The species includes the individual, the individual represents the species. — Pantagruel

Clearly, the species is an abstraction. It is not an entity of which the individual is a part. Evolution itself is evidence that this is the case, because there must be individuals which comprise the links between one species and the next when a new species evolves from an older one. These individuals who are between one species and another cannot truthfully be said be part of the one species or the other, though we might judge them as being one or the other just like we might make any dubious judgement in placing things in abstract categories. But what this indicates is that the species does not necessarily include the individual. And the species is just an abstract concept which we employ for judging things. There is no concrete entity referred to by the named species, like "human being". The named species refers to a category by which we classify things. "Human being" refers to an abstract category, just like the genus "mammal" is an abstract category, and "animal" is a category, and "living" is a category.

The facts of evolution and civilization seem to support the position that we are social animals. The very idea of an individual entity abstracted from its species and social context is meaningless. Language is entirely a social construct. — Pantagruel

I do not deny that we are social animals. Even insects can be described as social beings. However, I think you present a reversed and therefore untrue perspective of what is real and true, when you speak of "an individual entity abstracted from its species". Clearly, what is the case is that the "species" is an abstraction, nd individual beings are the true existent things. Otherwise, evolution would not be possible. Evolution relies on individual differences as its means of change, and without these particularities the generation of novel species would be impossible.

So the question of what type of construct language is, is much more complicated than it appears. Semiotics places language within the broader category of sign-systems, viewing language as one type of sign-system. When linguistic symbols are viewed as a type of sign, we are exposed to different possibilities as to the reason for existence of linguistic symbols, as there are many different possible uses for signs.

The idea that language is a "social construct" is what is really meaningless, because "social" refers only to an abstraction. There is nothing real in the world, which could be actively constructing a language, which might be called "the social". The closest we can get to a real thing called "social" is individual interactions between individual beings. This is why the concept of intersubjectivity is an over simplification which provides a faulty perspective, therefore producing a faulty attitude toward the reality of language.

Intersubjectivity starts with a generalization concerning human interactions, the idea that there is some concrete thing which can be referred to as 'the interaction'. But this is an abstraction. And, it then proposes that this abstraction is the real concrete aspect of the existing thing, such that there is a concrete thing called 'the interaction', which we can make propositions about. But this neglects the fact that each interaction is uniquely situated in unique circumstances, and uniquely guided by the individuals involved in the interaction, so that the abstraction which is based in similarity misses the true essence of the interaction as unique.

Instead of starting with the reality of fundamental differences between each and every unique human interaction, "intersubjectivity" starts from an assumption of similarity between interactions, the abstraction. But this assumption of similarity is itself a construct which is employed with the intent of negating the true reality that the fundamental character of human interactions is difference. (Check Derrida's deconstruction, and the revelation that the true nature of meaning lies in the complexity of difference rather than the artificial simplicity which is created through the appearance of similitude.) Therefore the founding premise of "intersubjectivity", and "social construct" is just a reflection of the individual's intent to simplify something which is really complex, by starting with an unsound abstraction ('the social'), rather than starting with the true uniqueness of the interactions between individual beings.

Keep in mind, Habermas' position is that the we are primarily intersubjective or social beings, so he doesn't need to explain that, it is fundamental to our makeup. This is a common sociological stance. So when he says we have a "massively shared" lifeworld. He takes for granted these heuristics, which, by their nature hide "underneath" cognition. He also mentions that "reason" is called into play precisely where these heuristics break down. — Pantagruel

This is the perspective which I do not agree with, the one which takes intersubjectivity for granted. In my opinion intersubjectivity is not natural, but artificial. It is something which is created through willful effort and moral commitment.

So from my perspective reason is always being called into play, as we are always judging the norms. This is because the norms are generalities, universals, whereas we live in the particular. This means that we must constantly be judging which norms are applicable to the particular situation we find ourselves to be in. So as much as the heuristics may lighten the load in the majority of situations, none of these principles (if we can call them that) can be taken for granted, because circumstances are unique and rapidly changing such that the minority situations actual arise quite frequently, and this is when doubt appears. So reason is actually called upon quite often, pretty much all the time, as we continually judge the circumstances. And unless we have experience in the use of it we are thrust into anxiety and stress when it is called upon.

I can't agree there. Your two-octave vocal range is between one D and another D, yes. (Let's suppose.) But a melody spanning all or most of this range is no more likely to be in the key of D than in any other one of the 12 available keys. It might be, for example, Danny Boy, which (if I recall it accurately) you could sing only in G (starting on your low D) or in Ab or A or Bb. But not D. So your vocal range can't determine a preferred key or keys, without reference to a particular melody. You can't say, in general, "the key of D is best suited to my range". — bongo fury

I don't think it's an issue of spanning the range, it's an issue of how the tones within that range are employed. The key note, the tonic, is the note which provides resolution to a musical phrase. When there are two full octaves there are three distinct tonic notes, just like there are two tonic notes in one octave. This provides the composer with more opportunity for the approach to the resolving note. So for example, if a song was composed in the key of F, but was limited in availability of notes, to two octaves of D, then the composer could not approach the high F because it's out of range of available notes. Although the composer would be able to go below the lower F, down to the lower D and come back up to that F, the fact of having no access to the third (high) F would limited the composer's possibilities in a much more serious way by having a whole bunch of notes above the second F with no point of resolution up top.

By the way, I didn't say that the key of D is best suited to my range, I said that I tend to like songs in the key of D. This is probably because composers will tend to utilize that extra D note more often when composing in the key of D than when composing in some other key. When composing in another key, they might be heavily utilizing a note which is out of my range.

The original point I was making is that many human emotions and sensations can be ambiguous (For example “bittersweet”) but the measure of truth value of these things is not dependent on them being unambiguous such as in scientific method where ambiguity must be removed and concepts objectified and measured. Science only goes so far in measuring truth value/ the trueness of things whilst other forms of human discipline are necessary to comprehend or measure other forms of truth. Mostly being relative. — Benj96

I do not see how you believe to have made this point. All you are doing is asserting that there must be a truth about emotions and sensations which is independent from, and exists regardless of our ambiguous interpretations of them, without providing any principles to substantiate this claim. You claim that there is a real true emotion which is felt, independently of the person's ambiguous interpretation of the emotion. How is this possible, that the person has a "true" emotion or feeling independent of the confused and ambiguous emotion or feeling that the person experiences? You need to back up your claim, rather than just insist on the truth of it. And, it is in this justification that we will find ambiguity.

