present, and the present is not defined in terms of either the past or the future, so there is no circularity. I already explained how they are different: "has been" was present and "will be" will be present.

What I proposed earlier is that we refer to memory and anticipation, as what distinguishes past and future. Do you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that we remember the past and anticipate the future. I don't agree that memory and anticipation distinguish the meanings or definitions of the terms "past" and "future".

But then we see that "being and existing" gets defined in terms of having memories and anticipations — Metaphysician Undercover

How does that follow? You said in the first quote above that you agreed the present should be defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc. Why do you now say that "being and existing" get defined in terms of memories and anticipations?

so the present is then actually defined in terms of past and future, because being and existing are described as having memories and anticipations. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't agree that "being and existing" gets defined in terms of having memories and anticipations. But neither do I see how it follows from this that the present is actually defined in terms of past and future. Memories are not the past and anticipations are not the future. We experience both memories and anticipations in the present; they are about the past and the future, but they are not the past and the future. Furthermore, when are "being" and "existing" described as having memories and anticipations?

So what I proposed earlier is to describe being and existing in terms of sensing, which is the more immediate activity of being present. — Metaphysician Undercover

I might agree if you mean sensations that we are consciously aware of.

Still, we are within the present, and have not yet found the means to define past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

What was wrong with the definitions of "past" and "future" that I gave?

The past is what was present. The future is what will be present. — Luke

What I argued is that to put the present within time itself requires that we conceive of the conscious experience as being within time. This produces the conclusion that past and future must inhere within the conscious experience of being present. — Metaphysician Undercover

You want to put the present within time itself. When this is accomplished, past and future are essential parts of the conscious experience of being present.

So to model the present as an independent feature, instead of being a feature of the observer, requires that we find real substantial points in time which can be employed to distinguish past features from present features within the conflated unity of what we experience as "the present" — Metaphysician Undercover

You want to model the present as an independent feature, not as a feature of the observer. Doing this requires points in time that distinguish past features from present features within the conflated unity of what we experience as “the present.”

You acknowledge boundaries are necessary to distinguish distinct parts. Conventional wisdom about how to perceive the present introduces a distortion into the conventional perception of time: boundaries marking the separation of past/present/future receive an arbitrary placement. The randomness of the placement of the boundaries proceeds from a false premise: the present is outside of time, and thus boundary placements are inconsequential in the manner of zeroes placed to the right of the decimal point marking the value of a number: 1.0 = 1.0000; the placement of the zeroes, being inconsequential, have no effect on the number. The effect of this false randomness of boundary placement is to render the present an abstraction whereas, per your thesis, the present is an existential flowing of time no less than past/future.

From the "static POV" of "the present", time appears to be a continuous flow., into which we can arbitrarily insert points of separation. From the "active POV", the continuous flow is replaced by an interaction of past aspects with future aspect. The need for "interaction" is the result of a mix of causal determination form the past, and freely willed selections from future possibilities. This implies that within any arbitrarily placed point of "the present", there are spatial aspects which are already determined (necessarily past), and also spatial aspects which are possibilities (still in the future). So the distinguishing features (points) appear to be spatial features. — Metaphysician Undercover

You take us into the weeds of your thesis with some details of exactly how the tripartite structure of time is jointed together, with past/future being akin to the two human arms attached to the present which is akin to the human thorax. The upshot of your correction seems to be your understanding that past/present/future are permanently entangled. This means the present can’t be rendered a mental abstraction without introducing distortion into the perception of the existential reality of time.

I’m wondering if you’re thesis might find support within the concept of quantum entanglement.

How I understand the above quote: We're inhabiting a temporal universe running in reverse. — ucarr

I don't understand this at all. Why do you understand this as reverse? — Metaphysician Undercover

My interpretation of your thesis as a reverse-temporal universe is my reaction to you saying,

Time is flowing from future to past, as the date of tomorrow, which is in the future, will become the date of yesterday. Death is a case of being forced by the flow of time, away from your observational point of the present, into the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

If we want to give "present" an objective referent, as something other than the subjective point of view, Then it would be the process which is the future becoming the past. This is what we observe at the present, as change. It is a feature of the flow of time, yet not the flow of time itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the above you seem to be signed on to the arrow of time having only one direction. For you, per your above statement, that direction is from the future to the past. That claim caused my reverse-temporal universe statements.

I don't see any difference. It follows from the definition of "the present" as that time when things are happening, etc., that the past is what has happened and the future is what is yet to happen. Therefore, the present does signify the division between past and future. What difference do you see? — Luke

We need a premise concerning the passing of time, to get from the present as what is happening, to "what has happened" and "what is yet to happen". In the case of "what has happened" we have memory to refer to. In the case of "what is yet to happen", it is much more difficult because of the way that we look at the future in terms of possibility. So as much as we like to think of the past as what has happened, we cannot think of the future as you propose. Therefore we cannot describe the relationship between past and future, nor the passing of time, until we have a better premise about the future.

