No, it's not contradiction, your options were just not well formulated. My perspective takes parts from each. — Metaphysician Undercover

Allow me to put it another way.

What do you call that part of the future which lies outside the present? You call that “the future”, right?

But what do you call that part of the future that lies inside the present? Do you call that “the future” or do you call that “the present”?

Now, does the future exceed the present? If so, then it is distinct from the present.

You are trying to use “the future” in two different ways.

And same for “the past”.

Logical conclusions require premises. If you want to characterize your premises as "the grammar of our language", then I will assume that your principle premise is "the way we speak". The problem with this premise of course is that we often speak falsely and deceptively. So it makes for an unsound argument. Such and such is the truth, because we say it's the truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

The grammar of our language is not synonymous with "the way we speak". It involves the logic of our language and the meaning of words, e.g. why you cannot be both asleep and awake, but you can be both asleep and dreaming. It is also why the past and future cannot both exceed the present and not exceed the present. It does not concern any propositions or theories about the world, so neither does it concern truth or falsity in the manner you suggest.

The arbitrariness to the points in time, at which acceleration begins and ends is due to differences in the frame of reference. — Metaphysician Undercover

How can differences in the frame of reference cause the arbitrariness to the points in time? This makes no sense to me.

4. Reality is actually continuous, therefore we should not use logic (or grammar or language) to divide the continuum into arbitrary states
— Luke

You got #4 wrong. Remember, I argue for real zero points. — Metaphysician Undercover

You said:

The mistake in this practise [of dividing the continuum into arbitrary states] is that it does not provide for the reality, that in between distinct states-of-being lies the process of becoming which is fundamentally incompatible with states-of-being, and cannot be represented as a state-of-being. — Metaphysician Undercover

So "the reality [is] that in between distinct states-of-being lies the process of becoming" which is not compatible with states (or arbitrary points). I don't believe I got #4 wrong.

My question is: how do you intend to represent reality without dividing it into arbitrary states (i.e. without using language)?
— Luke

What I proposed already, is that we need to find the real points of division, then we can avoid the arbitrariness of the current way of dividing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm asking: what are we meant to do in the meantime, until we find them?

Are you suggesting that we should stop using all temporal concepts until we know whether there are "real" points in time?
— Luke

No, I said if we get conclusive proof that there are not points in time then we ought to stop talking as if there is points. — Metaphysician Undercover

In that case, until we get "conclusive proof" that there are not points in time, then we ought to continue talking as if there are points.

I don't know the answer of this. Remember, that was an example of how such an overlap could be real, and I cautioned you not to take it as necessarily the way I would conceive of time, just an example. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm asking how you are using the words "past", "present" and "future". I'm not asking whether past and future exceed the present or not in reality. I thought you were making an argument one way or the other. But your argument appears to be along the lines of "let's blur the distinctions between the concepts and make it as unclear as possible".

I think I would choose (i), with a change, that past and future exceed the future. A combination of past and future where past and future exceed the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then that's both (i) and (ii). (i) is where past and future do not exceed the present. (ii) is where past and future do exceed the present. You are arguing for both, which is a contradiction.

I don’t find it credible that perception will of itself be fully contingent on language; though, of course, the language-specified concepts we hold will significantly influence that which we consciously perceive. — javra

That's a fair criticism to my response, although I wonder if it may be taking us off the track of the preceding discussion.

I think it's very difficult to say what other animals may or may not "think" or what "concepts" they might use. I use scare quotes because the words "think" and "concepts" typically apply to our human thinking and concepts, with which we are familiar, but I don't know if other animals have the same sort of thing or something completely different, especially when you are proposing that they may have non-linguistic thoughts and concepts. Therefore, I am reluctant to apply what we have, and apply those terms that usually mean human cognition and human concepts, to other animals.

But consider that objects which we commonly perceive with lesser animals are nevertheless perceived as background-independent objects by all organisms concerned. — javra

Popular science tells us that many other species have different perceptual capacities than we do. Therefore, I wouldn't uncritically assume that other species perceive the world the same way as us, or perceive the same objects as us, or perceive the same objects that we perceive as objects, or value the same things as us, or have any sort of "mental map" of the world (or of their immediate environment) at all.

Although it does seem likely that those species closest in makeup to humans would have similar sensory apparatus to us, it's hard to know how much of a difference language makes when comparing human cognition to the non-linguistic "cognition" of other animals. Non-verbal drivers of behaviour such as instinct, mimicry and habit are also common to both humans and other species, so it might look like other animals have the same sort of cognition as us, even though they may not, in fact, have the same.

However, this is just a lot of guesswork on my part. I'm not well versed on any scientific research into these matters.

Hi Javra, welcome. Thanks for your considered post.

There exists a process/entity duality (which in some ways is akin to the wave/particle duality of QM) in the operations of cognition. For one example, our cognition naturally, innately, perceives physical objects, or entities, set against a background – objects that we can cognize as sometimes engaging in processes (e.g., the rock (entity) is rolling (process) down the hill (entity)).

All these experiences then result in our cognizing that everything physical is in an underlying state of flux, i.e. is process, or becoming. Yet the moment we focus on something it becomes a thing, or entity, within our cognition; and this applies to both perceived givens and concepts. For example, the concept of “running (as process)” itself becomes an entity (an individual unit) - linguistically, a noun – in the form of a specific type of process that we then can cognitively manipulate as concept. — javra

I agree with much of this. My only critique would be that, on my own view, it is not our focus that causes something to become a thing or entity within our cognition; instead, it is the nature of language that requires these "units" or concepts. You hint at this yourself with the concept of "running".

For cognition to in any way work, it is then absurd – or at the very least direly hypocritical – to deny either process-hood to physical reality or entity-hood to physical reality. — javra

Again, I don't see the problem as one of cognition, but as one of language. It is the constant, stable, static meanings/uses of words such as "present" which allow us to talk about it, but which does not capture the ongoing change that we perceive. You cannot step into the same river twice. The meaning of the word "river" stays the same, but the actual river is ever changing.

What we in any way physiologically perceive via all physiological sense will hold a certain quality as phenomena – a quality of phenomena that is by us readily distinguishable from phenomena we, for example, either recall or else perceptually imagine to occur in the future. In experience, this physiological quality of phenomena lasts for a short but immeasurable duration, a duration that is yet distinct from the phenomena of things we consciously recall and from the imagined phenomena we anticipate. This duration in which physiological phenomena are actual (visual, auditory, etc.) relative to us is then what we intuitively deem our experienced present. — javra

Good luck getting MU to agree that we can ever distinguish memories from anticipations, or the past from the present from the future.

I agree that "there must be" such points of distinction. That is what I've called the "zero point" and I've explained why intuition provides us with the premises which make such zero points a logical necessity. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you first mentioned this "zero point", you defined it as the point in time when an object begins a new motion after being acted on by a force. You are now saying it is a logical point instead of a physical point. This is fine, but please stick with one or the other.

Empirical evidence shows us time as continuous, and without such points of distinction. And, because we need such points of distinction for our measurement procedures, though experience does not provide them for us, we impose them arbitrarily, according to pragmatic conditions. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's right.

There is no such point though, in experience. When I awaken, I can say with certainty, "now I am awake", and also say with certainty that at some temporally separated (duration of time) past time, "I was asleep", but I cannot find within my experience, the precise point which separates the two. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's right. It's a logical or grammatical "point" which separates being "awake" from being "asleep", due to the meanings or uses of the two words. If you are one, then you cannot be the other.

he problem is that the logical systems of mathematics. which are adopted by, and employed by science use premises derived from experience, these are the premises of continuity, and these premises are incompatible with your premises which produce the conclusion of a zero point. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is both continuity and non-continuity in mathematics. And it's not my premises that "produce the conclusion of a zero point", but the grammar of our language.

Notice the mistake there. The intermediary, the becoming or process of awakening has been represented as an intermediary state. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think the mistake was the idea that becoming, or a process, is a state.

The points have the characteristic of arbitrariness due to the relativity of simultaneity — Metaphysician Undercover

Why blame the relativity of simultaneity for the arbitrariness?

To be consistent with the empirical evidence, spatial-temporal reality is represented as a continuum. However, to be able to employ deductive logic, the continuum is divided into distinct states-of-being, and this produces the need for points of separation or division. The application of points is arbitrary as provided for by the axioms of "continuity". The mistake in this practise is that it does not provide for the reality, that in between distinct states-of-being lies the process of becoming which is fundamentally incompatible with states-of-being, and cannot be represented as a state-of-being. — Metaphysician Undercover

To summarise:
1. Reality is represented as a continuum
2. To use logic (or grammar or language), the continuum must be divided into arbitrary states
3. Arbitrary states are incompatible with becoming (implying that becoming is continuous)
4. Reality is actually continuous, therefore we should not use logic (or grammar or language) to divide the continuum into arbitrary states

My question is: how do you intend to represent reality without dividing it into arbitrary states (i.e. without using language)?

If it turns out that there are no points in time, then we should stop speaking as if there is, and get on with understanding the true nature of time as continuous. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you suggesting that we should stop using all temporal concepts until we know whether there are "real" points in time? How would we ever know if there are?

No they are not perfectly overlapping, you still misunderstand. At the beginning, there is all future and not past, therefore no overlap here. At the end there is all past and no future, therefore no overlap there. For all we know, these non overlapping areas could be bigger than the overlapping area. We have no way to measure this. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do the past and the future exceed the present? That is, do you use "the present" to represent (i) a combination of the past and the future (where past and future do not exceed the present), or do you use "the present" to represent (ii) a period of time that separates the past from the future (where past and future do exceed the present)? You earlier rejected (ii), that the present is a period of time which separates the past from the future. However, since you now say "they are not perfectly overlapping", this indicates that you accept (ii), because it implies that the past and future exceed the present. Or, do you accept both (i) and (ii)?

If your answer is (i), then I don't see how there is all future and no past at the beginning or all past and no future at the end. Surely there must be both (past and future) at the beginning and both at the end, or else there must be neither at the beginning and neither at the end.

Presumably when you say "at the beginning" and "at the end" you mean when the present is located at the beginning and at the end of time, respectively. (Or else what do you mean?) If the present is located at the beginning of time, and if (i) is true, where the past and future do not exceed the present, then there can be no future after the beginning, because then the future would exceed (would be outside) the present. The same goes for the past at the end of time.

But I don't consider the beginning or the end to be within time; they are just end-points to time. The entire span of time lies between those end-points and contains both past and future at every point in time on your view. That is, if you use "the present" to represent only (i), where the past and future are contained entirely within, and do not exceed, the present.

If your answer is (ii), then you must accept that there is a point in time where the present is exceeded by a range of past events and another point in time where the present is exceeed by a range of future events (there must be two points if we assume that the present has some duration).

If your answer is both (i) and (ii), then your use of "the present" becomes a senseless mess, meaning both a period which combines the past and the future and a period which separates the past from the future. The present cannot both separate the past from the future and also be a combination of the past and the future.

Why do we need such points in order to distinguish memories from anticipation?
— Luke

You seem to be lost here. Suppose you are sensing (seeing) the chair. You cannot tell which part of the sensation is produced from memory, and which part is produced from anticipation. Points in time would enable a distinction to be made between the past part of the sensation and future part. This would be helpful to understanding sensation, therefore also helpful to empirical science which relies on sense evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps I am lost, because I don't see how this is supposed to work. "Points in time" supposedly exist in reality, whereas memory and anticipation exist in my mind. How do we use real points in time to distinguish memory from anticipation? You say that the points would enable a distinction to be made between the past and future parts of a sensation, but how will that help to separate a memory from an anticipation?

We usually distinguish things from each other by reference to properties, not dimensionless points. So this is completely false. — Metaphysician Undercover

If we distinguish past, present and future from each other by reference to properties rather than by reference to (arbitrary) dimensionless points, then why are you taking issue with arbitrary points?

It seems this discussion has become rather pointless, even though you are continually trying to insert arbitrary points. This you do simply for the sake of saying that I contradict myself when I say there are no points. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have given you an argument for why there must be points of distinction between past, present and future. I'm not saying this for the sake of saying that you contradict yourself. However, you did contradict yourself, as I pointed out.

It was not my example, you proposed two different types of experience. I just showed you why it wouldn't work. — Metaphysician Undercover

You introduced the example of sleep. Otherwise, show me where I introduced it.

Come on Luke. Don't you experience awakening, that brief period when you're half asleep and half awake? And don't you experience this 'in between period' when you are falling asleep as well? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'll grant you these "in between periods" of being half asleep and half awake. However, you must admit that there comes a point when you are no longer half asleep but asleep, and there comes a point when you are no longer half awake but awake.