I have no idea what you could possibly mean by "other forms of truth" which are "relative". If you are not talking about being true in the sense of being honest, then what are you talking about? I think that you are just proposing "other forms of truth" as a means to back up your supposition that truth can be ambiguous, but it seems to me that you don't even have any idea yourself, what you could be talking about.

Your depth of understanding of my statement “emotions and feelings are true to the person who has them” is rather hollow. — Benj96

Yes, I see this as an incoherent statement, because clearly emotions and feelings are mixed up, confused and ambiguous, conflating elements of the conscious with the subconscious, and I do not see what could possibly make one emotion true, and another false.

But, in general, norms in Habermas' discourse theory function as heuristics to reduce cognitive load — Pantagruel

"Heuristics to reduce cognitive load"? This appears as self-contradictory. Heuristics, by their nature, seem to be a cognitive load. Are you saying, that norms are habits, so that we do certain things without having to think consciously about these things, thereby reducing the cognitive load?

The problem here would be that this seems to take the norms for granted, and doesn't respect the action required to learn them. This learning action itself is a cognitive load, and it shapes the conscious mind in ways which produce an attitude toward the learning of the norms. So for instance one person might develop the attitude that the norms are great, and the best thing for freeing the conscious mind, while another person might develop the attitude that learning all these norms is a constraint to the free mind, and a big waste of time.

Ah but this very common claim of singers has always bemused me. Is there an assumption that melodies are generally bounded above and below by a key (or "home") note? (E.g. that the lowest and highest notes of a melody in D are probably a D and a higher D?) Or by some other particular step in the scale, a certain distance from home? Otherwise, how on earth is the choice of key supposed to determine how comfortably your range will contain both of the (and any) melody's bounds? — bongo fury

Since I could somewhat accurately hit a high D, I attempted a low D, to get two full octaves of range. The low D is a bit difficult, and I might have done better to try for the higher E to get my two octave range, but I didn't. In any case, D is the only key that I can get two full octaves, and this is why I like it.

Practical reason (or what Mead calls "value rational") isn't ambiguous. In fact, practical reason is intended to function because it does disambiguate and allow us to be guided by norms and conventions, even when a purely utilitarian calculus might fail. The most important truths on this view are the ones we reach through discursive collaboration. — Pantagruel

It seems to me like there is ambiguity within norms and conventions, by the very nature of what these things are. For example, the variety of answers Plato got when asking in The Republic, what is "just".

Are you sure of this? Is something that changes or has a bivalency/ multiple facets any less true than something that stays singular/ the same/identical or unchanging? — Benj96

Ambiguity is not a matter of changing, it is a matter of being different things at the same time.

Sure for the concretisation of scientific facts and observations, we take truth to be the most objective, consistent, most measurable and repeatable things but the issue is.... one must accept that personal views, emotions and feelings are true to the person who has them. Even demonstrable. That is to say they exist and are true relative to certain beings/ things/ locations in space or perspectives and cannot be proven repeatably by the convention of science. — Benj96

Then you are defining "true" in relation to honesty. Many people are not honest about their emotions and feelings. Furthermore, most people do not even adequately understand their emotions and feelings, and when this is the case they cannot possibly know the truth about their emotions and feelings. So your statement "emotions and feelings are true to the person who has them" is rather hollow.

I can't say that I'm familiar with Habermas, but if everyday language is supposed to be the best meta-language, how do we approach ontology? Is there a correct (true) way to describe the world, or is the best way the one which is understood by the most people? The latter would be the way supported by "everyday language", but it would also be the most ambiguous way. Ambiguity is a feature of universal understanding. Truth cannot be grounded in ambiguity, so this approach seems to lead us away from the possibility of any ontological truth.

There is really no such thing as "the right words", there are many options and one might seek the best. Or, a person might just allow whatever rolls off the tip of one's tongue. How we manufacture the capacity to communicate is through conformity, uniformity, and standardization in education.

It's the way I get things straight in my mind and a reflection of my core Philosophy:

"Reality" is the product of an electroMechanical d/Duality
Caused by properties of reluctance, Resistance and reactance.

c/C\creation I leave to g/G\g's AND individual Choice OR fW

Within it there are only 2 options open to any e\Entity/e:
move up/ \down in energy
OR back- +forth in spaCetime — Chris1952Engineer

If all activities are describable as changes of energy, what accounts for the difference between electro and Mechanical?

I am embarked on a mission to try and acquire the musical version of the enhancement. Anyone with an interest in such attempts, active or theoretical, current or lapsed, is welcome to share their observations here. — bongo fury

I would think that perfect pitch could be acquired by exercising the extremes of your vocal range. Once you determine what the note is at the very limit of your vocal range, either high or low, you can repeat that note, as the limit to your capacity, and know that it is the note which you have determine is your limit. Mine seems to be around D, both high and low. Though I haven't worked on it to the extent required to acquire perfect pitch, I have an affinity for songs in a key of D, and can often recognize them as playing at the extent of my vocal range. Once you can produce a specific note on demand, the rest is a matter of learning the intervals, musical training.

But you wouldn't want to understate the importance (for composing and improvising, at least) of developing the ability to play by ear, would you? Isn't that what the ear training is for? — bongo fury

Playing by ear does not really require perfect pitch because the same tune can be payed by ear in any pitch. The problem though, is that if you sing a song, and start on a note which is inappropriate for your vocal range, you'll find that the song might go outside your range, and by then you are in the middle of singing the song. This is where perfect pitch and knowing your vocal range, is very helpful. to make the quick decision required of what pitch to start the song on. It's convenient for Christmas carolers to have someone with perfect pitch for the lead in.

If meanings were in the words we’d understand a foreign language as soon as we heard it. Meaning is generated within. — NOS4A2

If meaning is something which needs to be interpreted, then this is not necessarily true.

Here's an illustration that contains the main point. Current (in natural units) here flows left to right not because the system exhibits an electric field across itself but purely because of the *chemical potential difference* between the source and sink. The electron source on the left has electrons filling energy levels higher than on the right, thus electrons move to the right, thus a current. If the source and sink levels were equalised, no current would flow (or, as is described by quantum transport theory, no *net* current will flow). If the sink level was higher than the source, electrons would move from right to left. — Kenosha Kid

This is the point I made way back at the beginning of the thread, about radiant energy. The hot will only radiate to the cold, because of that disequilibrium, and reversal is not possible. But this is just a feature of how we understand that activity which is radiant energy. It is an epistemological feature which makes the idea of radiating energy into empty space somewhat incoherent, and it makes what is referred to as spontaneous emission, unintelligible, as random. But it is folly to say that the energy knows where it is going, because what is really the case is that we only understand radiation through its absorption; so the idea of radiation which appears like it does not know where it is going is something we haven't learned how to grasp yet, and is therefore unintelligible to us.