The past and future are both defined in terms of the present, and the present is not defined in terms of either the past or the future, so there is no circularity. I already explained how they are different: "has been" was present and "will be" will be present. — Luke

Again, the future cannot be defined in terms of what will be, because that is not how we relate to the future as conscious beings. We act to cause what we want to happen, and prevent what we do not want to happen. So as much as we might truthfully say that we think of the past in the terms of what has happened, we cannot truthfully say that we think of the future in terms of what will happen. This is because we have some degree of choice about what will happen. And that creates all sorts of dilemmas and anxiety about what one can and cannot do, and what one ought and ought not do, etc.. Because of this, "the future" is not simply an opposing term to "the past".

I agree that we remember the past and anticipate the future. I don't agree that memory and anticipation distinguish the meanings or definitions of the terms "past" and "future". — Luke

The issue though, is that we've agreed that "present" ought to be defined in terms of conscious experience. So when we move forward now to define past and future in reference to "the present" we need to maintain this status of "the present" as the definition provided by conscious experience, which we agreed was being, or existing. From this position of existing as conscious beings who experience "the present", we can only have an indication of anything which we might call "the past", through memory. Memory is the only thing which indicates to us that there is anything distinct from the present, as the past, so we have no choice but to define "the past" with reference to memory. And defining future is similar, but somewhat different.

How else would you propose that we could define "past" and "future" in terms of the present, when "present" is defined in this way? Without reference to memory we have no way to derive a "has been" because all that can be present to the mind would be what is happening. And the future would be a similar situation, we'd have all sorts of activity occurring, but no premonitions about what might be about to happen, or what was needed. So I don't see how we can bring our minds to the bigger picture of "has been", and "may be" (or something like that) without referring to these other parts of our experience of being present.

How does that follow? You said in the first quote above that you agreed the present should be defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc. Why do you now say that "being and existing" get defined in terms of memories and anticipations? — Luke

To be perfectly clear to you, so that there is no misunderstanding, I will reproduce the rest of the context here. Prior to this I had said the following:

I agree that "the present" ought to be defined like this. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is how I believe that "the present" should be defined, as you propose, with reference to conscious experience, being, and existing. Notice the use of "ought". However, as I've been saying, I do not believe that this is the convention, I believe that in convention, present actually gets defined in reference to past and future, not vise versa, as it should be.

So, as I proceeded, the text you quoted appeared:

But then we see that "being and existing" gets defined in terms of having memories and anticipations, so the present is then actually defined in terms of past and future, because being and existing are described as having memories and anticipations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Would you please take notice that I proceeded from saying that the present "ought to be defined like this", to later saying "but then we see that...", and this implies that what ought to be the case is not what we actually see, or what actually is the case. In other words, I believe that the convention is to define "the present" in a way other than how it ought to be defined.

I don't agree that "being and existing" gets defined in terms of having memories and anticipations. But neither do I see how it follows from this that the present is actually defined in terms of past and future. Memories are not the past and anticipations are not the future. We experience both memories and anticipations in the present; they are about the past and the future, but they are not the past and the future. Furthermore, when are "being" and "existing" described as having memories and anticipations? — Luke

This is where we disagree. You seem to think that "has been", and "past" can be derived from the conscious experience of existing, or being present, without reference to memory. And the same for future. I do not see how this is possible, if we adhere to "the present" as being defined in the way we both agree it ought to be defined.

And, the only way to explore the problem I am describing, is to address the means by which these conceptions are derived from each other. Then we can see the difference between defining the present with reference to memories of past, and predictions of future, and defining the past and future with reference to the present. Pretending that these are both the same is no solution.

But we cannot even approach this problem until you provide some propositions, or a description of how you would like to make "past" and "future" something intelligible to a conscious being existing at the present.

The effect of this false randomness of boundary placement is to render the present an abstraction whereas, per your thesis, the present is an existential flowing of time no less than past/future. — ucarr

A slight correction here. The "flowing of time" is an appearance, how time appears to us. And, it is from this appearance of time, as a continuous flow, that the idea of placing points of division in any random, or arbitrary place, is derived. So, as per my thesis, the existential, or ontic present, is not to be conceived as a "flowing of time". The "flowing of time" is an illusion created by the deficiencies in the living being's ability to produce a true representation of time. We tend to think of human beings as being so far advanced in comparison to other animals in this respect, but in reality we're all very primitive in our capacity to apprehend the nature of time.

This means the present can’t be rendered a mental abstraction without introducing distortion into the perception of the existential reality of time. — ucarr

I would say that perhaps you have this backward, though I'm not quite sure what you meant. I think that the present is a mental abstraction, and it cannot be anything other than an abstraction for human beings. This is better explained in theological texts, by the fact that the human soul is inextricably united to the material body as a result of the original sin. This, being united with a physical body renders the soul's understanding of the immaterial, and all that side of the present which consists of the immaterial, which is the future, as limited to abstraction and conjecture.

So I would rather say, that we have an abstraction of "the present" which can be and is useful, but we have no perception of the existential reality of time. And since we cannot have a perception of it, it will always be an abstraction rather than a perception, and this leaves us limited in our capacity to obtain truth.

In the above you seem to be signed on to the arrow of time having only one direction. For you, per your above statement, that direction is from the future to the past. That claim caused my reverse-temporal universe statements. — ucarr

I now see why you think of this as "reverse-temporal". You see the present as what is flowing, not time as what is flowing. So you see time as a sort of number line of order, with the present as moving along that line. We might say that the present is flowing through all the dates. But this cannot be realistic because we would need a strong propellant to move us temporally through a static universe, and we see no evidence of the present being propelled. Instead, the evidence indicates that all events, and even things around us get moved into the past, and this is the result of the energy of the universe.

