Some components of teleodynamics might be pertinent to your intended changes to the present tense of the timeline.

Switching from the geocentric to the heliocentric model of the solar system does not change the direction that the planets move, it models the very same movement in a different way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Consider: the earth with respect to the sun and the sun with respect to the earth when the sun orbits the earth. In the limited context of this relationship, is the earth stationary and the sun mobile?

Consider: the sun with respect to the earth and the earth with respect to the sun when the earth orbits the sun. In the limited context of this relationship, is the sun stationary and the earth mobile?

In making a comparison of the two above considerations, do you say the two considerations model the very same movement in a different way?

The first statement of "when the sun orbits the earth", is what we know as the rotation of the earth on its axis. The second statement "the earth orbits the sun", is what we know as the earth revolving around the sun. These two do not model the same motion.

What we model as "the rotation of the earth" is the same motion as what you described as "when the sun orbits the earth". If we know the distance between the earth and sun, and assume the earth to be a point at the centre of a circular orbit, we could calculate the speed at which the sun orbits the earth, in that model in which the sun orbits the earth.

Time is unidirectional, future to past. This is an activity of the world, what we know as the future becoming the past, The day named as "tomorrow" becomes the day named as "yesterday" through this activity, this process of the future becoming the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Jan 5 is in the future before it is in the past. The flow of time has that portion of time named as Jan 5, in the future prior to it being in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

This process of the future becoming the past has the arrow of time moving in which direction: a) the events of Jan 5 change into the events of Jan 4; b) the events of Jan 4 change into the events of Jan 5?

Since you say, “time is unidirectional, future to past,” and also you say, “the day named as tomorrow becomes the day named as ‘yesterday,’” logically we have to conclude the arrow of time moves from Jan 5 to Jan 4. Entailed in this is the logical necessity that you become a day younger as the arrow of time continues to move from future to past.

Have you ever grown a day younger in your life? Speaking more dramatically, can you remember being ten years older than you are now?

Does today become tomorrow, or yesterday? Your answer speaks to your perception of the direction of the arrow of time.

This process of the future becoming the past has the arrow of time moving in which direction: a) the events of Jan 5 change into the events of Jan 4; b) the events of Jan 4 change into the events of Jan 5? — ucarr

I don't see what you are asking. The events of Jan 4 are the events of Jan 4, and the events of Jan 5 are the events of Jan 5. One does not become the other. However, the time marked by, or referred to as "Jan 4", itself moves from being in the future to being in the past, as does the time referred to as "Jan 5".

The difference is that in my model, time itself is assigned substantial existence, as something. What we know as "the passing of time", which is the process by which the time indicated as "Jan 5" changes from being in the future to being in the past, is reified, understood to be something real, a real process. This "something" can be understood as the cause of all events. Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events. And, we order events as past events being prior to future events, due to the way that events are observed by us through sensation. However, when we consider time on its own, as something which can be marked with indicators such as dates, then we understand that any indicated time, is in the future before it is in the past, like the example shows.

Here's another way of looking at it, which may or may not help you to understand. Imagine that there was a start to time, time started, there was a beginning to time. At the point when time began, there was future, but no past, because no time had passed yet, but there was time about to pass. And, as time passes, there becomes more and more past, and less and less future. Imagine a wind-up toy, fully wound, and ready to go. The process of its unwinding is fully in the future, but as it unwinds, it goes into the past. This demonstrates that future is prior to past.

Since you say, “time is unidirectional, future to past,” and also you say, “the day named as tomorrow becomes the day named as ‘yesterday,’” logically we have to conclude the arrow of time moves from Jan 5 to Jan 4. — ucarr

Why do you say this? If "Jan 4", and "Jan 5" referred to events, we'd say that Jan 4 occurs before Jan 5. But these do not refer to events, they refer to dates in time. If we made a timeline, based on our empirical observation of events, we'd see that the events of Jan 4 are prior in time, to the events of Jan 5, and we might be tempted to model "the flow of time" in that direction. However, this is because we are mapping the dates as events which occur. A true analysis shows that both Jan 4, and Jan 5. are in the future before they are in the past, so regardless of the order that these dates occur to us as events, the future part of time is prior to the past part of time.