Hey Chris, why do you write in such a strange way? I find it kind of distracting, making it difficult to read some of your longer posts.

What Wittgenstein demonstrates with the so-called private language argument is that words do not refer to internal objects. Though this is an important refutation of Platonic realism, which shows us something important about meaning, it does not demonstrate that a private language is impossible, as some conclude. That conclusion requires equivocation.

You would understand yourself. That seems to be to a large extent reality. — Andrew4Handel

Yes a person will use language to communicate with oneself. This is especially true of written language, we communicate with ourselves at a later time, so that the language acts as a memory aid. We write things down to serve as reminders at a later time. Consider taking notes in a lecture. Banno is swayed by the so-called private language argument, refusing to accept the fact that this is an argument by equivocation.

Generally, there are laws against child labour. I guess the entertainment industry is afforded some exceptions.

I agree that the mathematics required to deal with virtually anything, can be discovered. The question for me though, is how real are the things which are inferred from these mathematical solutions. It seems like we now have a whole class of things, like non-local fields, multiverses, dark matter, dark energy, etc., whose existence is inferred from the mathematics, but to me an existence which is highly doubtful. This is why I am very skeptical of the mathematical axioms, and the principles of physics, which are employed. Regardless of the problem which the mathematics solves, if it just creates another problem, it is not an adequate solution.

but do not ask what the comma itself means - it means nothing. — unenlightened

This claim is very suspicious. If a comma doesn't have meaning, then individual letters don't have any meaning either. And if letters don't have meaning then words don't have meaning unless words are a case of creating something from nothing. But I suggest that a comma really does have meaning, just like a letter has meaning, words have meaning, all symbols have meaning, and arrangements of symbols have meaning. Or is it your point that the meaning is in the arrangement, not in the symbol itself?

Novels, painting, sculpture, opera, poetry, dance, music--all the arts--have become vastly more available to billions of people than they were before high speed printing, photography, motion film, radio, and television came along. What art hasn't been affected by this? — Bitter Crank

I agree, this is a situation which has greatly devalued art. But there is a further problem associated with this flooding of the art market through the modern media facilitation. We no longer have a good source for principles to distinguish quality artwork, to train us in the difference between good and bad in art. So not only are our senses overwhelmed with art everywhere, so much so that the presence of advertising overwhelms some people, but we are also greatly deficient in the capacity to distinguish which is good art and which is bad. Plato is often criticized for his assertions of a need to censor artists, but it appear to be getting to the point in the modern world, where censorship will become a necessity, as art escapes from the art community (where it is produced by trained artists), into the global community (where it is produced by everyone).

What a garbled mess this thread has become. — jgill

A true reflection of quantum physics.

It seems abundantly clear that the wheels of democracy will in fact grind Trump out of office come 20th Jan. — Wayfarer

Trump seems to be losing more than the election. The question is not how long till he's out of office, but how long until he's committed to a mental institution.

A distance of 2 miles is counted from a point which is designated as 0. This 0 is followed by a 1 mile mark and then a 2 mile mark. When you start walking from 0 along this distance, mile 1 is the first mile and mile 2 is the second mile. — TheMadFool

Sure, but that's completely arbitrary. Someone else could switch the 0 marker and the 2 marker, to reverse this, or place the 0 in any random place and start measurement there. There is nothing within the concept of "space" which can give you a principle of priority by which to designate one area of space as first, and the other as second. You do this solely through a personal preference.

I wouldn't say subjective because it seems to give the wrong impression that one is wrong because there's no objectivity in it. The correct word, in my opinion, is "relative". What's closer or farther is matter of one's location in space but that doesn't mean close and far aren't spatial concepts. Their definitions, as you already know, are in terms of how short/long the distance between you and things are. — TheMadFool

That's your opinion. My opinion is that it is wrong to assign "first" and "second" in a completely arbitrary and subjective manner when time gives us the principles for an objective designation of first and second. This would be like if you were claiming that stealing is "good", because it's good from your perspective. You might argue that ethical principles are "relative" and so you are completely justified in saying that stealing is good, but I think that there are accepted ethical principles which make it wrong for you to use "good" in that way. Likewise, I think it is wrong for you to use "first" and "second" according to your own spatial perspective, when there are accepted temporal principles which make it wrong for you to use them in that way.

Why would you think it's acceptable for you to label two things as first and second, when it's very obvious that if someone else applied the very same principle they would be labeled in the exact opposite? This is the issue with terms like "right" and "left". We have to clarify by saying on my right, or on your left, etc.. But we do not have that problem with first and second, because these are terms of temporal priority, so first and second are the same for both of us. Why are you inclined to remove the clarity from these terms of priority, and assign to them ambiguity? I think that is wrong

Here you're conflating the absolute/relative with subjectivity/objectivity. X's position and his spatial relations are relative in the sense they depend on his location in space and not subjective in the sense it's just a matter of opinion no matter where X is. The concept of space that X forms in his mind is objective in the sense that it exists for everyone and everything though it's true that the spatial relations within space are relative. — TheMadFool

No, it really is just a matter of opinion. That one thing is closer to you than another does not provide the priority required to call the thing "first". There is no reason why the further thing ought not be designated "first". It is simply your opinion, that because the thing is closer to you, it has some sort of priority over the further thing, so you want to call it "first". But in reality, that the closer thing has priority over the further thing, which is what is required to justify your opinion, is just a matter of personal preference. There is no spatial principle which dictates that a closer thing is prior to a further thing. Therefore you are just claiming this as a personal opinion.

By dependable I mean to emphasize the regularity, the essence of an objectively measurable length of time which then becomes the basis of a unit of time which in turn becomes the basis of sequencing time itself in regular intervals. The rotation of the earth takes approximately 24 hours and this is the basis for the unit of time we all know as a day. The future can be sequenced in terms of days. There's no necessity for the future to be real to sequence/count it. We simply decide, based on the unit of time that seems relevant to the events that we're expecting, to sequence it numerically. — TheMadFool

The problem here is that time can only be measured as it passes. That's what a clock does, it measures time as it passes. I do not deny that you can project into the future, and talk about an hour of time, or a day, in the future, but I stress to you, that these are imaginary durations of time, and they cannot actually be measured because they're in the future. A period of time in the past, has already been measured. Do you see the difference?