If we conceive of time as flowing, doesn't it have to be flowing from future to past? As time passes, isn't the past growing larger and the future growing smaller? How could the flow be the other way. Again, you might think that there is more time behind us, and less time in front of us, because we are being propelled. But in reality, all the force is experienced as being from the other side, so this does not make sense.

We need a premise concerning the passing of time, to get from the present as what is happening, to "what has happened" and "what is yet to happen". — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do we need an argument or premise for the passage of time? How about this: time passes such that what is yet to happen becomes what is happening becomes what has happened.

In the case of "what has happened" we have memory to refer to. In the case of "what is yet to happen", it is much more difficult because of the way that we look at the future in terms of possibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, we think about it this way until it becomes what is happening, and then the possibilites are reduced to one actuality.

So as much as we like to think of the past as what has happened, we cannot think of the future as you propose. Therefore we cannot describe the relationship between past and future, nor the passing of time, until we have a better premise about the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see the problem.

We act to cause what we want to happen, and prevent what we do not want to happen. — Metaphysician Undercover

The future is what will happen regardless of, or including, our expectations of what will happen. If I plan and book an overseas holiday, I might end up taking it, but something unforeseen might prevent me from going. We'll see what happens.

So as much as we might truthfully say that we think of the past in the terms of what has happened, we cannot truthfully say that we think of the future in terms of what will happen. This is because we have some degree of choice about what will happen. And that creates all sorts of dilemmas and anxiety about what one can and cannot do, and what one ought and ought not do, etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover

The future is not the plans or anticipations, but the reality of what will come to pass. Just as we can have false memories, we can make false predictions.

The issue though, is that we've agreed that "present" ought to be defined in terms of conscious experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

The present is not a psychological event, and neither are the past or future. They are periods or divisions of time. What is defined in terms of conscious experience is the time of the present; when the present is.

Without reference to memory we have no way to derive a "has been" because all that can be present to the mind would be what is happening. — Metaphysician Undercover

The past is that period of time when events have already happened. This is not limited to what anyone remembers, because there is a period of the past that happened before there were any conscious beings. How do you account for the period of the past that nobody was around to remember? Do you consider that as part of the past?

How else would you propose that we could define "past" and "future" in terms of the present, when "present" is defined in this way? Without reference to memory we have no way to derive a "has been" because all that can be present to the mind would be what is happening. And the future would be a similar situation, we'd have all sorts of activity occurring, but no premonitions about what might be about to happen, or what was needed. So I don't see how we can bring our minds to the bigger picture of "has been", and "may be" (or something like that) without referring to these other parts of our experience of being present. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't deny that we remember the past and anticipate the future, but memories are not the past and anticipations are not the future. The past, present and future are those periods of time when real events have happened, are happening and will happen.

Your ambiguous model looks like this:

Past-----------------------Future

------------<Present>------------

P----R----E----S----E----N----T — Luke

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

This argument claims the present is a limit towards which we forever approach towards and recede from, never actually arriving there.

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

This argument claims the present, as experienced by humans in the physical realm of everyday experience, never exists as a point in time, a theoretical abstraction. Instead, the present, as experienced, is always a continuum of spacetime of positive value.

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

This argument states the crux of MU's thesis: time as we experience it in the physical realm of everyday experience, as distinguished from time understood as a theoretical construction of the mind, presents itself as a tripartite structure: past/present/future. At issue in this thesis is the question how, exactly, are the three parts joined together? What is the nature of the joint, or conjunction linking them to each other?

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

The "present", as described, is a period of time, not a point in time. Any, and every period of time has one part before the other part which is after, as explained. In relation to the present, the before is called "past", and the after is called "future". Therefore when we talk about this period of time which we call "the present", part is in the past and part is in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

The above two arguments present a description (with some degree of abstraction) of how, exactly, the three parts are joined. 180 Proof provides a useful clarification:

Only the present is real.
— Art48
A nonsensical statement due to the fact that neither past nor future are escapable in – separable from – the present. — 180 Proof

This year, 2023, is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Today, July 2, is the present. Part is in the past, part is in the future. This minute is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover

The above argument presents an example from everyday experience that illustrates the connections between the three parts.

My interpretation of MU's crux tries to restate what he states using different words: The human experience of time within the physical realm of everyday experience consists in passing through a continuum of moments that are, roughly speaking, parsed into incidents characterized by a past/present/future inter-related through quantum entanglement.

Of particular pertinence to MU's thesis is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle (also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the accuracy of [sic] the values for certain related pairs of physical quantities of a particle, (such as position, x, and momentum, p). Both values cannot be predicted simultaneously from initial conditions. Instead, measurement is limited to an accurate measurement of one or the other in a trade-off between them.

Such paired-variables are, therefore, known as complementary variables or canonically conjugate variables; and, depending on interpretation, the uncertainty-principle limits to what extent such conjugate properties maintain their approximate meaning, as the mathematical framework of quantum physics does not support the notion of simultaneously well-defined conjugate properties expressed by a single value. The uncertainty principle implies that it is, in general, not possible to predict the value of both paired variables’ quantities with arbitrary certainty beyond a certain limit, in which a trade-off (frequency-position trade-off) between both appears, even if all initial conditions are specified and known.