Likewise, there comes a point where an event is no longer in the present (i.e., in combination with the future) but is fully in the past, and there comes a point where an event is no longer fully in the future but is in the present (i.e., in combination with the past).

I've been through this already. No point is required if "past" and "future" name different categories which may overlap, instead of them being opposing terms where one denies the possibility of the other by way of contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've never said that past and future are "opposing terms". This does not address my argument.

I don't see my use of "point" anywhere in those quotes, so I think you are constructing a contradiction from a misquote. — Metaphysician Undercover

I did not mean that you had said this. I meant that it was implied by what you said, or that you could not escape the fact that there are points which distinguish the past from the present and the present from the future.

I know that you are trying to argue that there is some smooth, unnoticeable transition between them, but the distinct concepts won't let you.
— Luke

You are treating the concepts as mutually exclusive, not as distinct. That is your failure to properly understand what I've already explained numerous times, not a contradiction by me. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I understand what you have said and I acknowledge your analogy with the Venn diagram. Now picture a Venn diagram with a "past" circle on the left and a "future" circle on the right, with an overlapping section of the two circles in the middle, as Venn diagrams typically have. This overlapping section you call "the present", and it contains a combination of past and future.

The are two "points" (as you call them) in this diagram.

The first point I am referring to in this Venn diagram is where the larger, non-overlapping section of the "past" circle meets the overlapping section of the "past" circle; that is, where the pure, unadulterated past meets the combination of past and future in "the present". Or, in other words, where the past meets the present. Surely you do not deny that events which are present eventually become past; that they are at one time in the present and at a later time in the past.

The second point I am referring to in this Venn diagram is where the larger, non-overlapping section of the "future" circle meets the overlapping section of the "future" circle; that is, where the pure, unadulterated future meets the combination of past and future in "the present". Or, in other words, where the future meets the present. Surely you do not deny that events which are future eventually become present; that they are at one time in the future and at a later time in the present.

This is what I called the "zero point", and the fact that we tend to think like this, intuitively, instead of the way that I proposed, is evidence that we need to seek, and find the real points in time, to substantiate our way of speaking. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why must we "substantiate our way of speaking"? Why should we change "our way of speaking", in the manner you suggest, before we know? What if it turns out that there are no "real points in time" and that time is continuous in reality? Then your way of speaking, and your suggestion that we all change to your preferred way of speaking, is for nought. Therefore, you need to substantiate your way of speaking. Do you have any evidence of these "real points in time" that are being postulated only by you?

In the overlap of past and future, which I described as "the present", consider that the proportion of each, the amount of past, in relation to the amount of future, is constantly changing. So if there was a beginning of time, then at the very beginning, there was only future, and no past. At the very end of time, there will be all past, and no future. We are somewhere in between, and the past and future at our present is proportioned accordingly. — Metaphysician Undercover

This implies that the present (the combination of past and future times) consists of all of time. In that case, I did misunderstand you. This is not your typical Venn diagram, because the "past" and "future" circles here are perfectly overlapping with each other, one directly on top of the other. Thanks for clarifying.

In that case, there is no distinction between past and future. The combination of past and future that you refer to as "the present" has the duration of all of time. Therefore, no event can precede or follow another event using these terms. If one event is in the past of another, then it is also in the future and the present of it. The present is the future is the past.

It would make just as much sense for you to say that at the very beginning of time, there was all past, and no future, and at the very end of time, there will be all future, and no past. This is because these words no longer have their conventional meanings when you define "the present" as the combination of "past" and "future" that spans all of time. There is no way to distinguish any of these concepts.

But this is why it is so extremely difficult to distinguish the anticipatory parts of the human experience of "the present" from the memory parts. That is why I argue that the present will remain unintelligible to us until we find the real points in time
— Metaphysician Undercover

Do you believe that, in order to distinguish memories from anticipation, we need to discover "real points in time"?
— Luke

No you seem to misunderstand. In order to distinguish memories form anticipations within what we experience as "the present", (for example or sensations), we need such points. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do we need such points in order to distinguish memories from anticipation?

Moreover, if the present is a combination of past and future, as you claim, then how will the discovery of "real points in time" help to disentangle this entanglement of memories and anticipation?
— Luke

By providing a point of separation, like you've been desperately trying to do. But your points of separation are arbitrary, I'm looking for points with substance. — Metaphysician Undercover

You want to find the "real" distinction between past, present and future in nature somewhere? Okay. How? Where will you start looking? I'm not "desperately trying" to find points. I know where the distinctions between "past", "present" and "future" are. As I've told you several times, the present is the time at which we are consciously experiencing, doing or being. The past and future are defined relative to this time. We are not consciously experiencing all of time all at once. We experience one time after another in succession.

Sorry, I do not follow. And I'm tired of trying to explain this point to you, it appears hopeless, just like trying to get you to quit inserting arbitrary points into my description of a continuous present. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you don't want any "arbitrary points" in your description of a continuous present, then there will be nothing to distinguish the present from the past from the future from a turnip. These temporal terms become meaningless.

The relevant question is "when are you perceiving?"
— Luke

We are always perceiving at the present, and the present consists of past and future. We've already discussed this. Where's the problem? — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that we are also always perceiving the past and the future (according to you). But, then, the difference between "past", "present" and "future" has dissolved on your view.

Is there any reason that we would choose a "way of speaking" that makes it impossible to distinguish one object or event from another? That is what your "way of speaking" without "points" gives us.

It is incoherent to describe this as two distinct experiences, in succession, unless there is something which separates them. Otherwise you have just arbitrarily inserted a point and claim that on one side of the point is one type of experience and on the other side is another distinct type. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was following your example of two different types of experience:

Any division of that continuous experience into separate experiences is arbitrary. Even during sleep we are experiencing, in dreaming etc., it's just a change in type of experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Tell me, what other experience is in between being asleep and being awake? What separates them? Must there be another experience between these? Aren't we asleep and then, at some point, awake again, in succession?

You need something real, which distinguishes the end of one and the beginning of another, or else you are just arbitrarily asserting distinct experiences in a succession, rather than one continuous experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do we need "something real" to distinguish the end of one and the beginning of another? What real thing distinguishes the end of being asleep and the beginning of being awake? Perhaps there is no distinction between being asleep and being awake and it's just "one continuous experience"? Or did you "arbitrarily assert" that being asleep and being awake were distinct types of experience?

Okay, at some point inside the present, the future becomes the past.
— Luke

No! We have no premise for a "point". You incessantly want to insert a "point" when the unreality of such a point is my primary premise. You insert the unjustified "point" which is completely inconsistent with the justified position I am arguing, then you ask me to make sense of such a point. It cannot be made sense of because it is incompatible with what makes sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

But there must be a point when an event is no longer present and becomes past. Otherwise, past and present are indistinguishable.

Ah, but here you say that the past refers to time that has passed (or "past") the present. This means that the past is not within the present and is no longer within the present because it has passed (outside of) it. If it has passed the present, then it is not inside the present. It cannot be both inside the present and outside the present. There is your contradiction.
— Luke

I explained this, the present consists of duration. read the following:

When the future is inside the present it is past a part of the present, so it has already become past in relation to that part of the present, and is still future in relation to the rest of the present. This is the nature of change, it does not happen all at once, but over a duration of time. — Metaphysician Undercover — Metaphysician Undercover

Instead of referring to other quotes, I'd prefer you to account for the quote in which you contradicted yourself . You said:

"Future" refers to time which has not yet passed the present and past refers to time which has past the present... — Metaphysician Undercover

In this quote, the "point" at which what is in the present becomes past is the starting point of the present. In your terminology, this is when the past (proper) meets "the present" (the combination of past and future). There is also a second point where the future has not yet passed the present, which is the end point of "the present". In your terminology, this is when the future (proper) meets "the present" (the combination of past and future).

I know that you are trying to argue that there is some smooth, unnoticeable transition between them, but the distinct concepts won't let you. There can be a period of changing, but at some point there must be a moment of change when what is present is no longer future and what is past is no longer present; when the past is no longer combined with the future and when the future has not yet become combined with the past. Otherwise, if they are forever combined, then past, present and future are indistinguishable concepts.

But this is why it is so extremely difficult to distinguish the anticipatory parts of the human experience of "the present" from the memory parts. That is why I argue that the present will remain unintelligible to us until we find the real points in time — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you believe that, in order to distinguish memories from anticipation, we need to discover "real points in time"? Do you truly think that the distinction between memories and anticipation is that problematic? Moreover, if the present is a combination of past and future, as you claim, then how will the discovery of "real points in time" help to disentangle this entanglement of memories and anticipation?

If "there is no now" as you say, then what did you mean by "your perception of it now"?
— Luke

Human experience, along with the conventions employed for measurement have misled you to believe that you perceive a "now" at the present. There is no such now, as described by you, your perception of it is an illusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

I asked about your use of the word in your earlier quote.

OK, I found the paragraph in question: — Metaphysician Undercover

Did you have trouble finding it? I quoted it for you in my last post.

In this context, "now" means present, which is continuous.
It is not the "now" of a point in time, which you propose, the one I argue is an illusion. The context ought to reveal this to you, " the chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now". — Metaphysician Undercover

Is "the chair of two seconds ago" in the present or in the past (according to your context)?

Due to the problem described above, it is impossible to separate which aspects of your conscious perception are produced bu memory and which parts are produced by anticipation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Impossible? Really? If I ask you what you had for breakfast today, you wouldn't know if your recall of what you had was a memory or an anticipation? If you told me you were looking forward to your vacation, you wouldn't know if this was a memory or anticipation? Come on.

So for example, if you are consciously watching the chair, and something unexpected suddenly happens, you will recognize the sudden occurrence as unanticipated, but this will occur with a reaction time. That there is a reaction to sudden change indicates that anticipation is part of the conscious experience, that there is a time it takes for the reaction to occur, indicates that memory is part of the conscious experience. Therefore we can understand the conscious experience described as "the perception of it now" as a combination of past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Only if "memory" means "past" and "anticipation" means "future". But they don't. What actually follows is “Therefore we can understand the conscious experience described…as a combination of memory and anticipation.”

So, to answer your questions, "your perception of it now" refers to "at the present", and this is an extended duration of time, as indicated, by "the chair of two seconds ago is an integral part" of that perception now. — Metaphysician Undercover

So "now" and "two seconds ago" both mean "at the present"?

The relevant question is "when are you perceiving?" I didn't ask what that perception consisted of, or what informs that perception, or whether that perception is true, or whether you have trouble distinguishing memories from anticipations.

To be a succession, one would have to follow the other, and something would have to separate them, or else there'd be an overlap, and not a succession. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a false dichotomy. You're saying there must either be a gap between the two experiences or else there must be an overlap between them. The third option is that one experience follows the other immediately without any gap or overlap.

The thing which separates two distinct types of experience would have to be another type of experience — Metaphysician Undercover

Why?

Otherwise we'd have to posit points which separate one type of experience from the other, and then we're back to the problem I described, of the "zero point", and points in general. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do we need points? Are you referring to points in experience or points in time? I don't get it.

As time continues onward, the future is always becoming the past. That's what happens at the present...
— Metaphysician Undercover

How can the future become the past at the present, when you also claim that the present contains both the future and the past; when the past and future are inside the present?
— Luke

I don't see the problem. This is what happens "inside the present", the future becomes the past. Therefore both future and past must exist within the present, as one becomes the other inside the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, at some point inside the present, the future becomes the past. But is it always at the same point inside the duration of the present that the future becomes the past? For example, supposing that the present has a duration of one second - for the sake of argument - is it always at the halfway mark that the future becomes the past, or does it vary? That is, does the future become the past sometimes a little earlier and sometimes a little later than at other times? Is there any good reason for this variation? Or is this just obfuscation?

Consider the freezing point of water for example. "Inside the freezing point", water becomes ice, so both water and ice exist inside the freezing point. — Metaphysician Undercover

The freezing point is a temperature, not a duration of time. Regardless, I'm sure a definition could be established to measurably distinguish water from ice without the black box mystery that you propose for the present. And, while I'm no authority, it seems likely to me that the freezing point defines the distinction between water and ice.