So if you want to make a sequence of imaginary periods of time in the future, that's fine, but how are you proposing to relate these periods of imaginary time which cannot actually be measured because they're in the future, to the real, measured periods of time in the past? Notice that you cannot measure these imaginary (future) periods so anything you do with them is completely speculative unless you can establish some sort of relationship between the real measured time of the past, and the imaginary speculative time of the future.

Imagine this. Suppose there are two events that are part of our future: both events are chemical reactions and event 1 is a chemical reaction that takes 1 minute to complete at which point a certain container of chemicals will change color to red, and event 2 is another chemical reaction that takes 2 minutes to complete and when that's done, a container of chemicals will change color to green. — TheMadFool

I do not accept this talk about events in the future. All events occur at the present, so it makes no sense to talk about events which are in the future. Whatever it is which is in the future, which causes events at the present, cannot be called "events" because events do not exist in the future.

Obviously the colors red and green in the container of chemicals are in the future at time 0 but you can sequence them as the first color you'll see is red and then only, second, you'll see green. — TheMadFool

No, I don't think so. The chemicals are not red and green in the future. They will be red and green after the respective events take place, but it is wrong to say that they are red and green in the future. Do you understand the difference between "will be", and "are". The fact that something will predictably be red in the future, does not justify the grammatically incorrect proposition "it is red in the future".

As I've explained, this sequencing you are talking about, of future things, is a sequencing of imaginary things, which have no existence. And, when you say "the first color you'll see is red and then only, second, you'll see green", you are talking about what the person will see as it occurs at the present. You are not talking about how things exist in the future, but how things will be at the present, in a future time. So you're really not sequencing future things at all. You are talking about a sequence of things which will occur at the present, not a sequence of things which exist in the future.

Based upon their replies, I am now considering the possibility of continuing to create music just for the music's sake, and not for the need of recognition. This is a difficult adjustment for me to make, because I respect and economize my time enormously.
To quote Muhammad Ali: "Live everyday as if it were your last because someday you're going to be right." — TheQuestioner

I think that this is an excellent idea. Take some time and just enjoy creating music. When you create something beautiful, the time is well spent, and you will know it, solely from the beauty of the thing created, regardless of who recognizes it, or whatever else you could be doing with your time.

I checked, and 1 mile means the first mile spatially - the 1 means the first length that's 1 mile long and mile 2 is the second length that's again 1 mile long, again spatially. — TheMadFool

If you have two spatial lengths of one mile, there is no spatial principle which makes one of them the first, and the other the second. To say that one is closer to you is not a spatial principle, it is a subjective principle. It is a principle which gives you priority, the right to determine first and second from your personal perspective. But then such determinations are not objective and therefore cannot be any part of an objective concept of space. That is why it is not a spatial principle by which you designate first and second, but a subjective principle.

While I can't confirm your claim, I'll admit that I sympathize with it. I suppose that makes me a time absolutist like Newton but then we have this mountain of evidence gathered from relativity experiments that contradict your position and my intuitions on the matter for what they're worth. FYI, even if time is objective in the sense that there's, what you call a NOW, the alleged real beginning, it doesn't matter to X's conceptualization of time for however much time has passed since that beginning, the change in the condition of the apple occurs in a duration that he actually experiences in those days by the tree. — TheMadFool

As you see, I totally agree with your description of X conceptualizing time through the use of the concept of order, first and second. What I don't agree with is that one could make a conception of order through space alone. Take the Fibonacci spiral for example. This is the spatial representation of a numerical sequence. This appears like a totally spatial order, but it really is not, because it requires a very specific beginning. And the beginning, being 0; cannot be represented spatially.

You mean to say that the earth will not rotate on its axis or that the moon will stop revolving around the earth or that the earth will not go around the sun if it's in the future? These are the phenomena, fairly dependable I should say, on which a day, a month and a year are defined. If they will occur, there's a certain rhythm, a period, and these periods are days, months, years, all sequenceable i.e. we can assign numbers to them. I won't discuss this anymore. Thank you. — TheMadFool

Dependability does not give you a countable thing. For example, I might know that the bus will be there in the morning, for me to step on. This is very dependable. But I cannot count the stepping on to the bus, as an instance of stepping on to the bus, until after it occurs. Likewise, regardless of how the calendar numbers the days, we really cannot count them until after they have occurred.

An order in time that exists in the future will persist through the present and into the past i.e. given two events x and y, if x is before y in the future, x will be before y in the present and x has to be before y in the past also. — TheMadFool

I can't see how you can say that an order of time exists in the future. There can be no order of events, unless the events have actually occurred. Otherwise you are just talking about an imaginary ordering of imaginary events. And, since the past consists of actual events which have an actual order, we cannot make an order through future into past, or vise versa, because one consists of real events and the other of imaginary events.

That's quite an achievement, to be a very successful composer. I believe composing takes a lot of hard work and dedication. Despite the comments you sometimes hear, such as, 'I wrote that song in fifteen minutes', there is probably many more than fifteen minutes of frustrated time, when progress is not being made. Maybe this is why there are other ways you would rather spend your time.

I have no aspirations for it to provide any monetary compensation or recognition whatsoever. I just enjoy doing it. — TheQuestioner

What more can i say? You enjoy doing it.

Unfortunately, I don't fall into that category. If I spend weeks creating music that will not receive any recognition, then I feel like I am wasting my time. — TheQuestioner

Uh oh, something's amiss here. Don't you have at least some family, or close friends that you could play the music to?

But here's another thing you should consider. When you're writing a piece of music, don't you get personal satisfaction when the piece comes together? You know, first you come up with a riff, melody, or progression which you like, and this makes you feel good, because you know it's good, and you like it. But that one part is not enough to make a complete piece, so you need to come up with more parts, and piece them together. When it all comes together, and you know that it's a completed piece, and you know that it's good, doesn't this make you feel really good?

To each his own.

If I am given the following three choices of how I will spend my time, I will select #2 and #3 over #1.
1. Create music that few people will hear.
2. Win an online poker tournament.
3. Create a website that is used by thousands of people.

It has nothing to do with the monetary compensation. It is the feeling of accomplishment (and ecstasy, when I win an online poker tournament) that each choice provides, in return for the work that was necessary to perform that choice.