Introduced first in 1927 by German physicist Werner Heisenberg, the uncertainty principle states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be predicted from initial conditions, and vice versa.
– Wikipedia –

I think this is the science underlying what MU has been debating with Luke. Luke’s arguments, consisting of linguistic abstractions pertaining to past/preset/future, exhibit sound logic and should therefore be taken seriously as guardrails limiting MU’s claims. In the end, however, I conclude Luke’s language-based logic, like the abstract point, a theoretical construct pinpointing paired-variables such as position and momentum, do not apply precisely to empirical experience of (physical) time within the physical realm.

Assessment – MU’s thesis has something new to say about time and quantum entanglement within the macro-space of everyday human experience.

In the wake of my weigh-in upon the debate, Luke’s graphic gets modified into the following isotope:

Past------------------------Future

------------<Present>-----------

P------R------E-----S-----N-----T

↕︎ ↕︎ ↕︎

P------A------S------T

↕︎ ↕︎ ↕︎

F-----U-----T-----U-----R-----E


Some people, like Luke, will balk at the implications of what MU is telling us: we humans cannot know simultaneously and precisely where we are and where we’re going in time, as past/present/future, being quantumly entangled like the wave and the particle, individually exhibit simultaneously all three properties.

What separates you as a 7 year old with you now but space and time. — Benj96

I think it might be the case that experience is special.

Why do we need an argument or premise for the passage of time? How about this: time passes such that what is yet to happen becomes what is happening becomes what has happened. — Luke

It's called "justification". Such propositions are meaningless if not supported by experience or evidence. I could propose this: time passes such that what has happened becomes what is happening, becomes what will happen. Why would your proposition be more acceptable than mine?

The future is what will happen regardless of, or including, our expectations of what will happen. — Luke

As I told you, this is incorrect. The future consists of possibilities, not of "what will happen". That is the mistake of determinism. If the future consisted of what will happen, rather than possibilities, there would be no point in deliberation concerning one's actions. Since there is usefulness in such deliberation, because we can make choices and act accordingly, it is clear that the future consists of possibilities rather than of what will happen.

f I plan and book an overseas holiday, I might end up taking it, but something unforeseen might prevent me from going. We'll see what happens. — Luke

Exactly as you say, the future consists of "we'll see what happens" (meaning numerous possibilities), not "what will happen".

The future is not the plans or anticipations, but the reality of what will come to pass — Luke

This is a false representation, a misconception. There is no such thing as "the reality of what will come to pass", the reality of the future is possibility. What comes to pass only becomes real when it comes to pass. This is why Aristotle argued that we need to provide exemption from the law of excluded middle to allow for the reality of the future. His famous example is the possibility of a sea battle tomorrow. There is neither truth nor falsity to the proposition "there will be a sea battle tomorrow", because it has not been decided. That was Aristotle's argument for exceptions to the law of excluded middle. Propositions concerning the future are neither true nor false. And it does not matter that you can look back after the fact, and suppose that before the fact that proposition would have been true, because the nature of reality is that before the fact it could have gone either way. In other words, there is no such thing as the reality of what will come to pass in this matter. After tomorrow has come to pass, there is such a reality, and a truth to that question, but that's only when it's in the past. Prior to the even there really is no truth or falsity to the matter.

I don't deny that we remember the past and anticipate the future, but memories are not the past and anticipations are not the future. — Luke

I didn't say that memories are the past, nor that anticipations are the future. I said that we have defined the present according to conscious experience. Now if we want to give past and future positions relative to the present, we must refer to conscious experience as well, as this is what defines "present". And, conscious experience gives us memories and anticipations which we can use to position past and future relative to the present.

Assessment – MU’s thesis has something new to say about time and quantum entanglement within the macro-space of everyday human experience. — ucarr

Thanks ucarr, you've provided a satisfactory explanation of what I've been arguing. In relation to the uncertainty principle, I will say that the issue is the way that we have come to represent points, mathematically as limits, through calculus. As we approach the limit, the margin of error approaches infinity. So if in the case of time, the limit is a point in time, known as "the present", then as we approach that limit uncertainty is maximized.

I think this is the science underlying what MU has been debating with Luke. — ucarr

As far as I'm aware, "past", "present" and "future" are not terms that have any technical scientific meaning, and are not terms that are commonly used for any precise scientific measurements.

Why do we need an argument or premise for the passage of time? How about this: time passes such that what is yet to happen becomes what is happening becomes what has happened.
— Luke

It's called "justification". Such propositions are meaningless if not supported by experience or evidence. I could propose this: time passes such that what has happened becomes what is happening, becomes what will happen. Why would your proposition be more acceptable than mine? — Metaphysician Undercover

According to what you say here, my proposition would be more acceptable because it's supported by experience.