"Future" refers to time which has not yet passed the present and past refers to time which has past the present...
— Metaphysician Undercover

How can this be, when you claim that the past and future are both inside the present?
— Luke

I see no problem. The present is not a point, as I've been arguing, it has breadth, or width. "Point" has been adopted by pragmaticism As the Venn diagram example shows, past and future extend outside the present, but they also overlap inside the present. When the future is inside the present it is past a part of the present, so it has already become past in relation to that part of the present, and is still future in relation to the rest of the present. This is the nature of change, it does not happen all at once, but over a duration of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah, but here you say that the past refers to time that has passed (or "past") the present. This means that the past is not within the present and is no longer within the present because it has passed (outside of) it. If it has passed the present, then it is not inside the present. It cannot be both inside the present and outside the present. There is your contradiction.

The problem is that all experience is completely wrapped up in memory, whether you like to admit it or not. Consider looking at an object in front of you, a chair or something. What you see is not a hundredth of a second of chair, or a half a second of chair. You are seeing the chair over a continuous duration. But the chair of two seconds ago must be only in your memory. However, that chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now,. That's how you know whether it's moving or not.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Aren't you claiming that my "perception of it now" is also a memory?
— Luke

Right, that's why I mentioned the concept of "sensory memory". If I understand correctly, the information from the senses is put into a type of extremely short term, subconscious memory, and this memory is what the conscious mind interprets as the sense experience, and then allocates the memories to other types of memory, which the conscious mind has influence over.
— Metaphysician Undercover

When is "now" (i.e. the present) in this scenario? Which event is simultaneous with the present here?
— Luke

There is no now, unless we change the meaning of "now", as I've been explaining. — Metaphysician Undercover

If "there is no now" as you say, then what did you mean by "your perception of it now"?

There are events which move from future to past, at the present, and every single real event does this, but there is no sense to ask which event is "simultaneous with the present", because every event occurs at the present, yet they have different times when they are at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was referring to your scenario of looking at a chair in front of you. Which event is simultaneous with the present in that scenario? You used the phrase "your perception of it now". If you used "now" to mean something different than "the present", then what did you mean?

And, again, when is the present situated in that scenario?

Well, it's intuition, with many complicated factors involved. But I am not arguing that, am I? I am arguing continuity. — Metaphysician Undercove

It was something you said. I take it you no longer wish to defend it, especially as it is not consistent with your assertion of continuity, as you note:

I am arguing continuity. So despite the fact that there are many reasons to make me intuitively believe that there are natural points in time, this is not consistent with our experience of time as continuous... — Metaphysician Undercover

If objects are not distinct, then a change in motion is just a continuation of the whole (universe) through cause and effect, and there is no need for a real point of beginning. — Metaphysician Undercover

I consider this to be more likely.

However, whether the thing is a part or a whole is essential to some universals. This depends on how the named things exists within its environment. So the hydrogen atom for example cannot exist naturally as an object, it must be a part. Human beings can in some sense separate hydrogen atoms, and present it as an object. But in reality, it is not an independent object even after this separation, because the device which separates it is required for its purported separation, therefore this device is necessary to its environment, so it really just becomes a part of that device. This is why I referred to "natural" divisibility. Artificial divisibility is very deceptive, creating divisions where divisions are not naturally possible... — Metaphysician Undercover

This still doesn't explain what makes something a "true and real" whole object, rather than just a part. All coconuts (that we know of) are part of the Earth, and the Earth is part of the Solar System, and so on. All of these divisions - indeed all divisions - are "artificial", because those concepts belong to our language and we divide the world up into those "objects" or concepts that we value, not according to any "natural" divisions.

When I spoke of natural divisibility I was referring to material things, the empirical world which we sense. That's why theories of real divisibility are based on empirical information. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is your theory?

The problem with "the continuum" is that this is itself a stipulation, or proposition concerning the empirical world, 'space and time form a continuum'. It is very useful because it conforms to the empirical reality to a large degree. However, since we observe that natural divisibility within the empirical world is restricted, according to the spatial existence of independent objects, "continuum" is not completely appropriate. So the problems begin. — Metaphysician Undercover

But I thought you said:

I am arguing continuity. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are complaining about the infinite divisibility of the continuum of numbers while also arguing that the empirical reality of time, or the present, is continuous. Are you arguing against yourself?

This is a misrepresentation. We have continuous experience, not a "succession of experiences". Any division of that continuous experience into separate experiences is arbitrary. Even during sleep we are experiencing, in dreaming etc., it's just a change in type of experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

If there are different types of experience, then we can sensibly speak of having one type then another, different type. Hence, we can sensibly speak of a succession of different types of experience.

Unlike a succession, a continuity (of experience) gives no indication of direction or even motion.

As time continues onward, the future is always becoming the past. That's what happens at the present... — Metaphysician Undercover

How can the future become the past at the present, when you also claim that the present contains both the future and the past; when the past and future are inside the present?

"Future" refers to time which has not yet passed the present and past refers to time which has past the present... — Metaphysician Undercover

How can this be, when you claim that the past and future are both inside the present?

I think it would be better to say that the point is both future and past in this transition which is the present, rather than neither. And as I explained earlier there is no reason to think that this implies contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

It contradicts what you said just above. This is what I've been telling you all along.

Aren't you claiming that my "perception of it now" is also a memory?
— Luke

Right, that's why I mentioned the concept of "sensory memory". If I understand correctly, the information from the senses is put into a type of extremely short term, subconscious memory, and this memory is what the conscious mind interprets as the sense experience, and then allocates the memories to other types of memory, which the conscious mind has influence over. — Metaphysician Undercover

When is "now" (i.e. the present) in this scenario? Which event is simultaneous with the present here?

That's a complex issue beyond the scope of this thread, which would only serve as a distraction, but the photoelectric effect indicates that energy is transmitted as discrete units rather than as a continuous wave. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, I'm aware of Einstein's Nobel Prize-winning work, but that doesn't begin to explain why you think that quanta signify any sort of "natural points" in time, or why time might possibly be naturally divisible into quanta.

As I said, this would require determining natural points in time. Then the points can be counted as real objects, units of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see how this could possibly be determined. What is the nature of these "points"? Why suppose them at all?

How can you tell if something is a "true and real" object or only part of a "true and real" object? Presuming it's via "natural divisibility", how does that work?
— Luke

As I explained, empirical evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover

You asserted "empirical evidence" and suggested we could tell if something is an object or only a part of an object just by looking. That's not much of an explanation. For example, is a coconut an object or a part? How about a hydrogen atom? There are many things that are parts. Which ones are the "true and real" objects and how can you tell?

Explain to me again why a continuum does not have natural points of division?
— Luke

There's nothing to explain. A continuum is assumed to be infinitely divisible. It can be divided in any way, and no particular way is more suited to the matter itself being divided than any other way, because there are no natural points of divisibility, proper to it. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand what "continuum" means. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, unlike a continuum, only a finite set of (positive?) integers has natural points of division. Is that right? Does the set need to contain an even number of integers?

The point is not the effect of the numbers on the real, but the effect of the real on the numbers. If the entirety of reality is indivisible, then there is nothing real to count. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wait. Chairs aren't real?

If the entirety of reality is continuous, yet infinitely divisible in anyway possible way, then division is arbitrary and the count is arbitrary. Each of these produces an unmeasurable reality. But if reality has natural divisibility, then we can distinguish real objects to count and measure according to those divisions. Such a reality is measurable. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're saying that, unless time has natural points of division, then everything we count in reality is arbitrary and not real?

You did say that you could exchange "present moment" for "present" didn't you? Now you are saying that the present continues on and on indefinitely. How do you formulate consistency between the present being an extremely short duration, yet also something which continues on and on indefinitely? — Metaphysician Undercover

We have a continuous succession of experiences from birth to death; we do not experience everything in our lives "all at once". As John Wheeler said, "Time is what prevents everything from happening at once." The present (moment) is when we are at any point along that continuous succession of experiences. As an indexical expression, the meaning of "the present" changes with context. So I can consistently say that "the present" is now, but (also, later) that it's now. It's comparable to saying "here" in relation to spatial location.

How could it be that the present continues on and on indefinitely, as if it is an infinitely long duration of time, yet it is also an infinitesimally short period of time, as "the moment". One of these must be dismissed as the cause of contradiction, and the latter, "the moment", is inconsistent with empirical evidence. That is why I say "the present moment" is incoherent to me. . — Metaphysician Undercover

This question also applies to you. If you reject the present as a short period, or moment, of time, then it must be "an infinitely long duration of time" that "continues on and on indefinitely" (since they are the only two options you have given). What, then, of the past and future? When is something past and when is it future? That is, what are the past and future relative to?

Yes, except we don't speak of the present as a continuous, long duration, but as a moment or point along that duration which is present for us at that moment.
— Luke

Now, look closely at this statement. Do you see that "at that moment" has no real meaning, no real referent. It refers to nothing real. It's a convention which human beings concocted for pragmatic reasons, for the sake of measuring. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't deny this, except it's not only for the sake of measurement, because it is also relative to when one is experiencing, doing or being, and specifically, indexical to when one is speaking. I have never claimed that "the present" is something we find in nature (just as I wouldn't say that "here" is something we find in nature), but I would say that the passage of time is something we find in nature, because things age. Looking for some natural source of "the present" or for natural divisions in time is not my concern.

Now we have "the present as a continuous, long duration", exactly as we experience it, and all this speaking about a moment, or point along this duration, is nothing but bs. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not how I experience it; or, that is, I don't use the phrase "the present" to refer to all of time. I don't think anyone does.

The problem is that all experience is completely wrapped up in memory, whether you like to admit it or not. Consider looking at an object in front of you, a chair or something. What you see is not a hundredth of a second of chair, or a half a second of chair. You are seeing the chair over a continuous duration. But the chair of two seconds ago must be only in your memory. However, that chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now,. That's how you know whether it's moving or not. — Metaphysician Undercover

Aren't you claiming that my "perception of it now" is also a memory?

I don't deny that my experience of the chair may include my memory of how it was two seconds ago, or that my experience is not influenced by my memories. I only deny that two seconds ago is not the present, because the present is defined in terms of when I am experiencing or perceiving which, according to your example, (was two seconds ago but) is...now.

So, it's easy for you to take an event years ago, and say that's in the past, its only memory, and you can surely tell the difference between that memory and what's happening now. But when we are talking about the perception of events happening right now ("right now" being incoherent) then we are faced with having to separate what we anticipate from what we remember, as having influence over the perception. And this is much more difficult because we cannot fall back on the false premise of the "present moment". — Metaphysician Undercover

The issue is not what is contained in experience, and having to disentangle whether our experience consists of memories or anticipations or both or more. The issue is simply when we are experiencing.

More work is required on understanding what we call the passage of time, in order to establish more accurate measurement. I think that the work done in quantum mechanics indicates that it is highly likely that there actually is points in time, that's why events occur as quanta rather than continuous. If this is the case, then we probably do experience such points in time, in some way, but we do not recognize them, just like we experience molecules, atoms and electrons, but we do not recognize them as such, through sensation. — Metaphysician Undercover

How does quanta possibly indicate that there are "points in time"? I'm guessing that you consider these "points" to be natural divisions in time. I don't see what difference they would make over and above the quanta. Couldn't we have quanta without any natural divisions in time (like we already do)? What do these "natural divisions" add?

In the case of time, we assume a continuum, therefore no natural divisibility. So to count or quantify distinct periods of time we look to repeating cycles, earth, moon, sun, quartz crystal vibrations, and now the quantum characteristics of the cesium atom. The problem is that all of these cycles are physical events, which in order to serve as measurement need to be compared to other physical events, the ones to be measured. This requires a means of determining the beginning and ending of a cycle, in relation to the event to be measured. The event to be measured is always spatially separated form the clock. The various possible features of this spatial separation are what Einstein dealt with in his special theory of relativity, where he stipulated that simultaneity is relative. This stipulation means an accurate comparison is

\ impossible, and therefore precise measurement of time impossible, because the simultaneity of the beginning and ending of the cycle of measurement, in comparison with the event to be measured, is dependent on the frame of reference. In other word the temporal measurement of the same event will differ depending on the frame of reference. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you plan to take a "precise measurement of time" without any sort of clock, or without making a comparison to any physical, cyclical event?

No, the point is that the object to be counted in any act of quantification (a count) must be a true and real object, or else any proposed count is arbitrary. To be a true and real object, it must be distinct, discrete, separate from its surroundings, or else it's just a part of another object. And if we are allowed to count parts as objects, and everything is infinitely divisible, then every count will be infinite. — Metaphysician Undercover

How can you tell if something is a "true and real" object or only part of a "true and real" object? Presuming it's via "natural divisibility", how does that work?