I am not trying to discourage budding composers. If you choose to spend your time creating music, knowing that you will probably never achieve any success or recognition, then go for it. — TheQuestioner

I see, you're probably not a composer at heart. Is it the case, that when you compose a piece of music, you don't really believe it is very good, therefore it does not make you feel good. Do you think that you are not a very good composer, and this is why you believe composing music wastes your time?

I worded that wrongly. Do forgive the unnecessary diversion. I meant to say that as it is temporally sequenced, it is also spatially sequenced. That's all and that possibility - spatial sequence - being alive and kicking in the scenario I described and space being a more immediate experience - it's kinda in your face, or, if you prefer, sticks out like a sore thumb - and thus, space being more noticeable than time, I suggested that X, if he's the one riding along that road, would feel no necessity for looking at the temporal aspect of his journey. That's what you seem to be ignoring. — TheMadFool

I wonder whether "spatial sequence" has any really meaning, or is it just a misnomer? If you had one, two, three, four or more distinct things with spatial separation between them, what would make you think that they form a sequence? I can see how one might say that they make a spatial pattern, but what aspects of the pattern would make you say that it is a sequence, if you are not inferring a temporal order to the things?

Space might be "in your face", but time is in your body. That's why I say time is more immediate, you don't even need external senses to apprehend its passing.

I suggested that X, if he's the one riding along that road, would feel no necessity for looking at the temporal aspect of his journey. That's what you seem to be ignoring. — TheMadFool

I do not see how X would would refer to one mile as the first mile, and the other mile as the second mile without looking at the temporal aspect of his journey. You seem to think that X might somehow look back on his journey, remove the temporal aspect of that journey, and then refer to one mile as the first and the other as the second. But I don't think that makes any sense. If X could really look at that journey without the temporal aspect, why would he be inclined to order one or the other as first?

If this doesn't convince you think of children...which concept do you think comes to them more readily - space or time? They seem to be able to handle space easily and before time, which has to be taught to them and, from my experience with my own daughter, clocks are a mystery to children. I'll say no more. Please reconsider your position on the matter. If you still find something wrong with what I'm saying, let's just agree to disagree. Thank you. — TheMadFool

Understanding the human concept of time, or space, is completely different from apprehending the thing's existence. I think children apprehend time long before they apprehend space. Time is something very real and concrete to them, as they learn to wait to be fed, and they are given mealtimes, and bedtimes etc.. Space is very abstract. Sure, they recognize that there is distance between them and others, but is this really apprehending "space", as being made to wait is apprehending "time"?

s far as I can tell, you're conflating the notions of arbitrary with relativity. All sequences must be/are relative in the sense that we can choose an origin, the beginning, the start and that beginning, start or point of origin can be anywhere in space. Arbitrariness has a connotation - that of being false/mistaken in some sense - that isn't applicable in the context of my post. — TheMadFool

My argument is that a temporal sequence is not arbitrary, that's the point. There is a real "now" which serves as the objective start, and this makes the true sequence not arbitrary. To the contrary, your assumption of a spatial sequence is simply false/mistaken, because there is no spatial principle which allows you to order first and second. Therefore you are claiming that there is such a thing as first and second, justified completely by spatial reference, but this is a false proposition.

Where is the confusion in two trees being separated by a distance in space and two states of a fruit being separated by a duration? — TheMadFool

The confusion is in you naming the trees first and second, and asserting that this designation is done completely through spatial reference, without reference to time.

Imagine today is 1 Jan 2021. The day following that is 2 Jan 2021 and the day following that is 3 Jan 2021, and so on and so forth. First things first, we have to agree on the sequence/order of the dates: basically, we have to concur that if dates are given a numerical sequence then they will be experienced in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...and so on. Said differently, the date 1 Jan 2021 comes before the date 2 Jan 2021 and that date comes before 3 Jan 2021... Are we on the same page here? — TheMadFool

No, we're not on the same page at all, you're missing the point. If today is Jan 1 2021, then Jan 2 2021 is not existent, it has not yet happened, and therefore it is not a day which can be counted. The only days which can be counted are the days of the past, the real days which have occurred. So we start with Jan1, and since it is present, not completed we can assign 0 to it, as the starting point. After this, is the first day which has occurred, Dec 31 and the second, Dec 30, etc.. Therefore in our ordering of the days, Jan 1 2021 is prior to Dec 31 2020.

Let's assume that there are imaginary future days, as you suggest, Jan 2, Jan 3, etc.. Since our count of real existent days extends from the present (0), in one direction, into the past, we can count from the present into the future, imaginary days, by assigning -1 to Jan 2, -2 to Jan3, etc. This way we have a consistent way of counting days which recognizes the difference between past days and future days, the future days being imaginary, non-existent things.

If we are then imagine now that you're living through the month of January 2021. A few days go by and you've now arrived at the date 4 Jan 2021. What date was before 4 Jan 2021? Pause a bit and go back to what we've agreed on viz. the sequence of dates and that Jan 1 2021 comes before 2 Jan 2021 and that comes before 3 Jan 2021 and this date (3 Jan 2021) comes before 4 Jan 2021. You have to answer the question "what date was before 4 Jan 2021?" with "3 Jan 2021" but 3 Jan 2021 is in the past and, as we've found out, it's perfectly reasonable to refer to 3 Jan 2021 as the date before 4 Jan 2021. The bottom line is this: given a sequence of numbers, and dates are that, you have to ask yourself "what comes before a date x?" Surely, the date x - 1, right? But, this is obvious, the date x - 1 is in the past. — TheMadFool

See, your way of sequencing the days, described here is faulty, because it does not allow for the difference between past days which have really happened, and future days which are completely imaginary. And you cannot say that you rely on this faulty sequencing method because we do not have the means to distinguish between real days and imaginary days, in our count, because we do. As I described, we count real things which we have (the days of the past) with the use of positive numbers, and we count imaginary things, which we do not have (the days of the future) with negative numbers.

My point is that you order the events that will occur - those that are in the future - by assigning them ordinal numbers such as first, second, third, and so on. If ordered thus, it's obvious that you'll experience the said events in the sequence first, second, third, and so on.. — TheMadFool

The problem is that future events are possible events, and the order which we assign to them is just the order that we think that they ought to occur in. There is no guarantee that they will pass in the order given, and something or someone might act to change the order assigned. So we cannot truthfully say that we will experience the events in the sequence we've created, it's only a possibility.