Your conclusion doesn't seem to be valid, and I do not know how you derive it. The arrow of time has it that the day named as "Jan 4" was in the future before it was in the past, as is the case with the day named as "Jan 5". Now, today, the day named as "Jan 9" is in the future, but soon it will be in the past.

Now if we look at "Jan 9" as an event, instead of as a date, we will say that this event occurs after Jan 8 occurs, and we will represent this with a number line of sorts, showing that order. But according to my explanation, that number line represents the occurrence of events, it does not represent the passing of time.

I don't see what you are asking. The events of Jan 4 are the events of Jan 4, and the events of Jan 5 are the events of Jan 5. One does not become the other. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm asking you to say what you think happens as you travel in time. As you move from Jan 4 to Jan 5, do you get younger, or do you get older? If you get older, that means you have moved from the present to the updated, newer present. So, old moves toward new, so that's old before new, not new before old. So, if a man acknowledges he moves forward in time, he validates that movement as an example of the old, which comes first, moving forward toward the new, which comes after.

Saying the future moves toward the past and continues in this direction examples the past becoming the more distant past; this amounts to saying the future causes the past to move toward the more distant past. We know what you’re saying is backwards, as obviously the present*, as it moves forward in time, thus moving towards the updated, newer present, doesn’t move from the past to the more distant past.

*The empirical present, though it lags minutely behind the mathematical present, acts as an empirical present moving toward an ever mathematically updating newer present. The additional complication of the time lag still maintains the older present moving toward the newer present, not the reverse.

If we reverse our direction in time, with the newer present moving toward the older present, with the newer present first and the older present second, then that examples a man moving in time such that he’s getting younger instead of getting older. We know that’s not what’s happening in our empirical experience of time.

However, the time marked by, or referred to as "Jan 4", itself moves from being in the future to being in the past, as does the time referred to as "Jan 5". — Metaphysician Undercover

If you're saying Jan 4 progressing in time toward Jan 5 examples progressing from the future toward the past, then let us observe a man as part of this progression from the future toward the past; In so doing, we see you're also saying progressing in time from Jan 4 toward Jan 5 examples a man growing younger. We know from our empirical experience in time this is not true. We know this is not true because we know our future self is older than our past self.

Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events. — Metaphysician Undercover

You haven't shown time independent of the animation of material objects because your supporting example, a thought experiment based upon imagination, is not evidence. Logical possibility necessitating corresponding physics remains unproven. This lack of proof is memorialized in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. There are logical statements unproven by the rules that generate them, and there are physical systems unexplained logically. The scientific picture of the world is incomplete.

...we order events as past events being prior to future events, due to the way that events are observed by us through sensation. — Metaphysician Undercover

The time lag of experience rendered though the cognitive system has sentients experiencing the empirical present as a time-lagged older present relative to an ever-updating numerical present, an abstraction. This is evidence abstract thought is emergent from memory. Abstract thought emergent from memory is evidence the ever-updating numerical present is about time_future not yet extant. Since time_future is grounded in memory, this is evidence time_future is not an existentially independent reality standing apart from phenomena, but rather a component of a complex memory phenomenon.

...when we consider time on its own, as something which can be marked with indicators such as dates, then we understand that any indicated time, is in the future before it is in the past, like the example shows. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time is not on its own, i.e. not independent, for two reasons: a) time_future is an emergent property of a complex memory phenomenon; it is tied to the material animation of memory; b) time experienced empirically as the updating present is itself a physical phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be independent of itself. Relativity is a theory of physics; it is not a theory of abstract thought falsely conventionalized as immaterial.