That's what happens when we try to quantify something which is already assumed to be a continuum (the real number line, or time, as examples). Since there are no natural points of division we can't even start to count anything because there are no distinct objects to count. So we allow divisions and we produce a count according to the divisions. But these divisions are arbitrary, so there is no rule about how to apply them, except that they can be applied anywhere. Then any count will be a count of infinity (any random section of the number line contains an infinity of numbers, and any random section of time contains an infinite number of time durations). — Metaphysician Undercover

How are we going to work out these rules? We will need to use only a finite set, no doubt, with its "natural points of division". Explain to me again why a continuum does not have natural points of division? Can we not count objects using an infinite set? But wouldn't the infinite set of real numbers include a finite set of integers that we could use for counting?

So it's not a matter of choosing finite numbers over infinite numbers, it's a matter of basing "the count", which is the act of quantifying, or measuring, in something real, real divisibility as the example of distinct physical objects (mentioned above) demonstrates. Then the measurement is of something real. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, but the measurement is made in numbers and what is measured is something that isn't numbers, but is objects/events. I don't see how the numbers (or the set or the continuum) has any effect on which objects/events are real or not. I can count objects using either a finite or an infinite set of numbers.

You do not conceive of the present as something which goes on and on continuously, like I do. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do, actually.

And no matter how many times you mark "now", the present continues through all of them, and onward. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right. So?

And, "the present" is not a moment because the present goes on and on continuously. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is why we must apprehend "the present" as having two important features. One is the feature you point to, the moment, "now", from which we base measurements, starting the stop watch, etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's funny how you say that "the present" is not a moment, yet you consider "the moment" to be one of the "two important features" of "the present".

This is why we must apprehend "the present" as having two important features. One is the feature you point to, the moment, "now", from which we base measurements, starting the stop watch, etc.. The other feature is the conjunction between past and future, which I point to, and this continues on and on, seemingly continuously, so it is indefinite. This continuity of the present is what is measured when we measure passing time. We use arbitrary points, and mark a section of the continuity of the present, as a period of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

The feature that you say I "point to" also continues on and on continuously. There's not much that I disagree with here, except that the present is not a "conjunction" between past and future because past and future are not concurrent with the present.

There is no such thing as the moment when you are experiencing. Experience continues on and on, in a seemingly continuous and indefinite duration, just like the present — Metaphysician Undercover

That's right, the present continues on and on just like your experiencing. And it's not a coincidence, because whenever you are experiencing is when the present is for you. In relation to this, those things that you've already experienced are in your past, and those things you will experience but are yet to experience are in your future. It's simple really.

Do you not apprehend your experience in this way, as a continuous, long duration, rather than as a moment, or any sort of pin pointed duration? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, except we don't speak of the present as a continuous, long duration, but as a moment or point along that duration which is present for us at that moment. We typically don't consider the whole duration as "the present" or as present for us "all at once". Although, as I said earlier, we might use the adjective "present" to describe longer periods, such as the present day, year, lifetime, etc.

Or are there two different types of remembering? Otherwise, we could say that we experience things in the present and remember things that we experienced in the past, and not try to change the grammar in the way you are proposing.
— Luke

There are many different types of remembering, and many different ways of reading. So this does not look like a productive direction for the discussion, too much ambiguity and confusion. For example, do you not think that remembering is part of your experience? So this distinction you make here, between remembering things and experiencing things is not sound because remembering is a form of experiencing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think there is a distinct difference between having or undergoing an experience and remembering it later. Think back to any memorable event in your life. That is just a memory compared to the actual event that you lived through and experienced. I understand your reluctance to acknowledge this obvious distinction, however, given that it is simply too detrimental to your argument (that every experience is a memory).

Then how could the accuracy or precision of the measurement be improved? — Luke

More work is required before this can be determined. If we can find natural points of division, and abide by them, measurement would be improved greatly. The problem though is that such points are not experienced by us. — Metaphysician Undercover

More work is required on what? Is it possible, in principle, that we are able to experience "such points"?

Take a look at two distinct objects, like a chair and a table. Do you not see a natural divisibility between these two? — Metaphysician Undercover

I might see that they are two different (types of) objects. I don't know what "natural divisibility" is supposed to mean.

This is the foundation for counting, such natural points of divisibility allow us to count objects as distinct things. A supposed continuum has no such natural points of divisibility, therefore it can provide no principles for counting. — Metaphysician Undercover

This sounds like little more than a complaint about infinity, or uncountable sets, but it's unclear what the complaint is exactly. I assume what you mean by "natural points of divisibility" is that we should use only a finite set of numbers? But I don't see how a reduced, finite set of numbers would give us more accurate or more precise (or non-arbitrary) measurements. We would miss out on all those "in-between" numbers/measurements, and that would make our measurements less accurate, not more. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean.

No, I said that we are not consciously aware of the present. We are consciously aware of the past, through sensation and memory, and consciously aware of the future, through anticipation. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm very rarely consciously aware of any of those time periods. Instead, I determine the present time in terms of when I am consciously aware and actively doing/being, and the past and future are determined relative to this.

I am not at all understanding what you are saying. First, as you are well aware, "present moment" doesn't make any sense to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand your complaint here. I don't care if we call it "the present" or "the present time" or "the present moment"; I see no difference between these. If it will help to prevent your complaints, I will stop using the phrase "present moment". However, if I accidentally use the phrase again in future, then please just substitute it with "the present" instead. That seems to keep you calm.

The point is that the thing, whatever it is, which we become aware of, through sensation, is always in the past by the time we become aware of it. And, the mind which becomes aware of it is therefore always in the future relative to the thing which it becomes aware of. Furthermore, the mind is concerned with anticipating what will happen next, and it is even actively determining (as cause through freedom of choice) what will happen next. — Metaphysician Undercover

Where is the present situated in all of this? Earlier you said that sensations themselves were also in the past. If sensations themselves are in the past then what event is simultaneous with, or defines, the present? Our brain signals that produce the sensation? Light hitting the retina? Light hitting and reflecting off objects (including very distant objects)? Human evolution? The Big Bang?

If past and future define the present, as you claim, then the present could potentially have an enormous duration. Can you narrow it down at all?

So where do you think this so-called "present moment" is, where the mind apprehends the sensations? — Metaphysician Undercover

When, not where. But yes, why not? (I mean, apart from just repeating your own argument, is there any good reason not to accept this?)

That "present moment" is just a misconception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is "the present" (sans "moment") also just a misconception? If so, then why do you say that the present has a duration?

Or did you "misspeak" again, like when you said that the past and future were defined in terms of the present, or when you said that the present could not be measured, or when you said that any arbitrary measurement is not a measurement at all? Are you now arguing that the present does not have a duration and that there is no present? It's getting difficult to keep track.

We experience the past and we anticipate the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that we anticipate the future, but how can we (now) experience the past?

There is not anything within human experience which indicates a present moment. — Metaphysician Undercover

There needn't be anything "which indicates a present moment" except for having experiences. The present (moment) is defined in terms of when we are experiencing.

You appear to make no distinction between having a sensation and remembering having had a sensation. You appear to be saying that the only possible experience one can have is remembering things. Accordingly, you would make no distinction between (now) reading these words and only remembering reading these words. In 5 minutes time, when you think back to reading these words, would that remembering be the same as the "remembering" you are now doing while reading these words? Or are there two different types of remembering? Otherwise, we could say that we experience things in the present and remember things that we experienced in the past, and not try to change the grammar in the way you are proposing.

In the conventional sense, the present divides time, it is not itself a period of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree. The Google search results from earlier had scientists attempting to find the duration of the present, and some people - as you have noted - think of the present as having an infinitesimal duration. I don't agree that the present is not conventionally considered as "not itself a period of time". However, I do agree that the present is conventionally thought of as separating the past from the future. And you appear to recognise that you are going against convention here.

The problem is that you always think in terms of separate portions of time past, present, and future, as if the present is a distinct portion of time. I know that this is your preferred way of understanding "the present", but this idea is inconsistent with what I am proposing... — Metaphysician Undercover

You were proposing from the start of this discussion that the present has a duration. Have you changed your position on this?

...so if you cannot dismiss it for the sake of discussion, and quit falling back on it as a crutch, you'll never be able to understand what I am proposing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not if you keep changing your position, no, I agree.

What I've been arguing is that the pinpointing of the present is a mistake. That is what is at issue, I am saying it is a mistaken notion of "the present". You were willing to respect that first step, and accept the present as a duration instead of a pinpoint, but then you wanted two pinpoints, one at the beginning and one at the end of the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreeing (for the sake of argument) that the present has a duration does not require two pinpoints; it requires one larger pinpoint. Do you know that a duration has a start time and a finish time? The duration of the present is the pinpoint (or what we were earlier attempting to pinpoint). The start and finish times of that duration are not two separate pinpoints.

To clarify what I meant, the "arbitrary" measurement is a type of measurement, but not accurate or precise. I should not have said it is not a measurement at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

Should you also not have said "it is impossible to measure one's present"? You failed to comment on that.

There's no such thing as "the shortest window of consciousness", that's what your google search shows. It's an arbitrary designation. That's why I said it's not a measurement at all. But to clarify now, it would be a type of measurement, but not a very accurate or precise one. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then how could the accuracy or precision of the measurement be improved?

I don't find any "points" in my conscious experience that separate the present from the past and future. Instead, I experience the passage of time in a continuous manner. This continuity may help to explain why some people think of the present moment as having an infinitesimal duration, as it is the shortest discernible "unit" within a continuum.
— Luke

There is no such thing as a unit within a continuum. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hence my use of scare quotes around "unit".

It is a fundamental issue with "the real numbers". The continuum is designated as divisible in any way (infinitely). This means that any division of it is purely arbitrary, and artificial, there are no natural points of divisibility within it. — Metaphysician Undercover

What would a "natural point of divisibility" look like? I don't understand what you mean by non-arbitrary.

Of course this is just arbitrary. Why not divide your conscious awareness by apprehending each letter of a word, in order, instead of by apprehending each word of a sentence in order? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because the present is defined in terms of conscious awareness, and I am conscious of reading each word, per my internal monologue, not of reading each letter of a word.

Also, because the present is commonly defined as being the time of utterance i.e., of words/statements, rather than of individual letters.

So what we call "conscious awareness", or the conscious experience of the present, is really an awareness of the difference between past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you saying that conscious awareness has nothing to do with what we are consciously aware of (in the present)? It is merely "an awareness of the difference between past and future"?

So I know that even by the time my consciously aware mind apprehends a sensation, the thing sensed is in the past in relation to my consciously aware mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

The present is defined in terms of your "consciously aware mind". Whenever your "consciously aware mind apprehends a sensation", it does so in the present moment. The present moment is not the time at which you are consciously aware of something plus (or minus?) the time it takes to become aware of it or for your brain/body to produce your conscious mind or anything of the sort.

For example, when we become consciously aware of the latest most distant celestial object in the universe, it does not mean that the present time is therefore located 13 billion years ago, or whatever, simply because that's how long it has taken us to become aware of it. Instead, we are consciously aware of it in the present; the present is defined in terms of our conscious awareness.

"The present" is derived from conscious experience, but from an understanding of the elements of it (past and future). — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it is the time at which we consciously experience. Scientific understanding does not change that.

The overlap between past and future is changing because time is passing. For simplicity, the overlap is the present, and the present is changing as time passes. That's why the "now" is a moving target, by the time you say "now" it's in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

But the division of time into the periods of past, present and future is unchanging, so I don't see how the passage of time affects your Venn diagram, or its overlap, at all.

As I said, "the shortest possible window of conscious awareness" makes no sense to me as your Google search supports. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then I don't understand what you have been talking about when you speak about the duration of the present. Obviously, the term "present" can be used in a colloquial manner to refer to various periods of time of vastly different durations. I thought we were talking in terms of the present when defined in terms of conscious experience, and the duration of the present denoting the shortest duration of one's conscious awareness. Or, as you put it earlier:

Try to pinpoint the present, the exact point in time, which divides the future from past. Every time you say "now', by the time you say "now" it is in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is this meaning of "present" that I thought we were discussing, where uttered words become past once spoken, not longer periods such as hours or days. How can you not understand this "pinpointing" of the present?

I don't think I said it's impossible to measure one's present, only that such a measurement would be quite arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover

You said:

Measurements of time rely on the determination of points which mark the moments which begin and end the measured period. Such points are not real, but arbitrary. In practise, we mark a point with the occurrence of an event, (the numbers on a clock for example). There are no such events which mark the beginning and ending of one's present, unless of course we make arbitrary ones. Therefore any such measurement of one's present would be completely arbitrary, and that is not a measurement at all. Without such points it is impossible to measure one's present.

