It is the archive of the OP. — Corvus

Well, no. It's the OP. It was written in the past. There is a past in which it was written. There is perhaps a future in which you read this post. End of story, really.

Well, no. It's the OP. It was written in the past. There is a past in which it was written. There is perhaps a future in which you read this post. — Banno

Here you seem to be talking about the past event, which has passed. It is not the OP, and it is not time in general you are talking about here. Some past events keep exist as archives. We are now seeing the archives of the past event when seeing the OP.

End of story, really. — Banno

Events pass into past, and exists as archives of the events. But the event itself doesn't exist.

Past existed in the past, but it doesn't exist now. Does it? Saying past exists sounds language with no tense knowledge. We are not denying past didn't exist. It existed. Where did it exist? In the past, and in memories. But does it exist now and reality? — Corvus

Have you considered that it is simply another dimension? A dimension where there is no present. And that is precisely why we cannot perceive it. Since consciousness only lives in the present. But we cannot say that it has no content, nor that it has no truths.

Your error is to equate experience (perception?) with existence, or something along those lines.

The Op was written in the past. Therefore there is a past for it to be written in.

The Op was written in the past. Therefore there is a past for it to be written in. — Banno

It existed in the past. But now it exists as an archive. No equating here. Just showing you the change has taken place with the existence. It exists as a different form now. Existence in the past is not the same existence as existence the now.

It existed in the past. — Corvus

Well, no. The OP was written in the past. It still exists.

Perhaps you might try setting out what you means by "exists".

Perhaps you might try setting out what you means by "exists". — Banno

Perhaps the OP existence is not a good example. OK, let us suppose, Banno was born 50 year ago.
The birth of Banno was an event in the past which doesn't exist now. But Banno exists now.
These are different nature of existences. Banno when just born is not the same Banno as now. The Banno just born 50 year ago doesn't exist now. The event of the birth existed in the past.

Can anything from the past coexist with the stuff in the present?

What do you think? Give us some examples for such existences please. Thanks.

Have you considered that it is simply another dimension? A dimension where there is no present. And that is precisely why we cannot perceive it. Since consciousness only lives in the present. But we cannot say that it has no content, nor that it has no truths. — JuanZu

I would think that you can add as many dimensions you would like, because they in the level of conceptual domain when you are thinking in dimensions. However, I would think present should be always present in the dimension to make sense and be realistic, unless it is in the world of possibilities, or abstract arts and postmodernist novels.

What do you think? Give us some examples for such existences please. Thanks. — Corvus

Well, didn't you say the Banno from the past is different from the Banno in the present? So they couldn't be in the same room at the same time, right? They have to be separate?

Well, didn't you say the Banno from the past is different from the Banno in the present? So they couldn't be in the same room at the same time, right? They have to be separate? — frank

They don't need to be separate to be different. They are different Banno in time, not in identity.

They are different Banno in time, not in identity. — Corvus

So they aren't actually different.

So they aren't actually different. — frank

I believe so. Banno cannot be a baby 50 year ago, and at the same time Banno, a bloke who does gardening and drinking beer in the pub with his pals now.

So they aren't actually different. — frank

The OP is the same case. The OP when created 10 days ago, is not the same OP the now which caused 400+ replies in the thread.

Somehow Banno seems to think what happened in the past is the exact same thing that exists now. I have been saying they are different.

So they're the same, but they're not the same?

They are the same identity, but in different state.

Some past beings don't exist at present for sure. Socrates existed in the past, but doesn't exist now. Most of humans existing now, will not exist in 100 years from now.

What is the nature of identity?

That sounds like a large topic of its own. If you would open a new topic with it, I would follow it through.

That sounds like a large topic of its own. If you would open a new topic with it, I would follow it through. — Corvus

That's ok. I've thought a lot about time and identity. Just wondering what your thoughts were. :up:

would think that you can add as many dimensions you would like, — Corvus

Can you give me an example of another dimension of time other than the past or the future?

The birth of Banno was an event in the past which doesn't exist now. — Corvus

It's far from clear how to make sense of this. It is true that I was born in the past. If banno's birth is an event in the past then there are events in the past and hence there is a past.

Nor is it clear how my existing now is different to the way in which I existed fifty years ago. I grew forma. young man into an older, wiser one, perhaps, but how is that a change in my "mode of being", or whatever obtuse term one might choose.

The Banno just born 50 year ago doesn't exist now. — Corvus

Well, it was more than fifty years, but I am still here.

Seems to me that the more you say, the more confused your position becomes.

Some languages have two verbs that mean "to be.". One is for matters of identity, and the other is for transient states. That probably affects the way those speakers think. Spanish is like that.

"is" in English has three interpretations in first order logic: Quantification, equivalence and predication.

That's one of the problems here - it is very unclear how one is to make sense of @Corvus's "time does not exist".

End of story, really. — Banno

So, in your view, "End of story, really." is a legit thing to say, but "End of History" somehow is not?

So, in your view, "End of story, really." is a legit thing to say, but "End of History" somehow is not? — Arcane Sandwich

A good question. :up:

Thank you, Sir.

↪frank
"is" in English has three interpretations in first order logic: Quantification, equivalence and predication. — Banno

There's arguably a fourth one: the "is" of composition, according to some people.
EDIT: And a fifth one: the "is" of constitution, according to some other people.

Consciousness is a weird thing. I wouldn't be so surprised if it experienced a static structure as moving, especially if the structure is a smooth sequence. As the ontologist Dua Lipa sings, "Illusion, I really like the way you're movin".