The future is what will happen regardless of, or including, our expectations of what will happen.
— Luke

As I told you, this is incorrect. The future consists of possibilities, not of "what will happen". That is the mistake of determinism. — Metaphysician Undercover

If this is a "mistake" of determinism, then it must also be a "mistake" of free will. I do not exclude our free choices from influencing what will be. Moreover, it must equally be a "mistake" that reality is the actualisation of only one outcome.

f I plan and book an overseas holiday, I might end up taking it, but something unforeseen might prevent me from going. We'll see what happens.
— Luke

Exactly as you say, the future consists of "we'll see what happens" (meaning numerous possibilities), not "what will happen". — Metaphysician Undercover

Only one outcome will happen. You may note that I do not preclude the (very likely) possibility that my planning and booking an overseas holiday will lead to me actually going on it.

There is no such thing as "the reality of what will come to pass", the reality of the future is possibility. What comes to pass only becomes real when it comes to pass. — Metaphysician Undercover

Something must come to pass in the future one way or another. This is not irrespective of our efforts and decisions, but because of them (at least, to the degree that we can influence those outcomes).

I said that we have defined the present according to conscious experience. Now if we want to give past and future positions relative to the present, we must refer to conscious experience as wel — Metaphysician Undercover

I can agree to this: that we define the present time relative to the time we are consciously experiencing, that we define past and future times relative to the present time, and that we remember the past and anticipate the future. What I don't agree to is your recent statement that what follows from this is that the present time is therefore defined relative to past and future times. For example:

the present is then actually defined in terms of past and future, because being and existing are described as having memories and anticipations. — Metaphysician Undercover

According to what you say here, my proposition would be more acceptable because it's supported by experience. — Luke

Sure Luke, but until you provide the support your proposition is unsupported. And what experience provides the support, other than memories and anticipations? That's the point!

I can agree to this: that we define the present time relative to the time we are consciously experiencing, that we define past and future times relative to the present time, and that we remember the past and anticipate the future. What I don't agree to is your recent statement that what follows from this is that the present time is therefore defined relative to past and future times. For example: — Luke

OK, so we've advanced in our agreement here. present, past, and future, are all defined by experience. Now the issue is the way that these are related to each other. What I proposed, which you expressly do not agree with, is that the convention is to take past and future as the real defining features of time, and position the present relative to these. Evidence of this, is that "the present" is often understood as the divisor between past and future, and that "the present" is relative, according to the relativity of simultaneity.

Also you provide evidence of this convention by insisting that future consists of "what will be" instead of as "possibility". The latter is how the future actually appears to us from our experience of being present, while the former, which is your proposal is how you contrive "the future", in order to facilitate your position of "the present" as a divisor between the two.

I do acknowledge though, that there is more than one conventional way as to how present, past, and future are all related to each other, and that there are conventions which make "the present" the defining feature, and then position past and future relative to the present. This is the way I say that these terms ought to be defined.

Defining the terms in this way helps us to properly understand and represent the difference between past and future. Acknowledging this difference makes us recognize the discontinuity between past and future, and this indicates that the representation of time as a continuity cannot be true. The discontinuity is exposed by properly understanding the future as consisting of possibility rather than making "the present" a continuity between what has been and what will be.

If this is a "mistake" of determinism, then it must also be a "mistake" of free will. I do not exclude our free choices from influencing what will be. Moreover, it must equally be a "mistake" that reality is the actualisation of only one outcome. — Luke

You deny the possibility of free will by saying that the future consists of "what will be". As I explained.

Only one outcome will happen. You may note that I do not preclude the (very likely) possibility that my planning and booking an overseas holiday will lead to me actually going on it. — Luke

Sure, only one outcome will happen, but the future does not consist of that one outcome because there are many possibilities of what may happen. Therefore the future does not consist of that one outcome, it consists of the many possibilities, because that there are many possibilities as to what may happen is the truth of the matter..

Something must come to pass in the future one way or another. — Luke

Again, I agree, something will come to pass, but what that is, is undetermined. Therefore what the future consists of is something undetermined. It does not consist of "what will happen", because there is no such thing as what will happen; that is undetermined.

OK, so we've advanced in our agreement here. present, past, and future, are all defined by experience. Now the issue is the way that these are related to each other. What I proposed, which you expressly do not agree with, is that the convention is to take past and future as the real defining features of time, and position the present relative to these. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not see that as being the convention at all. I don't know where you get this idea from. Once again: in that case, the past and the future would then be in the past and the future of what? You can't start with the past and future and determine the present from there, because the past and the future are in the past and in the future of the present, by definition.

The convention is to locate "the present" in terms of one's temporal location, (e.g. when one is experiencing, when things are happening) much like we locate "here" in terms of one's spatial location. If you do not define the present in terms of one's conscious experience or when events are happening or when one is acting or speaking, then what is the determining factor in deciding when the present is situated between the past and the future?

If you agree - as you state above - that the present is defined relative to experience in this way, then why do you also claim that the present is defined relative to the past and the future? The present cannot be defined relative only to the past and future, as I argue above, because then there is no reason to narrow down the duration of the present to less than a millennium. That is hardly the convention.

Evidence of this, is that "the present" is often understood as the divisor between past and future, and that "the present" is relative, according to the relativity of simultaneity. — Metaphysician Undercover

The relativity of simultaneity tells us that two events that appear simultaneous for one observer may not appear simultaneous for another observer. When each observer experiences these observations is their present time. It does not follow from this that the present is defined by the past and future.