Allowing that these events are experienced, let them flow through the present into the past and suppose that you're now at the fourth event. At this point ask yourself, "what event occurred before this moment, this moment when I'm experiencing the fourth event?" Obviously, the answer is the third event which we know is in the past. In short, it's ok to refer to the past with the word "before". — TheMadFool

Now you have four events which you have experienced. You agreed with me that the future is before the past. So, when we turn around from the future to look at these four events in the past, isn't it obvious to you that the most recent event is closer to the future and ought to be ordered as before the less recent?

I suggest that the only reason you are inclined to say that the events further back in time are before the others is that you adhere to the convention of a linear time, which stretches from the past, through the present and into the future. My argument is that this is a mistaken model of time because it does not properly account for the difference between future and past

You mean to say that calendars are bogus? People seem to plan events with calendars and excepting the odd contingency, their plans seem fairly well executed. I don't see how that's possible if the future weren't sequenced as you seem to be claiming. — TheMadFool

I wouldn't say that calendars are bogus, they are a convention of convenience. My argument is that such conventions of convenience can very often hide the truth when the reality of the matter is complex, and more difficult to understand, just like the convention of saying that the sun comes up and the sun goes down.

Too, your point was the future becomes the past. You'll have to explain to me how things changed so radically between the two that they're, as per your claims, no longer comparable in any sense of that word. To my reckoning, the sequence in which events occurred in the future must be preserved in the past and they are, right? :chin: — TheMadFool

Do you not recognize that the difference between the possibility of something, and the actual existence of something, is a radical difference? This is the difference between future and past. Notice that you must live with what has happened in the past. Whether you like the event which occurred or not, it cannot be changed and you must live with the consequences of it. However, a future event which appears unpleasant, you can take measures to avoid, and one which you desire you can attempt to make happen. This is a radical difference, and acknowledgement of that difference seems to permeate all of our living activities. The past ensures that you are what you are at the present, but the future allows you to change.

First and foremost, premise two is incorrect because Aquinas is contradicting his second argument: Argument for Efficient causes. Premise one states “We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world” (from the same link as above). Perceiving events is a type of knowledge. If we, as humans and “natural beings,” did not perceive events there would be an absence in our understanding, otherwise known as a lack of knowledge. Since this knowledge is fundamental to understanding causation, we must inherently have this knowledge in our natural state. So, premise two, most natural things lack knowledge, is false. (Or this premise could stand, but the rest of the argument would be false because the two premises are contradictory). — Mackensie

I have an issue similar to wayfarer's. I don't see how you can say that humans, as a specific type of natural beings who have knowledge, contradicts "most natural beings lack knowledge".

If what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something of intelligence, and this intelligent being is God and the unintelligent are humans, then one would assume that the goals hoping to be achieved would be virtuous. — Mackensie

I don't see why you think that Aquinas portrays humans as "unintelligent". This does not seem to be at all consistent with the way that I understand Aquinas, humans are intellectual beings.

This raises the questions of did God lead them to ruin, or did God let them exercise their free will, thus acting contradictory to premise three. — Mackensie

It does not contradict #3 because human beings are understood to have intelligence. But this intelligence is deficient in comparison to God's and that's why humans make the wrong decision sometimes.

Also prior in space. That's the point. If a particular event or phenomena can be contextualized in more than one way, there's no compulsion to think of alternatives. Space being a more immediate experience than time, if it were X that were riding his cycle on that road, X would've no need to consider the temporal aspect of his experience, space being a more familiar, a more direct, a more obvious notion. — TheMadFool

It is not "also prior in space", that's the point that you are not getting. The "first mile" is the one that you traverse first in time and is called "first" because of that. If, somehow your spatial existence allowed you to traverse the other mile, which was further away, first in time, then you would call that other mile the "first mile". But the nature of spatial-temporal existence does not allow you start at the furthest away mile, so the closer mile is called "first". But it is not called "first" because it is closer spatially, it is called "first" because it is closer temporally.

Further, I do not see how you can say that space is "a more immediate experience than time". We experience the passing of time internally, what Kant called the internal a priori intuition, while we apprehend space as external, so Kant designated it as the external a priori intuition. Being apprehended internally, while space is apprehended as external, indicates that time is more immediate than space

But, is there a spatial sequence as well with respect to the food counter? — TheMadFool

There is such a thing as a spatial sequence, but as I argued already, it is always arbitrary, being created from a subjective perspective. Defining your sequence as relative to the food counter is that arbitrary subjective perspective.

Here's some other examples. Consider the numbers between one and ten. The phrase "the numbers between one and ten" specifies no particular order, so you could give these numbers any order. We would commonly order them by the quantity signified. But ordering according to quantity does not stipulate whether we start at ten, and count down, or start at one and count up. This is the problem with spatial ordering, we can see a pattern in space, but nothing distinguishes the start from the end, except an arbitrary designation (the food counter in your example). Then, if we attempt to give reason for using that particular starting point, ask why is this the starting point rather than something else, objectify it, then we must refer to temporal relations. We start at one when we count because we need to have one (temporally prior) before we can have ten. You order relative to the food counter because that's where the person will be first in time to be served.

Here's another example to consider. Suppose we start at zero. We can count upward, into the positive integers, or we could count downward into the negative. You might think that counting forward and counting backward are the exact same thing, in reverse of one another, but there is a problem. Counting forward is to count some sort of actual things, things we have, while counting backward is to negate actual things. If we start at zero, and begin to negate things, we are negating things which we do not actually have. But then when we carry out operations, and multiply two negative numbers, and the convention is to have a positive number. Well that's a huge problem, we count things we do not actually have, multiply them together and come up with things we actually have. So the mathematicians have introduced imaginary numbers as an attempt to resolve this problem, but it doesn't really resolve the issue, which is the difference between counting things we have and things we do not have. It doesn't resolve the problem because it doesn't provide the temporal reference required to objectify the ordering.

To me, these ideas comes into play only once there's something to be objective/arbitrary about. — TheMadFool

There is something to be objective/arbitrary about, and that is your designation of "first" and "second", your ordering. In the op you named the one tree first, and the other tree second, thereby handing them an order. You seem to think that your ordering can be justified spatially, when I've been telling you that such an order with only spatial reference is completely arbitrary, so your use of first and second can only be justified (objectified) through reference to time.