So I know that the judgements of anyone's duration of the present vary because it is impossible to measure one's present.. — Metaphysician Undercover

See above. You very clearly said that "it is impossible to measure one's present". In fact, you said it twice. You also added that any arbitrary measurement is "not a measurement at all".

What are you saying, that the present is as long as it takes to read a word? That supports what I said, that the present is as long as the event which has one's attention. — Metaphysician Undercover

You gave an example of an event which lasted for one hour. As I stated earlier:

I think that there probably is a "present" that represents the shortest window of consciousness or awareness for each person...

I also recognise that people use the phrase "the present" in other ways; namely, to represent longer periods such as the present day, present year or other common period. I think there are rarely any disagreements or misunderstandings over this usage. — Luke

So I thought we were discussing the possible duration of this "shortest window of consciousness" (or conscious awareness), rather than the colloquial usage denoting longer periods, such as the present hour, day, year or millennium. If it's the latter, then I don't understand what's in dispute, or what you mean by "the duration of the present", as though the colloquial usage might have only one standard duration. Your response to my Google search results did not indicate any surprise on your part of the duration being in the range of only milliseconds or seconds.

I explained that already, it has to do with the "point" in time which separates past from present, and the point in time which separates present from future. Why do you keep asking me this? Are you having difficulty understanding that such a separation requires a point? Or do you find points in time in your subjective experience of time? I even asked you to explain your experience of these points which separate these parts of time? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't find any "points" in my conscious experience that separate the present from the past and future. Instead, I experience the passage of time in a continuous manner. This continuity may help to explain why some people think of the present moment as having an infinitesimal duration, as it is the shortest discernible "unit" within a continuum.

For example, when you are reading, do you find that there is temporal points of separation between each word you read? I do not. In fact, I don't find that reading is anywhere near like how you described it. I have to understand the words in context, so I'm always reading a bunch of words at a time. Proper understanding requires that the entire sentence is present to my mind, so I often reread. I don't find these points of separation anywhere. — Metaphysician Undercover

While reading, my internal monologue "reads" the words. That is, I "hear" the words in my mind while I am reading them. Since each word is distinct in my mind, then I believe my conscious awareness while reading can be divided into individual words. SInce the present time is defined in terms of my conscious awareness, and since my conscious awareness can be divided into the reading of individual words, then the present time can be associated (or present-time-stamped) with my reading of each word, and the past and future are defined relative to the present time.

Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time? If not, then how do you reconcile this with your view that the present time is defined relative to one's conscious awareness?

You have a habit of saying things like 'then there is no present for you' when what I describe as the present is contrary to your description. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's hard not to draw this conclusion when you say things such as:

I can identify nothing which marks "the present" in my experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Especially when you have also previously said:

You say that you agree with me that the present is defined by conscious experience — Metaphysician Undercover

Analysis of sensation indicates that everything sensed is in the past, therefore memories
— Metaphysician Undercover

Is this your analysis of your own sensation?
— Luke

Yes. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you find that "everything sensed is in the past"? When you are consciously aware of having a sensation, how is that sensation (and everything sensed) in the past? You said that "the present is defined by conscious experience".

as we know, the future slips into the past. Therefore there are no points of overlap, as the overlap is constantly changing continuously, as time is passing. — Metaphysician Undercover

In what sense is the overlap changing? The duration of the present (i.e. the shortest possible window of conscious awareness) is changing over time? Why?

The Venn diagram is not a perfect example. As you can see, it consists of two static circles with an overlap, while time is not static. So what is required for a better illustration is a moving overlap. The time of the future (tomorrow for example) has to move through the period of overlap (today), and then become the time of the past (yesterday), or something like that. — Metaphysician Undercover

What do you mean by a "moving overlap"? How/why would the overlap change?

The distinction may still exist despite the overlap. For example the wavelength which constitutes green may overlap with the wavelength which constitutes yellow, and this might produce the colour blue. But that does not mean that those wavelengths are no longer there just because a different colour is created. Also, two equal and opposite forces may balance each other as an equilibrium, but that does not mean that the forces are not there. Therefore there is no problem whatsoever with conceiving of the past and future as distinct, yet overlapping at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

You consider the past and future to be additive or subtractive forces working in harmony or in opposition with each other to produce the present? How can these forces be defined by conscious experience?

There really is no present time distinct from past and future time. What I said is that the present is the perspective. So it is not a part of time at all...
— Metaphysician Undercover

Once again, you appear to deny that the present is a part of time. In that case, what have we been discussing? What is it that has a duration? How can a duration exist outside of time?
— Luke

I don't see the problem here. Temporal things, objects, events, etc., have duration. The human experience of the present is such a thing, it has duration. Duration is not time itself, it is what is measured through the principles of a conception of time. So, what exactly is the problem you are pointing to here? — Metaphysician Undercover

It depends what you mean by "not a part of time at all". In your opinion, are "temporal things, objects, events, etc." a part of time at all? How is a duration, as a period of time, not a part of time? What is a part of time, if not this?

Lastly, I'll just note that back on page one, you were claiming:

...present is logically prior to past and future, and human beings determine past and future relative to their existence at the present. They do not determine the present from past and future — Metaphysician Undercover

This appears to contradict your latest statements, such as:

There really is no present time distinct from past and future time. What I said is that the present is the perspective. So it is not a part of time at all, but the perspective from which time is observed. Time consists of the two aspects, past and future, and where these two are observed as overlapping is known as the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are no such events which mark the beginning and ending of one's present, unless of course we make arbitrary ones. Therefore any such measurement of one's present would be completely arbitrary, and that is not a measurement at all. Without such points it is impossible to measure one's present...

What you presented from Google shows a very significant variance, between a couple hundred milliseconds and a couple seconds. Yet you claim this is not significant. — Metaphysician Undercover

You cannot, on the one hand, claim it is impossible to measure one's present, but, on the other hand, accept the Google search results indicating that the measurement of the present is milliseconds to seconds in duration. Either one's present is impossible to measure, or else one's present can be measured but there are significant differences in those measurements. You can't say both that it's impossible to measure but then accept the ("significantly" different) measurements.

OK, so now it's your turn. Analyze your own subjective experience, find those points which separate past/present and future/present, and describe them to me. Justify your claim that there is no overlap in your own subjective experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

For example, each word of this post you are reading is read in the present; each word you have finished reading is now in the past; and each word you are yet to read is now in the future. You could also substitute "speaking" for "reading".

Why do you claim that this "separation" between past, present and future is inconsistent with subjective experience?

That's simple. I know there is past because of memories. I know there is future because anticipation. I can identify nothing which marks "the present" in my experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

All of your memories are related to your actions and conscious awareness in the present. All of your anticipations of the future are made in the present. If there is no "present" in your experience, then it sounds as though you deny the present. But, until now, the present is what you have been claiming has a duration and has an overlap with the past and the future. I thought that's what was in dispute here. Now you seem to be saying there is no "present".

Analysis of sensation indicates that everything sensed is in the past, therefore memories, and analysis of anticipations indicates that these relate to things in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is this your analysis of your own sensation?

Therefore I can conclude that my entire experience of "the present" is just an overlap of memories and anticipations, as the Venn diagram example I mentioned earlier. — Metaphysician Undercover

Until now, you had asserted that there were no distinct points marking the beginning and end of the present. For example:

"the present" has duration, and there are no real points which mark the beginning and ending of that duration — Metaphysician Undercover

You had implied, if not stated, that there were two overlaps: one between the past and present, and another between the present and future, thus creating the indistinct boundary around the present. Now you appear to have changed your argument to claim that there is only one overlap, and that the present is an overlapping area between the past and future. In that case, there are very "real points which mark the beginning and ending of that [present] duration", which are where the past and future (circles) intersect.

If the present is the area within the overlap of the past and future (circles) in your Venn diagram, then the present has two distinct boundary lines, which are simply the arcs of the past and future that form the boundaries of the overlapping area (i.e. the present). Those two arcs are distinct, single lines.

Personal experience needs to be subjected to relevant knowledge in order to understand it. A being looking at one's own experience without any knowledge at the outset would come away with very little. Modern science, physics and engineering, which deals with extremely short periods of time indicates very clearly that what we thought was the present experience, sensations, are really in the past by the time they are apprehended by the mind. So the mind is "ahead of", or in the future, relative to the information it gets from the senses. That information is delayed through electrical processes. This implies that if the human being itself is said to be at the present, some parts of the human being, the mind, are in the future, while other parts, the senses are in the past. This means that the whole act of sensing and apprehending what is sensed, being eventual, and requiring an extended period of time, is part past, and part future. — Metaphysician Undercover

If all the things we thought were in the present are not in the present, then what is left in the present? Most of what you have mentioned here is not consciously experienced or else has been found to be not in the present. However, you said that the present was defined in terms of conscious experience. Therefore, I don't see how this is an updated "understanding of what being present" means.

It is not that there is no distinction, it is that they are not "distinct" in the sense of not overlapping. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no distinction between past, present and future in "the present" area of your Venn diagram, or in the overlapping area of past and future which creates/defines the present. That section contains all three time periods and there is no distinction between them.

Furthermore, the present is distinct in terms of its boundary, which is formed by the non-overlapping sections of the past and future (times/circles) that lie outside the present. The boundary created by the overlap distinctly defines the beginning and end points of the present that you earlier claimed were not distinct.

There really is no present time distinct from past and future time. What I said is that the present is the perspective. So it is not a part of time at all... — Metaphysician Undercover

Once again, you appear to deny that the present is a part of time. In that case, what have we been discussing? What is it that has a duration? How can a duration exist outside of time?

To begin with, yours and mine vary, obviously. And, I've had numerous similar discussions on this forum which indicate variance among others. Also the google search you cited indicates a range between "a couple of hundred milliseconds to a couple of seconds" — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, but as an empirical matter, have you done any measurements of anyone's duration of the present? Even on yourself? If not, then how do you know that judgements vary?

Obviously we disagree on what constitutes "significant". Engineers today are working in timescales of nanoseconds and shorter, so clearly the difference you derived from google, of over a second is very significant — Metaphysician Undercover

If you accept the Google results, then where's the dispute?

We, at least, agree that "the present" time is defined in terms of conscious experience.
— Luke

You assert this, but display otherwise with your expressions, insisting that the difference between various subjective experiences in this matter is insignificant. — Metaphysician Undercover

My "insistence" (I've only said it once) that the difference between various subjective experiences in this matter are insignificant does not affect, and is completely unrelated to, our agreement that the "present" time is defined in terms of conscious experience.

You've also been insisting that there is no overlap between past and present, or present and future. This implies that there are two points in time, dimensionless boundaries, one which separates past from present, and one which separates future from present. But you agree that such dimensionless points are not consistent with the subjective experience of time — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not agree that "dimensionless points are not consistent with the subjective experience of time". Dimensionless points may be inconsistent with your view of the subjective experience of time, but they are not inconsistent with my view. Earlier in the discussion, I suggested an improvement to your argument that the present consists of a duration rather than a dimensionless point. However, even if I were to agree that the present consists of a duration rather than a dimensionless point, then I would only agree that the duration of the present itself is not a dimensionless point; that the present has a duration, and that that duration is bounded by definite end-points which separate it from the past and the future. I have maintained this position regarding definite distinctions between past, present and future throughout the discussion.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that assuming that there is no overlap between such segments of time implies dimensionless boundaries, points within the experience of time, to provide these separations, — Metaphysician Undercover

Obviously, I grasp it; I've maintained that there is a definite distinction between past, present and future throughout the discussion.

Can you honestly tell me that your experience of time provides a boundary between past and present so that there is no overlap? How do you identify this boundary? Do you see it, or otherwise sense it? Or, is it the case that this is just an ideal which you impose on your experience, insisting that your experience must be like this in order that your experience be consistent with your definition of "present", even though you do not really experience any such boundary between present and past, whatsoever? You just think that there must be a boundary because that's what your conception tells you, but you do not experience any such boundary. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you honestly tell me that your experience of time provides an overlap between past and present so that there is no boundary? How do you identify this overlap? Do you see it, or otherwise sense it? Or, is it the case that this is just an ideal which you impose on your experience, insisting that your experience must be like this in order that your experience be consistent with your definition of "present", even though you do not really experience any such overlap between present and past, whatsoever? You just think that there must be an overlap because that's what your conception tells you, but you do not experience any such overlap.