Also you provide evidence of this convention by insisting that future consists of "what will be" instead of as "possibility". The latter is how the future actually appears to us from our experience of being present, while the former, which is your proposal is how you contrive "the future", in order to facilitate your position of "the present" as a divisor between the two. — Metaphysician Undercover

I reject your presupposition that "past, "present" and "future" must be defined in terms of how things "actually appear to us from our experience". There is nothing necessitating that all words must be defined or used this way.

I do acknowledge though, that there is more than one conventional way as to how present, past, and future are all related to each other, and that there are conventions which make "the present" the defining feature, and then position past and future relative to the present. This is the way I say that these terms ought to be defined. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is how they are conventionally defined. Otherwise, what would the past and future be in the past and future of?

Defining the terms in this way helps us to properly understand and represent the difference between past and future. Acknowledging this difference makes us recognize the discontinuity between past and future, and this indicates that the representation of time as a continuity cannot be true. The discontinuity is exposed by properly understanding the future as consisting of possibility rather than making "the present" a continuity between what has been and what will be. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't follow how the conventional definition does any of this.

You deny the possibility of free will by saying that the future consists of "what will be". As I explained. — Metaphysician Undercover

A compatibilist free will is entirely consistent with "what will be".

I think this is the science underlying what MU has been debating with Luke. — ucarr

As far as I'm aware, "past", "present" and "future" are not terms that have any technical scientific meaning, and are not terms that are commonly used for any precise scientific measurements. — Luke

With your above statement you cast yourself in a role that parallels an early twentieth century commentator responding to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity: "As far as I'm aware, 'space,' 'time' and 'gravity' are not terms that are commonly understood to be conjoined and therefore subject to scientific measurements.

In my opinion, the status quo of conventional wisdom is not (and should not be) an obstacle to discovery and new understanding.

Moreover, your claim can be refuted. You say, in part, that the "past", "present" and "future" are not terms commonly used for any precise measurements:

Caesium atomic clocks are one of the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the second in the International System of Units (SI) (the modern form of the metric system). By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, ΔνCs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz. That value was chosen so that the caesium second equalled, to the limit of human measuring ability in 1960 when it was adopted, the existing standard ephemeris second based on the Earth's orbit around the Sun.[2] Because no other measurement involving time had been as precise, the effect of the change was less than the experimental uncertainty of all existing measurements.
-- Wikipedia --

The above description conveys a precise, scientific measurement of the unit of time known as "one second." By inference it follows that the details elaborated above bear upon the transition from one second of time to the next and so on. The duration of measured units of time and the transition between these measured units have been under discussion and debate here for more than a month.

Regarding my application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to MU's claims about the everyday experience of the present as a positive duration rather than as a theoretical and dimensionless point, it should be clear to the observant that it is self-evidently true (from MU's proffered claims and my proffered scientific support for them) we are, acting individually, attempting to do the work of science and philosophy. Such efforts at this website should come as no surprise.

In your role as guardian at the gate, protector of the integrity and authority of the scientific and philosophical establishment, your work is important. By warring against the specious claims of eager aspirants, you render a service to them. It won't do, however, to merely recite boilerplate from the pages of conventional wisdom. You must search those pages and discover cogent arguments that refute with specificity the attempts made by would-be theoreticians.

The above description conveys a precise, scientific measurement of the unit of time known as "one second." — ucarr

Where are the terms "past", "present" or "future" used in that description?

The above description conveys a precise, scientific measurement of the unit of time known as "one second."
— ucarr

Where are the terms "past", "present" or "future" used in that description? — Luke

Everywhere. The science elaborated in the quotation supplies the means for their state-of-the-art measurement. Readers incapacitated in the use of inference will, however, fail to perceive them.

I do not see that as being the convention at all. I don't know where you get this idea from. Once again: in that case, the past and the future would then be in the past and the future of what? You can't start with the past and future and determine the present from there, because the past and the future are in the past and in the future of the present, by definition.

The convention is to locate "the present" in terms of one's temporal location, (e.g. when one is experiencing, when things are happening) much like we locate "here" in terms of one's spatial location. If you do not define the present in terms of one's conscious experience or when events are happening or when one is acting or speaking, then what is the determining factor in deciding when the present is situated between the past and the future? — Luke

We are talking about defining terms, which is completely different from locating places. You can locate a place with "here", but "here" will not serve to define the location because it is completely subjective, and we normally seek objectivity in definitions. Likewise with the present, "now". So to define a place, we refer to the surroundings, and to define the present we refer to past and future. This is because of the desire for objectivity.

So take "here", and say there is up and there is down relative to here, also there is right and left relative to here. However, "here does not serve to define up and down, nor can it serve to define right and left. To define these, we turn to something else, to give the meaning of these terms, in order to have objectivity for universal application. Likewise, you can say that there is past and future relative to now, or present, but this does not serve to define past and future. To give past and future objective meaning we turn to something else.

I think you and I will never find agreement as to what "the convention" is with respect to defining these temporal terms. And as I said, there is a number of conventions, so I think this course of discussion is pointless.