First the notion of space needs to be apprehended... — TheMadFool

Sure, but confusing space and time, or conflating them together does not allow you to properly apprehend "the notion of space". You assign attributes of time (priority and order) to space, and you come up with a notion of space which is wrong, and therefore prevents you from proceeding.

The first mile was tough - the road was terrible, and it rained. We got our break on the second mile - the road was smooth, sunshine and fresh mountain air. — TheMadFool

How do you not see that first and second are a temporal reference in this example? The "first mile" is the one prior in time to the second mile.

Ok, if you want to go at it this way, what happens when more than one person arrive to join the queue at exactly the same moment. There's an ordering but it can't be temporal. — TheMadFool

It is temporal, because it's an ordering of who will get served first in time and second in time, and so on.

Once something is arbitrary, there really can't be a fault in it unless you insist on being objective. Spatial objectivity in the sense you seem to be interested in is impossible for positions in space as spatial positions are relative/arbitrary. — TheMadFool

This I agree with, and that is why we look to time for ordering, rather than space, it provides us with objectivity.

Just think back to a time when you had the pleasure of attending a series of events - remember to numerically sequence them (dates will do fine) - and ask yourself "what happened before <event>?" You'll see that the answer will be in terms of the numerical sequence even if they're in the past. — TheMadFool

As I said, I completely agree that this is the convention, and I will readily speak about such a sequence, and use "before" and "after" in this way, just like I will readily speak about the sun coming up and the sun going down. What I am saying is that I think that the convention is wrong.

It's pointless for you to keep insisting that this is the conventional use of "before" and "after", and trying to get me to recognize this fact, because I already fully recognize and accept that this is the convention. What you need to do is provide an argument concerning the nature of time which supports the convention, to show me that the convention is correct. I have already provided you with the counter argument. So like my analogy, if you really believe that it is the sun which comes up and goes down, as the conventional way of speaking says, then provide an argument for this, rather than just insisting that it is the convention.

Today is 10/11/2020. The following dates are in the future: 11/11/2020; 12/11/2020; 13/11/2020. Are you saying you don't know what the date will be tomorrow? :chin: — TheMadFool

No, I'm saying that past days have actual existence, as events which have actually occurred in the past, while future days have no actual existence, having not yet occurred. So future days ought not be put into a sequence with past days. Because of this fundamental difference between them, they need to be categorized separately. Would you categorize things which you have, with things which you want?

What I'm interested in is your theory of time. You said a couple of things - especially the part where you said that there has to be a future for there to be a past - that were very thought-provoking. I'd like to hear more of it if that's ok with you. — TheMadFool

OK, I'll try to stay on track, but the mind wanders.

If the future is necessary for there to be a past, there is an origin of time, but there cannot be an end of time. — Daniel

Right, and isn't this in concordance with your experience? The indication we get from science is that time had a beginning. And, time is still proceeding so definitely there is no end in time. The issue you seem to be questioning is whether or not an end in time is possible.

The ending of time could be described as a point in time with no future, as you said. However, if there is no future beyond this point, this point cannot ever become past, for it would require a point in time beyond itself to become such a thing. Anything that is past was present at some point in time. Therefore, for something to be present, it would also require the future. This point at the end of time would then not be able to ever be present without a future beyond it; that is, it would never exist. If there is an end of time, any point before that could not exist since there is no "ultimate" future that supports their existence. Therefore, if the future is required for the past to exist, there is an origin of time but there is not an end of time. What do you think? — Daniel

I think I agree with what you say here. It is consistent with my conclusion that the future is necessary. What I think is evident, is what I was describing in the earlier post to jgill, is that the future is what is responsible for what we call the passing of time, or the flow of time. So as odd as it might seem (I'll pass this one to The Mad Fool to figure out), the "origin" of time is the future, because it is what causes the existence of time.

The future is out of the grasp of empirical knowledge because it is in no way experienced by the senses, while the past has been sensed. So empirical knowledge is strictly of the past, while knowledge of the future is speculative in nature. Suppose that we as human beings occupy a perspective called the present. The future is always ahead of us, imperceptible from our perspective, but the cause of all that we perceive as happening at the present. We could think of this future analogously as a film projector. What we see, and the world we live in is the projection, which is projected from the future. The projecting mechanism is always in the future relative to us, moving along in time, just like us, but just in front of us, so it is imperceptible to us, and all that we perceive is the projection.

However, there is a little twist of reality which we need to come to grips with, and that is our capacity to interfere with the projection, through our free willing actions. So there must be a part of us which partakes in the projection mechanism itself, such that we can actively interfere with, and influence what is being projected, to an extent.

What would constitute the end of time? The projection mechanism would stop doing what it is doing. Of course this is possible, but only because the necessity which I've granted to the future is derived from our experience of the present. And our concept of time is based in this experience of the present. So as soon as we start talking about a future which is outside of our experience of time and presence, then we are free to entertain any logical possibilities which we want, concerning this future which is not constrained by the principles we derive from empirical (sense) knowledge.

I have my doubts regarding the matter of referring to the past with "before" but the fact is, at least I think it is, conventions come to be usually when there are good reasons for them. Granted some conventions are completely arbitrary e.g. handshaking instead of a namaste but others, usually those that need some rationale to be accepted, are not. — TheMadFool

Yes there are reasons for such conventions, they describe the way things appear to us. But sometimes they are based in common misunderstanding. We say that the sun comes up, and the sun goes down, but really the earth is spinning around and around. So the convention, is a convenient description of how things appear to us, but it is based in a misunderstanding. The convention has us saying something other than what the reality of the situation is.

The future has to first become the present and only then, second, can it become the past. So far so good. — TheMadFool

Yes, let's say that anything which is going to come to be in the past, must first be in the future, as a possibility, before it comes to be in the past.

There's no doubt that event 1 on 11/11/2020 will be experienced first and that event 2 on 12/11/2020 will be experienced second. Right? — TheMadFool

We cannot move to this proposition. Any event in the future is indefinite, it is a planned event, so we cannot assign one as necessarily before the other, because neither are necessary. A future event, as a possibility has a completely different status, and because it has not come to exist in time, it cannot be given a definite temporal order. It may be the case that event 1 would exclude the possibility of event 2, and so on and so forth, so the order we give these possible events is an order based in our intentions, a priority of importance, rather than a temporal order.