...when we consider time on its own, as something which can be marked with indicators such as dates, then we understand that any indicated time, is in the future before it is in the past, like the example shows. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time experienced as the updating present is the empirical present ever moving forward within a physically real phenomenon. This movement from the present to a newer present posits an arrow of time from present to newer present. It also posits an arrow of entropy from the present state of order to a lesser state of order. Both arrows move toward a newer state.

Since time, being itself a phenomenon, is not prior to other phenomena, its progression is therefore contemporary with the animate phenomena it tracks numerically.

Imagine that there was a start to time, time started, there was a beginning to time. At the point when time began, there was future, but no past, because no time had passed yet, but there was time about to pass. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since the start of time takes time, there is no extant time without a past. Moreover, the theoretical vanishing point with zero dimension, the limit of the starting point you posit and something you seek to discard, plays a fundamental role in launching your thought experiment.

A true analysis shows that both Jan 4, and Jan 5. are in the future before they are in the past, so regardless of the order that these dates occur to us as events, the future part of time is prior to the past part of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

See above for my counter-narrative to your premise time is prior to the phenomena (events) it tracks numerically.

Now if we look at "Jan 9" as an event, instead of as a date, we will say that this event occurs after Jan 8 occurs, and we will represent this with a number line of sorts, showing that order. But according to my explanation, that number line represents the occurrence of events, it does not represent the passing of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

You seem to be separating time from occurrence of events. I think all occurrences of events happen in time. Following this line of reasoning that keeps time paired with events, separating an event from the date of its occurrence in time is a false separation we don't experience.

If your argument is predicated upon the premise events occur outside of time (which includes dates) - and that appears to be the case - then it is obviously false.

I'm asking you to say what you think happens as you travel in time. As you move from Jan 4 to Jan 5, do you get younger, or do you get older? — ucarr

We do not travel in time, we do not move from Jan 4 to Jan 5 in this model of time. This is the principal difference of the model. Things, or people, do not move through time, the passing of time itself is an activity, a process, and this process has an effect on us, it causes change. When you model an object as moving through time, you model it as moving from past to future, but if you model it as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, then change and movement are caused, by the passing of time.

this amounts to saying the future causes the past to move toward the more distant past. — ucarr

That's a correct representation. I described the future becoming the past as a force. We, as human beings work to maintain our position at the present (maintaining this position is known as survival), despite the force of the future pushing against us. But the force of the future always wins, and each human being is forced into death, then further and further into the past.

We know what you’re saying is backwards, as obviously the present*, as it moves forward in time, thus moving towards the updated, newer present, doesn’t move from the past to the more distant past. — ucarr

I see absolutely no reason to believe that the present moves, or changes in any way. The present is always the division between past and future, so clearly it does not change. And, movement, motion, is an observed property of physical things, relative to each other. We do not observe any such movement with respect to the present. You are simply assuming that the present is something moving through a static medium, "time", but this is a faulty representation, because what is actually moving is time itself. Imagine a membrane, a filter or something like that, and a substance is being forced through that membrane, and this results in a change to the substance. The membrane represents "the present", and the substance being forced through is time, being forced from future to past.

*The empirical present... — ucarr

As I explained, there is no such thing as the empirical present. Sensation is of the past, and anticipation is of the future. The two might be united in experience, but this does not produce an "empirical present", it produces a theoretical present. And, as I made great effort to explain to you, our theoretical present is inaccurate.

If you're saying Jan 4 progressing in time toward Jan 5... — ucarr

This is what your model would say, the model which puts the past as prior to the future. It would say that the past Jan 4 progresses toward the future, Jan 5. The rest of that passage makes no sense.

You haven't shown time independent of the animation of material objects because your supporting example, a thought experiment based upon imagination, is not evidence. Logical possibility necessitating corresponding physics remains unproven. This lack of proof is memorialized in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. There are logical statements unproven by the rules that generate them, and there are physical systems unexplained logically. The scientific picture of the world is incomplete. — ucarr

You just asked for an example, not proof. I gave you an example, not proof. Please don't take it as an attempt at proof.