Conventional definitions are outdated, coming from a time when we had less understanding of what being present meant. — Metaphysician Undercover

What updated "understanding of what being present" means leads you to believe that there is an overlap of past/present and present/future? I thought your knowledge of this "overlap" was derived from your own personal experience, rather than from scientific knowledge?

There is no conventional definition of "the present" which states that it consists of parts of the past and/or the future.
— Luke

That is exactly the problem with conventional definitions of "the present". None of these proposed definitions are consistent with the reality of the present according to human experience. This has created a significant problem, which is that many people have been led to deny the reality of the present. So, what is most basic, and fundamental to human experience, being at the present, is now completely denied by many people who insist that "the present" is not something real.

Therefore we have the very significant problem which is the denial of the reality of the human experience. Some insist for example, that we live in a simulation. This denial of the reality of human experience is the result of there being not a single conventional definition of "the present" which is consistent with reality. There are only false representations of "the present", like what you propose, ones which utilize arbitrary points in time. Since the subjective experience is inconsistent with the conventional definitions of "the present", instead of rejecting the definitions, as I do, people accept these representations of "the present" as true representations of the present, and reject the human experience of "the present" as not real. — Metaphysician Undercover

Putting aside the question of how the lack of a singular defintion of "the present" causes the idea that we live in a simulation... What does any of this have to do with your proposed "overlap" between past/present and present/future?

Presumably, this "overlap" is due to the fact that the duration of one person's "present" is different from the duration of another person's "present".
— Luke

No, this is a bit of a misunderstanding of what I've argued. The overlap is not due to the fact that one person's present is different from another. The overlap is the true nature of what the present is, and what time is. We do not know why time exists like this, so we cannot say what the overlap is due to. The fact that the duration of one person's present is different from the duration of another person's present, is evidence that this overlap is the real, or true nature of the present.

So you need to reverse the order of implied causation in your statement. The overlap is not caused by one person's present being different from another's, the overlap causes one person's present to be different from another's. That's why we can say that the difference between one person's present and another's, is evidence of overlap. — Metaphysician Undercover

This brings us back to my earlier criticism. If there is no distinction between past, present and future, then the duration of the present must be infinite, right? Past, present and future are all one and without distinction, so there is no present time, really. Otherwise, what is the duration of your personal present time? How do you know if something is still present or if it is now in the past? Likewise, how do you know if something is still in the future or if it is now present? If there is no distinction between them, then past, present and future just blur into one single time period. But, in that case, there cannot be any differences between the duration of the "present" for different people because there really is no present time distinct from past and future times, and therefore there cannot there be any overlap of past/present and present/future. Just out of curiosity, what is the duration of the proposed overlap?

I think the major difference in ideas here is, is "the present" a global state? (Perhaps universal would be more clear than global) Or is it a "local" or perhaps even "personal" state?

People often intuitively think of the universe as this big 3d grid, and the universe, as a whole, moves forward one moment at a time, and the grid moves to its next state in unison. That's a really convenient and easy to digest way of looking at how we "move into the future". I'm not sure that relativity necessarily proves that view categorically wrong, per se, but it does at least bring it into question. — flannel jesus

I'm far from an expert in physics, in case it wasn't already apparent, but I tend to think of there as being a global progression with local differences. The expansion of the universe would seem to support global progression, I think, and relativity indicates that there would be local differences within that.

"The present" is defined by human experience. This implies human judgement. The distinct judgements of distinct human beings varies on this matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

Firstly, how do you know that judgements vary on this matter? Secondly, I don't believe that it does vary; at least, not to any significant degree. There is general consensus and conventional agreement over the present time, down to the microsecond, thanks to GPS satellites. Almost anyone with a working mobile phone or computer can verify the present time.

The goal is to understand the nature of time. I was defining "the present". If "present" refers to something completely different in every different situation then we cannot have any definition, Nor will we ever be able to understand the nature of time, because we will not be able to make any true propositions about the present in order to proceed logically. Instead, we look for general, true propositions which we can make, such as the following. The present separates past from future. It is itself a duration of time. Depending on one's point of view, past and future must extend into this duration which is called the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

But if we acknowledge and account for relativity, where people travelling in different inertial frames may each experience a different "present time", then what further disputes or disagreements over "the present time" remain, such that we still require this idea of an "overlap" of past and/or future with the present time?

"The present" does not refer to something different in every situation. We, at least, agree that "the present" time is defined in terms of conscious experience. People travelling in different inertial frames can still agree what the meaning of "the present time" means, even though they might each be experiencing a different "present time".

You are attempting to change the conventional meaning of the concept of "the present" to account for all potentially different "present times". There is no conventional definition of "the present" which states that it consists of parts of the past and/or the future.

This is clear evidence of the overlap I described. The fact that "the present" has duration, and there are no real points which mark the beginning and ending of that duration, nor is there a standard length of that duration, implies that there must be some overlap between past, present, and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Presumably, this "overlap" is due to the fact that the duration of one person's "present" is different from the duration of another person's "present". But if "there are no real points which mark the beginning and ending of that duration, nor is there a standard length of that duration", then how do you know that they must have a different duration? Maybe they have the same duration. It does not necessarily follow that the durations are different or that there must be some overlap. So how do you know that different people must have a different duration of "the present" in the first place?

It is unreasonable to reduce "the human perspective" to the perspective of one human being. Each individual human being makes the judgement concerning "the present", past/future, before/after, but the judgement is "unreasonable" if the perspective of other human beings is not considered in that judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, so we acknowledge relativity and that each person's "judgement" regarding the past, present and future may be a little different. Why does this require there to be any "overlap" of the past, present and future? If I acknowledge relativity and that your present might be slightly different to mine, then I see no reason why your past, present and future must overlap or mine either. I don't see the need to create a singular past, present and future that accommodates everyone, everywhere, travelling at all speeds, especially if relativity is acknowledged.

I don't see anyone agreeing with you, that the present is a period of time which lasts for 1,000 years. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wasn't suggesting that it did last for 1,000 years. I was refuting your assertion that the present needs to be a dimensionless point in order to avoid any overlap. It could be any duration.

clearly no one knows the real length of "the present" — Metaphysician Undercover

I think that there probably is a "present" that represents the shortest window of consciousness or awareness for each person. I also think that for most people this duration will be roughly the same. A quick Google search suggests this duration ranges from a couple of hundred milliseconds to a couple of seconds. I don't believe it's likely that we will never know the answer to this question, nor that there will forever be disagreement about it. Moreover, I don't believe it's a terribly important question.

I also recognise that people use the phrase "the present" in other ways; namely, to represent longer periods such as the present day, present year or other common period. I think there are rarely any disagreements or misunderstandings over this usage.

As I said in my first post, by the time you say "now", it is in the past. By the time someone [***ELSE***] hears you say "now" it is in the past. That's the unavoidable reality. And if you say that what was meant by "now" is a period of time encompassing both speaking and hearing, then there is both before and after inside the now.
— Metaphysician Undercover

You are repeating your error of conflating "before" with "past" and "after" with "future". These are not interchangeable terms. If before and after are inside the now, it does not follow that past and future are inside the now, because past and future are determined relative to now.
— Luke

I explained this. "Now" is the human perspective. Both, past/future, before/after, are judgements made from within that perspective. The human subject is a sensing being, and such judgements are made from within that being. Therefore past/future are within "the present". "The present" is the temporal position of the sentient being and past/future are judgements made within.. To put past/future outside the present requires projection, extrapolation. Putting past/future outside the present of the sentient being is a further process which can only be understood after a firm grasp of past/future within the sentient being is established. — Metaphysician Undercover

My response was to your previous post and its conditional: "if you say that what was meant by "now" is a period of time encompassing both speaking and hearing, then there is both before and after inside the now". In that post, you referred to the present time as "encompassing both speaking and hearing" of two individuals. You called this "the unavoidable reality".

However, in your latest post, you refer to the present time as "the temporal position of the sentient being" and "the human perspective" of one individual.

Therefore, no, you did not explain this. You simply changed your definition of "the present" to suit your argument, and once again did not address mine.

Any example that anyone gives as what is referred to as "the present" can always be broken down by someone else, and denied as the true "present". — Metaphysician Undercover

Your example was of a present time that encompassed two people. That's what I was replying to.

Look at the examples I already gave. If someone says that 2023 is the present, someone else could say no, July 8 is the present, and the rest of 2023 is past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Disputes over when, or how long, the present time is are irrelevant. Once agreement is reached (or context understood) on that matter, then past and future are determined relative to that.

To avoid this problem, and maintain your stipulated requirements "no part of the present can be in the past...etc.", the present must be reduced to a non-dimensional point in time, which separates future from past. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the present needn't be reduced to a non-dimensional point in time, hence my 1000 years example. You've also given examples of the present time being 2023 or July 8. Once established, the past and future are determined relative to that.

Don't you see that if you propose that "the present" is 1,000 years long, or any other period of time, without any overlap of past or future, any reasonable person would reject this proposition, saying that the time period has some past and some future within it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You asserted that the only way there could be no overlap between past and present or between present and future was if the present was a dimensionless mathematical point. That people might bicker over the "real" duration of the present is irrelevant. If we agree to refer to the current millennium as "the present time" then what comes before the current millennium is the past and what comes after the current millennium is the future, wIthout overlap. Your assertion is therefore refuted.

Don't you see that if you propose that "the present" is 1,000 years long, or any other period of time, without any overlap of past or future, any reasonable person would reject this proposition, saying that the time period has some past and some future within it. You could insist that this time period is what you stipulate as "the present", but then you are only being unreasonable, as trying to force your own arbitrary stipulated time period as "the present". So to make your stipulation agreeable, and reasonable, it must be reduced to a mathematical point. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why must it be "reduced to a mathematical point" in order to be "agreeable and reasonable"? You clearly don't agree with it or find it reasonable.

As I said in my first post, by the time you say "now", it is in the past. By the time someone hears you say "now" it is in the past. That's the unavoidable reality. And if you say that what was meant by "now" is a period of time encompassing both speaking and hearing, then there is both before and after inside the now. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are repeating your error of conflating "before" with "past" and "after" with "future". These are not interchangeable terms. If before and after are inside the now, it does not follow that past and future are inside the now, because past and future are determined relative to now.

The year 2050 is before 2070 but both years are in the future. 2050 is not in the past, despite being before 2070. 2050 and 2070 are before and after relative to each other, but past and future are only relative to now.

So, any time that someone uses "the present" to refer to a period of time, anyone can divide that period of time into past and future, consequently there is "overlap". — Metaphysician Undercover

Nonsense. Past and future are determined relative to the present. The present is not divisible into past and future, otherwise it would not be the present.

No part of the present can be in the past because if it were then it would no longer be in the present, and no part of the future can be in the present because if it were then it would no longer be in the future. Likewise, no part of the past can be in the present because if it were then it would not yet be in the past, and no part of the present can be in the future because if it were then it would not yet be in the present.

If you really believe what you say, tell me how "the present" can refer to anything other than a dimensionless mathematical point separating past from future, which everyone must respect, if there is to be no overlap in the usage of these terms. — Metaphysician Undercover

The present could be a dimensionless mathematical point or it could be 1,000 years long and, either way, it would still not overlap the past or future. The past is before the present and the future is after the present.

A future is presupposed prior to measurement as the time which will be measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is not part of the measurement, so is not "employed for the purpose of measurement".

A present moment is designated to start the measurement. The time going past is measured until another designated present moment. — Metaphysician Undercover

Clocks and times (numbers) are used; not present moments.

Have you ever used a stopwatch? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not any stopwatch that used the words "past", "present" or "future" for the purposes of measurement.

No, the meaning of the words requires those arbitrary points.
— Luke

No, the meaning of the words does not require "points". The points are just a mathematical tool applied in the practise of measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover

I misspoke here. I should have said that the use or meaning of the words creates those arbitrary points or boundaries. It is the distinctions between the meanings of the words that creates the distinctions between "past", "present" and "future", or in which those distinctions pre-exist. The different meanings of the different words are themselves the distinctions. These arbitrary boundaries are not based on anything except the usage or meanings of these words. You can forget about mathematical "points". The upshot is that there is no overlap between them; no part of the past or the future "inside" the present. The meanings of those concepts are mutually exclusive. If something is present, then it is neither past nor future; if past, then neither present nor future; and if future, then neither past nor present.

"Correct" and "incorrect" are a matter of convention, meaning consistent with or inconsistent with a specific conventions. "Truth" is a matter of consistent with reality. What I am saying is that the conventions which are employed for the purpose of measurement are principles which are not consistent with reality. Therefore when people talk about points in time they speak correctly, but not truthfully. — Metaphysician Undercover

When have the conventional meanings of "past", "present" and "future" been "employed for the purpose of measurement"?