If you agree - as you state above - that the present is defined relative to experience in this way, then why do you also claim that the present is defined relative to the past and the future? — Luke

Luke, I agree that the present ought to be defined this way, but I do not believe that it actually is defined this way, in conventional usage. I've repeated this so many times now, why can't you understand the difference between what I think ought to be the case, and what I think is the case? It doesn't matter that you do not agree with my assumption as to what is the case, the differentiation is within what I believe. You cannot conclude that since this differentiation is false, it therefore does not exist as my belief, and proceed to act as if I have not explained this difference which I believe in

I reject your presupposition that "past, "present" and "future" must be defined in terms of how things "actually appear to us from our experience". There is nothing necessitating that all words must be defined or used this way. — Luke

I did not say that they must be defined in this way, I just pointed out that there is consistency to this way.

A compatibilist free will is entirely consistent with "what will be". — Luke

I don't think we can make any progress here either. I do not believe that it is possible to have a coherent form of compatibilism, so we are on completely different ground here.

Regarding my application of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to MU's claims about the everyday experience of the present as a positive duration rather than as a theoretical and dimensionless point, it should be clear to the observant that it is self-evidently true (from MU's proffered claims and my proffered scientific support for them) we are, acting individually, attempting to do the work of science and philosophy. Such efforts at this website should come as no surprise. — ucarr

The important issue comes into sight when you place this premise of the present as a duration, alongside the premise of the substantial difference between past and future. From our experience, we see the past as determined, and the future as indeterminate (consisting of unselected possibilities), therefore a substantial difference. If the present is itself a duration, yet it is also the period of change between indeterminate and determined, this conception allows that some aspects of the world become determined (go into the past) prior to other aspects, in a sense of "prior" determined by their relative positions within the width of the present rather than the traditional linear time. This makes the duration of the present a second dimension of time, rather than a segment of linear time.

We are talking about defining terms, which is completely different from locating places. You can locate a place with "here", but "here" will not serve to define the location because it is completely subjective, and we normally seek objectivity in definitions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you suggesting that the word "here" cannot be defined and has no definition/use because of its subjectivity? It seems to me that the word "here" is very commonly used in our language. If we normally seek objectivity in definitions, then why doesn't this objectivity apply to the word "here"? The word "here" has its definitions and uses.

Given your assertion that the present is defined in reference to the past and future, you have once again failed to answer my questions. If we start with only the past and the future and attempt to derive the present from them, then what is the past in the past of, and what is the future in the future of? What determines the location of the present in between the vast temporal regions of the past and the future? And what determining factor(s) can we find within the past and the future that might help us to narrow down the present to less than the duration of a millennium?

Likewise with the present, "now". So to define a place, we refer to the surroundings, and to define the present we refer to past and future. This is because of the desire for objectivity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Provide an example of how you can define the present with reference to the past and future. Since you have acknowledged that past and future are not synonymous with memories and anticipations, I trust that your example will indeed demonstrate how the present is defined with reference to the past and future and not with reference to memories and anticipations.

You should have no trouble if this is the conventional definition, as you claim. You could probably just look it up somewhere.

Are you suggesting that the word "here" cannot be defined and has no definition/use because of its subjectivity? It seems to me that the word "here" is very commonly used in our language. If we normally seek objectivity in definitions, then why doesn't this objectivity apply to the word "here"? The word "here" has its definitions and uses. — Luke

I am not making any statements of necessity, so I am not suggesting anything about how any word "must be defined", or "cannot be defined". That's why I talked about how I think "the present" ought to be defined, and how it actually is defined, by common convention. So subjectivity does not equate with impossibility.

Given your assertion that the present is defined in reference to the past and future, you have once again failed to answer my questions. If we start with only the past and the future and attempt to derive the present from them, then what is the past in the past of, and what is the future in the future of? What determines the location of the present in between the vast temporal regions of the past and the future? And what determining factor(s) can we find within the past and the future that might help us to narrow down the present to less than the duration of a millennium? — Luke

As I explained earlier, there is always a human perspective implied, in any definition, but in the case of a so-called objective definition the perspective does not enter as a defining feature. The definition refers outward toward features of a larger world, not inward toward th subjective perspective. So "up" and "down" are not defined in relation to a spot, "here", they are defined with reference to higher and lower elevation. And right and left are not defined by the perspective of the individual, who might say "here", they are defined with reference to north south east west; 'stand facing north, and to the east is right. The same is the case with past and future. They are not defined objectively with reference to the present, the objective definition refers to time which has gone past and time which has not gone past. The reference is the passing of time, not "the present". This is the conventional way, as I've argued.

If we start with only the past and the future and attempt to derive the present from them, then what is the past in the past of, and what is the future in the future of? — Luke

As I said above, the reference is time, "the past" refers to the past part of time, and "the future" refers to the future part of time. That is the convention. This is very straight forward, and I'm quite surprised by your need to ask.

What determines the location of the present in between the vast temporal regions of the past and the future? And what determining factor(s) can we find within the past and the future that might help us to narrow down the present to less than the duration of a millennium? — Luke

The convention is that "the present" signifies a point, moment, or duration, "now", which separates past from future. You see, the convention, which is to look for objective definitions rather than subjective, defines "the present" with reference to the past and future. And "past" and "future" are defined with reference to the passing time. As I said earlier, there is of course, a human perspective implied, as is the case with all objective definitions, because human beings make the definition, but the perspective is not referred to in the definition, because the definition is intended to be objective. Like up and down, right and left, always imply a human perspective, but the definitions refer to something outward, objective, rather than inward to the subjective perspective.