Say, three days go by and our plans for the events have taken place. We've arrived at the date 13/11/2020, the two events we planned are now in the past. We already know that event 1 took place before event 2 and that was the precisely the same sequence they were in when they were in the future. — TheMadFool

This is exactly the faulty perspective I am talking about. When we look at the two possible future events, one is closer than the other temporally. When we look at those same two events as they have come to be, and are now in the past, they have switched places, the opposite one is now closer. This inversion is a true fact of reality which cannot be neglected. The sequence is not the same. Looking backward in time, and looking forward in time is similar to the inversion created by looking into a mirror. We cannot say that things in the mirror are the same as they are without the mirror. You could create a system of imaginary numbers or something like that in an attempt to justify your claim, but it will not work out, because there are differences which cannot be accounted for.

his point of this small exercise is to show you that my use of the word "before" is specific to the temporal sequence of events and that your use of the word "before" is about the three divisions of time viz. past, present and future. — TheMadFool

There is no such thing as "the temporal sequence of events". That is just a manufactured description which is inadequate as a description of reality, just like "the sun comes up" is an inadequate description. From our perspective, event 1 is proposed as before event 2, when they are possible events in the future, as closer, but when they are actual events, in the past, event 2 is before event1, as closer.

You're just making noises with your mouth. — Harry Hindu

Now that's a good example of a lie. Or is it the truth?

I question whether a future is necessary and not merely sufficient for a past. — jgill

It's necessary, and that is because time cannot pass unless there is a future. A future is required and therefore necessary in order for time to pass And, there cannot be a past unless time passes. Therefore a future is necessary for a past.

What this indicates to me, is that the force, or cause of time passing is in the future. The way I look at it is that the future is always being forced upon us. We cannot stop time or prevent the future from continuously forcing itself upon us. And it is a force which would, if we let it, annihilate us, as demonstrated by the law of entropy. What we do is attempt to cope with the future, or even make the best of it by planning and shaping events as they come at us out of the future, thus we may actually use this force to our advantage. However, it is a battle for each of us to stay present, and as time passes the future continues in its act of forcing us toward the past, so much so that all mortals are eventually forced into the past.

If it were possible for something to stay present forever this would deny the necessity of the future. But this is not possible, because the future is necessary.

Does the arbitrariness of X's point of view somehow prevent him from developing the concept of space in this setting? :chin: — TheMadFool

Not at all, but "first" and "second" are not parts of a spatial concept. Nor do they have any spatial reference.

Really? If a queue forms at 12:00 Noon exact. How are you going to order it temporally? — TheMadFool

A queue takes time to form, and the first person there (temporally) is the first in the queue. Otherwise you have a mob showing up at exactly twelve, each person insisting on having the first spot. That is not a queue.

Again, the arbitrariness is inconsequential to X's first contact with the concepts of space and time. — TheMadFool

But arbitrariness is consequential to demonstrating that your assignment of "first" and "second" is faulty..

Post-truth bullshit.

If it isn't the truth, then its a lie. — Harry Hindu

You are missing out on the best part of life if you think that everything spoken must either be the truth or a lie. You might also be missing out on the worst part of life, as well. Conclusion: your life must be very boring. What if I said to you: "Let's go run away together", how would you class this as truth or falsity? How would you class a question? How would you class rhetoric? How would you class diplomacy? I'm sorry to have to shatter your illusion Harry, but human relationships are not discussed in terms of truth and falsity.

(I don't often get to agree with MU!) — tim wood

Come on Tim, you know that deep down you really love me and agree with everything I say, as all lovers always agree on everything.

The allegation that "to look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective" is important as far as I'm concerned. I'll ask you a simple question based on dates, your contribution to the discussion. Today is 9/11/2020. Yesterday was 8/11/2020 and tomorrow will be 10/11/2020. What was the date before 9/11/2020? You wouldn't say 10/11/2020 (tomorrow) is the date before 9/11/2020, right? You would say 8/11/2020 but then 8/11/2020 is in the past and so, I conclude, "to look at the past as before..." isn't a mistaken perspective. — TheMadFool

That this is the conventional way of describing these things does not mean that it is not a mistaken way. To be understood I speak according to convention, but I do not necessarily agree that the conventions which I follow for the sake of being understood, provide a correct description.

To drive home the point note the common expression "the day before". Today is Monday where I am and If I say, "I ate broccoli the day before" on which day did I eat broccoli? The correct answer is Sunday, I ate broccoli on Sunday, but Sunday is in the past; in other words, "to look at the past as before is really a mistaken perspective" is a dubious claim. — TheMadFool

Yes, I agree that it is a dubious claim, but one I believe. Are we not moving in time? And, when we move we say that what is in front of us is before us. What lies before me is the rest of today and tomorrow, and what lies behind me is yesterday.

You look at the order of days as something independent from yourself, and independent from the very thing which creates the existence of days (which is the passing of time, at the present), and you assign a direction to that order which dictates that one day is before another. That is the convention, and I will readily agree that to be understood in this world, I will say that yesterday was the day before today. But I think this is a misrepresentation of how time really appears to us.

Consider that all existing days are in the past. We can speak about future days, but they really have no existence, having not come into being yet. So we can say that things which have actual existence (like all the days of the past) are coming into being at the present. Future days have not come to be yet so they have no real existence. Now, the past begins at the present. The most recent day is yesterday, so it ought to be the first day in our count of days. What we call "the day before yesterday" ought to be counted as the second day, and so on. Remember, it is us who is counting the days, so we ought to count them in the order that they appear to us, starting with the day which is present to us. How would it even be possible to start counting days from some undefined, indefinite point in the past? In order for us to have a real count of days, we need a real starting point, like today, and if we start counting from today, yesterday is counted as the first full day, and it is before the next day, which is further into the past, and after that there are many days in the past.

I'm going to focus on the last underlined statement, "...it is impossible for the past to be infinite because it is necessary that there was always a future prior to any past". What makes you say that? The most reasonable interpretation of this would be your claim is that we've only experienced a finite future and so the past can't be infinite. But that, as it turns out, is based on an unfounded assumption viz. that the part of the future we've experienced is finite. How do you know that? :chin: — TheMadFool

I think I explained why I say that. But I'll try again in a slightly different way. There might have been a point in time, at which time there was future but no past. This is what we would commonly call the beginning of time, a point at which no time has yet passed. But if time is passing, there is necessarily a future. Since time is passing, then it is impossible that there was ever a past with no future. This means that future is necessary for the existence of time, but past is contingent on the existence of time. And, it is impossible that a contingent thing could be infinite because it is limited by its causes. An infinite thing has no such causes. Therefore it is impossible that the past is infinite.