This feature of "the present", as the perspective of the observer manifests as the relativity of simultaneity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is that what this is all about? You have changed the meanings of "past", "present" and "future" to try and accommodate relativity? Surely, people travelling at different relative speeds to us could just use different conventions; i.e. use those words to refer to different times than we do?

I've been through this so many times, I don't know why I continue. The distinction is a judgement of before and after in relation to, or if you prefer, from the perspective of, the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, so past and future come before and after the present, respectively. In fact, that's what these words are typically used to mean.

You referred to |"three distinct periods of time", and that's what I objected to. And I told you why, because to be distinct periods of time requires boundaries of separation. These boundaries, or points in time re what I consider to be a false premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

And my argument has been that if you want to place the past and the future within the present time, then you need another present time inside that, that these past and future times actually come before and after. The words create the distinction. You are misusing these words.

If the past and future, as we experience them, are within the present then there is not three distinct periods. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do they need to be within the present?

But this still allows that the past and future might extend outside the present as well. Think of a Venn diagram of past and future, overlapping at the present, for example. In no way can this be described as three distinct periods of time. However, both past and future are within the present, and also extend outside the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. But the past is not before the present and the future is not after the present in this example (per your second premise). Of course you will say that some of it is, but then you will need another present which completely is. That's what coming before and after means.

What you apparently fail to understand is that my use is designed to be incompatible with yours
— Metaphysician Undercover

You designed it that way?
— Luke

Yes, of course, that is the point. — Metaphysician Undercover

I meant: did you intend only for your use to be incompatible with mine? Which is how it sounded.

The conventional way, which you describe requires arbitrary points, or boundaries in time, to separate distinct periods of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the meaning of the words requires those arbitrary points. Those words are used to separate distinct periods of time into past, present and future. You aren't using the words correctly. Perhaps you could state why you want the boundaries to be imprecise.

However, these points and boundaries are nowhere to be found in our experience of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Most people have no trouble using the words correctly. Furthermore, those points and boundaries can change with context, such as your use of 2023 as the present.

So "past" and "future" are conceptions within the mind of the being, at the present, who uses these conceptions to make judgements. — Metaphysician Undercover

In simpler terms, people use language.

So the "past (B) and future (B) times" are past and future relative to those judgements. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you saying that everyone uses the words "past", "present" and "future" incorrectly? People really use those terms to mean that the past and future are a little bit inside the present? Then it seems strange that they aren't normally defined that way.

And the thinking being may use projections to extend one's judgement to things outside of one's mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since we can think about the past or the future in the present, then those times are present?

Since there are no points in time the past and future cannot be distinct from the present.
— Metaphysician Undercover

If there is no distinction between "past", "present" and "future", then what does each word mean?
— Luke

You have an unbelievable way of associating meaning with words Luke. That is why it is very difficult to hold a discussion with you. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have not answered the question. If you make a distinction between these, then what is it?

Obviously what I mean by "distinct" is not the same as what you mean by "distinction" here. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is not obvious at all. It might help if you answer my question.

So your criticism of my argument has just turned into an exercise in equivocation. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no evidence of that because you have not answered my question.

My use of "past" and "future" (A) is inconsistent with, and cannot support yours (B)... — Metaphysician Undercover

I thought that you rejected "past" (A) and "future" (A) times in favour of "past" (B) and "future" (B) times?

As a reminder, (A) represents past and future times that are external to the present time (A), whereas (B) represents past and future times that are internal to the present time (A); of which the present time (A) consists. Except you later reclaimed (A) times but with imprecise boundaries. However, I note that I never mentioned anything about sharp or imprecise boundaries with regard to (A) times (in the post where I first referred to (A) and (B) times).

What you apparently fail to understand is that my use is designed to be incompatible with yours — Metaphysician Undercover

You designed it that way?

...because of the problems I associate with yours. — Metaphysician Undercover

You advanced your argument before I entered this discussion. It seems you would prefer to attack straw men that you believe represent my position instead of making an honest attempt to defend your own argument.

The principal problem is that you require points in time to distinguish your three aspects, and these points are not real, but arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover

Regardless, your argument is dependent on the distinctions between the "three aspects" of past, present and future. Making a fuss over these distinctions being real or arbitrary, precise or imprecise, does not advance your argument or address my criticisms. It is instead a red herring that you use to hide behind.

Once again: If the present time (A) consists of both past (B) and future (B) times, then what are those past (B) and future (B) times relative to? They are in the past and in the future of what?

Since there are no points in time the past and future cannot be distinct from the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

If there is no distinction between "past", "present" and "future", then what does each word mean?

Most people use the following terms to refer to three distinct periods of time:

— Luke

Yes, and I've discussed the problems with this way that most people think. "Distinct periods of time" requires points, dimensionless boundaries to separate them. These points are inconsistent with our experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't acknowledge any duration called "the present" that is distinct from past and future times? I thought your argument depended on it.

Furthermore, if we assume that there are dimensionless points, boundaries, within time, then these points cannot themselves consist of time, but must be composed of something other than time. Then we have something other than time within time, and this produces the incoherency. — Metaphysician Undercover

You believe that linguistic distinctions are composed of something physical?

We've been through this a number of times, 1 and 3 are simply rejected as incoherent, false ideas of what past and future are. There are no points or dimensionless boundaries separating distinct parts of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

You said that the past and future are determined relative to the present. Now you reject the past and future as incoherent? If there are no distinctions between different parts of time, then why is your argument based on the distinctions between past, present and future? If there is no present time that is distinct from past and future times, then what the hell have we been talking about?

Then after these are dismissed, we adopt 4 and 5 as a more realistic representation of past and future, a representation which is consistent with our empirical knowledge. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, there is no past or future times outside of the present time, there is only the present time which consists of past and future times? In that case - for the umpteenth time - what are these past and future times relative to; they are in the past and in the future of what? It cannot be the present time if these past and future times constitute the present time.

We might then proceed toward understanding a "past and future" which is outside the realm of experience and empirical knowledge, and this would be a "past and future" which is outside of the present, like your 1 and 3, with the difference being that they are not based on distinct boundaries. Then we have a way to properly understand past and future as they are, outside the realm of the present , and this understanding will be consistent with our experience, and therefore our empirical knowledge, as not based in distinct boundaries. — Metaphysician Undercover

You reject my 1 and 3, which you state "are simply rejected as incoherent, false ideas of what past and future are", but now you reclaim them as being "consistent with our experience, and therefore our empirical knowledge".

Your "imprecise boundaries" do not affect my argument. Your "imprecise boundaries" simply make you vacillate over maintaining the distinction between past, present and future or not. If you maintain the distinction, then you must face my argument. If you reject the distinction, then your argument (which relies on the distinction) collapses in a meaningless heap.

The point is that Present (A) is incompatible with conscious experience, and incompatible with present (B) which is compatible with conscious experience. Therefore there can be no nesting, and present (A) must be rejected as a misleading idea. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, but presumably Present (B) will follow your same argument as before:

1 conscious experience indicates that the present is not a point, it consists of duration. 2. A duration consists of parts which are before and parts which are after. 3. Before and after in relation to the present are past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore, you still need to address the same criticism that I levelled at your argument regarding Present (A) for your argument regarding Present (B). That's the problem with your argument: it's nested presents all the way down.

This supposed "misuse" is a product of your incoherent definition of "present", as I've already shown to you. You have an incoherent definition of "present" which puts past and future outside of the present, and this renders all aspects of time as unintelligible. By the terms of this incoherent definition, I misuse "past" and "future". — Metaphysician Undercover

I'll make a final attempt then leave you to your confusion.

Most people use the following terms to refer to three distinct periods of time:

1. Past (A)
2. Present (A)
3. Future (A)

You have also noted more than once that the past and the future are determined relative to the present, e.g.:

...present is logically prior to past and future, and human beings determine past and future relative to their existence at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

However, you simultaneously maintain that the present also consists of past and future periods. Let us denote these subdivisions of duration of the present as:

4. Past (B)
5. Future (B)

If 1 and 3 above are determined relative to 2, then 4 and 5 are determined relative to what? That is, 4 and 5 are in the past and in the future of what?

The answer can only be a second present - Present (B) - that is nested within Present (A).

And so on, ad infinitum.

Also, if we take a closer look, premise 1 states that the present consists of a duration and premise 2 states that a duration consists of before and after parts. This implies that the present consists of before and after parts. This does not imply that those before and after parts are past and future parts, because it is the present which consists of those before and after parts.
— Luke

I don't see how the matter described is relevant. It's an issue of defining the terms. "Before and after" in relation to "the present" are known as past and future. If you like, we could adhere to "the present consists of before and after parts", and discuss what this means. But what it means is that the present consists of future and past parts, because if it consisted of only past, or only future parts, this would not be consistent with the conscious experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is relevant because you are misusing the terms "past" and "future", which are not part of the present, but distinct periods which - as you yourself have stated - are defined relative to the present. You appear to grasp this issue and my main point here:

...you exclude "past" and "future" from the naming of the parts of "the present", because they have already been used as names relative to the "present moment". — Metaphysician Undercover

Precisely. "Past" and "future" cannot be used as names of parts of the present because they are used as names relative to the present. Your use of two different senses for each of these terms indicates your use of two different senses of "the present".

That is an example, "the present is 2023". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, you returned to your example, so I addressed it.

It is not a definition of "the present". — Metaphysician Undercover

You defined it as such when you introduced it:

This year, 2023, is the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

You say that you agree with me that the present is defined by conscious experience, but then you want to define "the present" as either a point in time, or an interval of time with beginning and ending points. Points in time are not at all consistent with our experience of time as continuous. — Metaphysician Undercover

Points in time are consistent with a duration. A duration is a determinate period of time with beginning and end points. It is your premise that the present consists of a duration.

Why not? There were many years before 2023 and will be many afterwards.
— Luke

Because there is no occurrence of any event if there is no passing of time. And passing of time only occurs at the present, as our experience indicates. — Metaphysician Undercover

That was my point: 2022 was present, 2023 is present, and 2024 will be present.

How can you assert that you've rebutted my argument when you cannot even state the premises? 1 conscious experience indicates that the present is not a point, it consists of duration. 2. A duration consists of parts which are before and parts which are after. 3. Before and after in relation to the present are past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for clarifying. However, there seems to be some hidden premises because I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that "time passes" from these premises alone.

Also, if we take a closer look, premise 1 states that the present consists of a duration and premise 2 states that a duration consists of before and after parts. This implies that the present consists of before and after parts. This does not imply that those before and after parts are past and future parts, because it is the present which consists of those before and after parts.

We could add that, relative to the present moment, the past comes before the present moment and the future comes after the present moment, but we are not committed to any conclusion that the before parts of the present are past nor that the after parts of the present are future. The before and after parts are only what the present consists of.

You are still using two different senses of the present moment. On the one hand you treat the present as a duration. However, on the other hand, you also treat the present as some mid-point within the duration, which has some parts before it and some parts after, and you treat these as being past and future. You should instead treat what is outside the duration of the present as being past and future, rather than what is inside it on either side of the duration of the present's mid-point.

How do they contradict the principle premise? They would need to state that conscious experience occurs in the past and in the future in order to contradict it. To avoid contradiction, we could simply state that conscious experience occurred in the past and will occur in the future.
— Luke

Then you are not talking about the present any more, which would be inconsistent with the premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wasn't talking about the present or the principle premise that "conscious experience occurs in the present". I was talking about what contradicts the principle premise.

To avoid contradiction we'd have to say that conscious experience occurred when that time which is now past, was present, to ensure that conscious experience is always at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

This was implied by my use of tensed language. Conscious experience occurs in the present, occurred in the past, and will occur in the future. The contradiction is thus avoided.

I know from the way you treated my examples (the present is 2023) that this idea is what you object to. You say that if the event (2023 for example) is "the present" then all of it is at the present, and anything before the entirety of it is past, and anything after the entirety of it is future. This would leave the entirety of that event (2023 in the example) as "the present" with no part inf the future or past. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you define "the present" as the entirety of 2023, then the duration of the present is - the present lasts for - the entirety of 2023, by definition. Furthermore, it does not follow that 2023 (the duration of the present) therefore has "no part in the future or past", as it was preceded by 2022 (which is presently in the past) and will by followed by 2024 (which is presently in the future).