Provide an example of how you can define the present with reference to the past and future. — Luke

That's done, above. The present is the point, or moment, or duration, which divides or separates the past from the future.

You could probably just look it up somewhere. — Luke

Good idea, here is https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/present

"the period of time that is happening now, not the past or the future:"

We are talking about defining terms, which is completely different from locating places. You can locate a place with "here", but "here" will not serve to define the location because it is completely subjective, and we normally seek objectivity in definitions.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Are you suggesting that the word "here" cannot be defined and has no definition/use because of its subjectivity? It seems to me that the word "here" is very commonly used in our language. If we normally seek objectivity in definitions, then why doesn't this objectivity apply to the word "here"? The word "here" has its definitions and uses.
— Luke

I am not making any statements of necessity, so I am not suggesting anything about how any word "must be defined", or "cannot be defined". That's why I talked about how I think "the present" ought to be defined, and how it actually is defined, by common convention. So subjectivity does not equate with impossibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay then. In response to your previous post, the word "present" does not serve to define the time either, because it is completely subjective. Just like "here".

And right and left are not defined by the perspective of the individual — Metaphysician Undercover

My right and left or your right and left?

And right and left are not defined by the perspective of the individual, who might say "here", they are defined with reference to north south east west; 'stand facing north, and to the east is right. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree that "right" and "left" are defined with reference to the cardinal directions, but that's not the important issue here. This is:

They are not defined objectively with reference to the present, the objective definition refers to time which has gone past and time which has not gone past. — Metaphysician Undercover

The objective definition refers to time which has gone past what and time which has not gone past what?

The reference is the passing of time, not "the present". This is the conventional way, as I've argued. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you define the past and future from the passing of time? As shown above, this requires you to use phrases like "gone past" and "not gone past", but then you must specify what it is that these have gone past and not gone past. The past has gone past what? The future has not gone past what? The obvious, and only possible, answer is: the present time. What else could it be?

You could probably just look it up somewhere.
— Luke

Good idea, here is https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/present

"the period of time that is happening now, not the past or the future:" — Metaphysician Undercover

The goal was to provide a definition of the present in terms of the past and the future; to derive the present from the past and the future. I don't see how this example fulfils that goal. I don't agree that this definition of the present is given in terms of the past and the future. There are innumerable things which are not the past or the future.

The objective definition refers to time which has gone past what and time which has not gone past what? — Luke

Past the human observer I suppose. As I said, definitions always have an implied subjective perspective which if it enters into the definition would lessen its objectiveness. Sound for example is waves, but ones that are heard. That's why the proverbial question, 'if a tree falls in the forest with no one there, does iy make a sound?'.

The issue that you point to here, is part of the reason why I argue that the conventional definition is not good. There is a pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective by referencing "time" instead of the observer, but it is really not very successful. Unless the passage of time is conceived of independently from the human perspective, and "the present" is independent from that perspective, the subjectivity cannot be avoided. An independent, objective "present" is the way I proposed, as how "the present" ought to be defined. Start with the human perspective, produce a definition of "the present" whichas much as possible, is independent from that perspective, then proceed toward understanding past and future from there.

How do you define the past and future from the passing of time? As shown above, this requires you to use phrases like "gone past" and "not gone past", but then you must specify what it is that these have gone past and not gone past. The past has gone past what? The future has not gone past what? The obvious, and only possible, answer is: the present time. What else could it be? — Luke

No, your supposed "obvious", and "only possible" conclusion is not correct, and completely illogical. These phrases, "gone past", and "not gone past" imply a relationship with an observer. As I said, there is always an implied observer in so-called objective definitions. "Sound" is the vibrations which are detected by the ear. "Colour" is the electromagnetism detected by the eyes. There is much electromagnetism not detected by the eyes, and that does not qualify as "colour".

That is exactly the problem with the conventional definition. "Past" and "future" are defined in relation to an implied human observer. Then, to define "present" we simply turn around and replace, or exchange the observer with "the present". From here, we can extend the past indefinitely, far beyond the observer. But this is an inaccurate and invalid exchange, because the two (observational perspective, and present) are not truly equivalent.

Therefore, what I argued is that we ought to start from the observational perspective, and produce a definition of "the present" which recognizes the difference between the observational perspective, and the true independent "present". This allows us to understand that the conscious experience of being present provides us with a faulty representation of "the present", as I explained already.

The goal was to provide a definition of the present in terms of the past and the future; to derive the present from the past and the future. I don't see how this example fulfils that goal. I don't agree that this definition of the present is given in terms of the past and the future. There are innumerable things which are not the past or the future. — Luke

OK, you do not agree that "not the past or the future" fulfills the goal of defining the present in terms of the past and the future. So be it. That's why you are so difficult to hold discourse with. When you can't somehow twist and contort the words in some equivocal interpretation, to misrepresent, in order to support what you are arguing (that the other person is contradictory for example), you simply deny the obvious. Do you not see, within the words of the single sentence of the provided definition ""the period of time"? That there are innumerable things "not the past or the future" is irrelevant, because the definition refers to "the period of time" which is not the past or the future.