The time lag of experience rendered though the cognitive system has sentients experiencing the empirical present as a time-lagged older present relative to an ever-updating numerical present, an abstraction. This is evidence abstract thought is emergent from memory. Abstract thought emergent from memory is evidence the ever-updating numerical present is about time_future not yet extant. Since time_future is grounded in memory, this is evidence time_future is not an existentially independent reality standing apart from phenomena, but rather a component of a complex memory phenomenon. — ucarr

This is very wrong. "Future" cannot be grounded in memory. Memory applies only toward what has happened, the past. There are no memories of the future. "Future" is grounded in our apprehension of possibilities and anticipation of things to come, not memories of things past.

Now, going back to how we relate to events, we understand that the possibility for an event must always precede the actual occurrence of that event. This implies that the event, exists as a possibility, in the future, prior to its actual existence. as the event moves into the past. Since it is the case, with all physical events, that the possibility of the event must be prior in time to the actual occurrence of the event, this is very clear evidence, "proof" I might say, that the future of every event, is prior in time to its past.

Time is not on its own, i.e. not independent, for two reasons: a) time_future is an emergent property of a complex memory phenomenon; it is tied to the material animation of memory; b) time experienced empirically as the updating present is itself a physical phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be independent of itself. Relativity is a theory of physics; it is not a theory of abstract thought falsely conventionalized as immaterial. — ucarr

Human experience consists of both memory of the past, and anticipation of the future. You are focusing on "memory" while completely ignoring anticipation, so your representation is woefully inadequate.

Time experienced as the updating present is the empirical present ever moving forward within a physically real phenomenon. This movement from the present to a newer present posits an arrow of time from present to newer present. It also posits an arrow of entropy from the present state of order to a lesser state of order. Both arrows move toward a newer state. — ucarr

Again, you are simply representing time as static, with the present moving through time. This is what I argue is the bad (unreal) representation. Any complete analysis, as I am working at, will reveal that time is really active, and "the present" is just the way that we conceptualize this activity.

Since time, being itself a phenomenon, is not prior to other phenomena, its progression is therefore contemporary with the animate phenomena it tracks numerically. — ucarr

This is no progression of time in your representation, only a movement of the present to a newer present. But if the present moves this way, along the time line, or however you conceive it, something must move it, a cause, or force which propels the present along the line. But it should be obvious to you that there is no such activity as the present being propelled along a line. The real activity is the future becoming the past, and this is simply modeled as the present being propelled down a line. Of course that model is obviously wrong because the idea that there is a force in the world propelling the present down a line, is simply unintelligible, incoherent. What is really the case, is that there is a force which causes possibilities to actualize as time passes. This is very obvious, and this is the future (possibilities) becoming the past (actualities)..

See above for my counter-narrative to your premise time is prior to the phenomena (events) it tracks numerically. — ucarr

You have provided no counter-argument, only the assertion, which I agree to, that my example is not proof. It's just an example.

Since the start of time takes time, there is no extant time without a past. — ucarr

This is self-contradicting. If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past. Your claim that "the start of time takes time" is contradictory, implying that there is time prior to the start of time implying that time is already required for time to start. This is clearly wrong, all that is required is a future, and along with that the impetus which causes it to become past.

.

You seem to be separating time from occurrence of events. — ucarr

Exactly.

I think all occurrences of events happen in time. — ucarr

I agree, and we can conclude that time is required for events. This means that time is logically prior to events, but not vise versa.

Following this line of reasoning that keeps time paired with events... — ucarr

This is faulty logic. That all events happen in time implies that time is required for events, but it does not imply that events are required for time.

If your argument is predicated upon the premise events occur outside of time (which includes dates) - and that appears to be the case - then it is obviously false. — ucarr

Why would you think this, when I've been arguing the exact opposite? I have been saying that time can pass without an event occurring. You did not like my example, saying that it doesn't prove this claim. It was not meant to prove the claim, only to support it by showing that it is logically possible for there to be time passing with no events occurring.