In reality, if there is an event which occurs at the present, then by the fact that it is an "event" it is logically necessary that it has temporal duration and time passes during the occurrence of that event (2023). — Metaphysician Undercover

That time passes is presupposed regardless of your argument that the present contains parts of the future and past or not. Your stipulation that the present contains parts of the future and past does not make time pass, logically or otherwise.

Therefore within the event itself, there are before parts and after parts. — Metaphysician Undercover

Within both the past and future, there are "before" parts and "after" parts. Does it follow from this that the future is in the past and that the past is in the future? This is simply a misuse of language. "Before" and "after" are not synonymous with "past" and "future". "Before" and "after" can be used independently of the present moment whereas "past" and "future" are relative to it. WWII came after WWI yet both are in our past. 2035 is before 2065 yet both are in our future.

And it also follows that during the event, the present event (2023), while that event is occurring and time is passing during its occurrence, some of it in the past and some of it in the future. Therefore within the occurrence of the event which is "at the present" (2023 in the example) we can only understand its temporal progression by assuming that part is past and part is future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but none of the duration of the present is in the past or the future. By definition, it is the duration of the present, not the duration of the past nor the duration of the future. We seem to agree that the present moment is defined by your conscious experience, and it is the duration of your conscious experience that defines the duration of the present moment, and only the present moment. Otherwise, it would not be the duration of the present moment, but the duration of the present moment +/- some duration of the past and/or some duration of the future.

If we insist that all the event (2023) is present, and there is no past or future… — Metaphysician Undercover

I”ve never said that there is no past or future.

…[then] there is no grounds for apprehending any temporal progression within the occurrence of the event. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why not? There were many years before 2023 and will be many afterwards.

Therefore we can conclude with a very high degree of certainty, because the premises are very strong, that within the event which we call "present conscious experience", some parts are in the past and some are in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which premises?

Conscious experience occurs in the present. That is the principle premise. Conscious experience in the past, and in the future, contradict this premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do they contradict the principle premise? They would need to state that conscious experience occurs in the past and in the future in order to contradict it. To avoid contradiction, we could simply state that conscious experience occurred in the past and will occur in the future.

This is because you will not allow "present" to be defined by conscious experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've never said that.

They do not determine the present from past and future, like you say. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've never said that.

We went through this already, the duration is indefinite. it is not "a duration of some length", simply duration. It is you tendency to fall back on measurement which makes you insist on points. — Metaphysician Undercover

It was your argument that measurement is the cause of the duration's imprecision and indefiniteness (remember you agreed that a stipulated time period such as a minute is not indefinite or imprecise?). Unless you are merely defining the duration to be imprecise and indefinite?

Sorry for the misleading examples, let's just go back to the argument itself, if you will. I suggest that if you want to understand, release your preconceived notion of "the present", and start with an open mind. Are you will to start with your conscious experience of being at the present, experiencing the passing of time, without reference to measurement? — Metaphysician Undercover

I've already provided you with several rebuttals to your argument. You are welcome to address them. You could start with this:

Is a part of your present conscious experience in the past and part in the future? How can your present conscious experience be in the future or the past? Wouldn't they just be your past and future conscious experiences? — Luke

"Present" is not defined that way in my argument. It is defined by our conscious experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, so you are using "present" in two different senses. It is defined by our conscious experience and it is the year 2023, or July 2, or whatever. This is the only way your argument makes any sense, but it contains a fallacy of ambiguity. This is what I have been attempting to show you. It was why I asked: before and after what, because I anticipated that the answer to this would be before and after your present conscious experience. That is, I could see that you were also using "the present" to refer to some moment (of consciousness) in the middle of the (other, larger) present moment (of 2023).

Your ambiguous model looks like this:

Past---------------Future
--------<Present>-------
P---R---E---S---E---N---T

your objection is based in equivocation, and is irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

The equivocation is yours.

Start and end points are what is demonstrated by the first part of the argument as incorrect, unreal, false. — Metaphysician Undercover

How can there be a duration without start and end points? If there is a duration of some length, then that length must have end points.

Furthermore, it is this definition of "present", which requires a non-dimensional divisor between different parts of time, and this is dealt with in the first part of the argument. — Metaphysician Undercover

To be clear, can you link to the post(s) that contains the argument?

Part of 2023 is in the past and part is in the future, despite the fact that 2023 is the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

How can the present both be defined by our conscious experience and also be 2023? Is a part of your present conscious experience in the past and part in the future? How can your present conscious experience be in the future or the past? Wouldn't they just be your past and future conscious experiences? Unless you wish to argue that you consciously experience 2023 all at once?

In relation to the present, the before is called "past", and the after is called "future". Therefore when we talk about this period of time which we call "the present", part is in the past and part is in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

The second sentence does not follow from the first. What is before the present is called "past" and what is after the present is called "future". Therefore, neither the past nor the future are part of the present.

The present is a duration with start and end points. What is before the start of the present is the past, and what is after the end of the present is the future.

Perhaps a couple examples will help you to understand. This year, 2023, is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Today, July 2, is the present. Part is in the past, part is in the future. This minute is the present. Part is in the past, part in the future. Etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover

If 2023 is the present, then the past is everything before 2023 and the future is everything after 2023.
If July 2 is the present, then the past is everything before July 2 and the future is everything after July 2.
If this minute is the present, then the past is everything before this minute and the future is everything after this minute.

There is no part of the past or the future in the present.

Before and after each other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good. Im glad you did not mean before and after the present. Now all that’s left to explain is how your conclusion follows:

So if the present separates future from past, and it consists of a duration of time, then part of the present must be in the future, and part of it in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why must part of the present be in the future and part of it in the past?

I thought it was quite clear that I was talking about the thing measured, the passage of time, hence my statement "time is known as what is passing, and what always has some duration". — Metaphysician Undercover

I spent several posts trying to clarify whether you were talking about the measurement of time or of stipulated time periods such as seconds and minutes, and your latest reply was: both. So, no, it was far from clear that you were talking about the thing measured. I believe I've helped to clarify that for you.

If you would like to address the argument... — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, I'll address it. The argument you gave was:

if the present consists of a duration of time, then some of that duration must be before, the other part which is after. — Metaphysician Undercover

Before and after what?

So if the present separates future from past, and it consists of a duration of time, then part of the present must be in the future, and part of it in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see how the conclusion follows, and you have offered no reason to accept it.

Both, defining one period of time with another doesn't clarify anything because it would lead to an infinite regress, without ever giving any indication as to how to actually apply those measurement principles in practise. And, in practise any measurement is imprecise due to the problem with the start and end point. — Metaphysician Undercover

You said earlier:

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

It was this claim about any proposed period of time being "indefinite" and "imprecise" that I was querying and criticising. As you confirm above, this relates only to measurement. There is nothing indefinite or imprecise about a stipulated measure of time, such as a minute. Your introduction of how to "actually apply measurement principles in practise" are not relevant to your statement that "any proposed period of time is indefinite [and] imprecise". A minute is exactly 60 seconds long - no more, no less.

If you are interested in my argument, then address the argument itself, rather than some other vague ideas about measurement problems, which seem to be irrelevant to my argument anyway. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have stated more than once, including immediately above in bold, that "in practise any measurement is imprecise due to the problem with the start and end point". I have not introduced "some other vague ideas about measurement problems". This is very clearly your argument.

You could make an argument such that if we imagine an instant of time to be like a photograph, and if we consider that the average shutter speed of a typical photograph is 1/60th of a second, then it follows that an actual instant of time requires some duration, no matter how small.
— Luke

That's a better question, more directed at the argument itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

It wasn't a question.

Whether the "instant" is defined as the time between the points, or defined as the points — Metaphysician Undercover

Points have zero dimension or length, so it would make no difference either way. There would be a difference if an "instant" were defined as a single point of zero duration, rather than as the time between two points, which would then be of some duration.

The second part of the argument is that any duration of time consists of a part which is before and a part which is after. In relation to the present, the prior part is past and the posterior part is future, therefore the present must consist of both future and past. — Metaphysician Undercover

This makes little sense to me. The present is neither past nor future. I see no reason to accept why it must "consist" of either past or future. Nobody is attempting to measure the present moment. If we could measure the present moment, then there would be no reason to say that the present therefore consists of both future and past. If we knew of any measurement errors, then we'd account for them in our measurement of the duration of the present.

If you mean a period of time, such as a minute or an hour, then I disagree that these are indefinite periods of time. If you mean any measurement of time, then I suppose there might be at least some imprecision involved with any measurement, but I don't see why it matters.
— Luke

I didn't say that "it matters", only pointing out the reality and truth of it. It might matter to you, or it might not, depending on your interest. But it seems to me like you are trying to make an argument where none is called for. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was seeking clarification.

Are you saying that (e.g.) a minute is an indefinite period of time? Isn't it exactly 60 seconds?

Or are you saying that any measurement of time is indefinite?

If the latter, then what bearing does it have on your views/comments regarding the present moment?

But if "an instant" is "not really consistent with reality" as a point in time, then "a minute" is "not really consistent with reality" as a period of time.
— Luke

Right, and as I said above, this might matter to you or it might not, depending on your interest. — Metaphysician Undercover

My interest is that I didn't find your argument - that the present moment cannot be an instantaneous point in time - to be very convincing.

You could make an argument such that if we imagine an instant of time to be like a photograph, and if we consider that the average shutter speed of a typical photograph is 1/60th of a second, then it follows that an actual instant of time requires some duration, no matter how small.

As (I think) you note, an instantaneous point in time, like a point in space, is a dimensionless concept. However, in reality, if we assume the present to be the time at which we each find ourselves conscious, then a dimensionless point in time with zero duration would seem to be an insufficient "time window" in which to be conscious. A point in time with zero duration is no time at all, and there is nothing to be conscious of in no time at all. Or something like that.

Yes, and that\s what comes later in the post. If activity occurs at the present, then the present must consist of duration, not a point. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see what difference it makes, especially to your argument.

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

If you mean a period of time, such as a minute or an hour, then I disagree that these are indefinite periods of time. If you mean any measurement of time, then I suppose there might be at least some imprecision involved with any measurement, but I don't see why it matters.

As I explained, the idea of "an instant", as a point in time, is not really consistent with reality as we know it. It's a useful ideal, but not at all real.
— Metaphysician Undercover

...we must not use language as it is "not really consistent with reality".
— Luke

This does not follow though. As I said, it's a useful ideal. Usefulness is not dependent on accuracy, precision, or even truth in the sense of correspondence. — Metaphysician Undercover

But if "an instant" is "not really consistent with reality" as a point in time, then "a minute" is "not really consistent with reality" as a period of time.

And in that model nothing is synchronized enough to be called 'the present'. If you see a bird flying in the sky near the sun, the light that bounced off the bird hit it a fraction of a second ago, but the rays coming for the Sun left it eight minutes ago. That is, what you perceive as contemporary is not – the Sun might have suddenly ceased to exist four minutes ago, long before that bird even got near you. Your perception 'the bird flies when the sun shines' would be false in that case. — Jabberwock

This implies that 'the present' is the time at which we each find ourselves to be conscious; when we each perceive the occurence of things in the world to be contemporary. Obviously, this isn't a universal time measure, but is similar enough for those of us on Earth (travelling at approx. the same velocity).

Every time you say "now', by the time you say "now" it is in the past. So the present cannot be a point in time which separates past from future, because that point will always be in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

It seems that your "by the time you say "now"" is equivalent to "after you say "now"". It could be argued that the present time is that time while or during your saying of the word "now", and that (at that time) the past precedes this act and the future procedes it.

As I explained, the idea of "an instant", as a point in time, is not really consistent with reality as we know it. It's a useful ideal, but not at all real. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then the same could be said of any period of time - not just an instant - and so all periods of time are "useful ideals" that are not "consistent with reality". In fact, the whole of language could be considered as "useful ideals". Congratulations then, MU: we must not use language as it is "not really consistent with reality".

Not quite. There is also a form of space no one else can entirely occupy. That is the space we carry with us our entire life. Intractable and inescapable. The space of the self. Wherever one goes, there their body is. The space ones body always occupies by virtue of being material, physical, substantial. — Benj96

You stand here and I'll stand there. Now our bodies are occupying the opposite "form of space" we each were in a moment ago. However, we must exclude the fact that the Earth has moved and so have the spaces we each occupied a moment ago. So we haven't really swapped the same spaces we each occupied a moment ago.

Furthermore there is yet a another, a third form of space. The space nothing can occupy. The void. The vacuum. If it is occupied it is not a vacuum. It is the true absence of anything material or substantial. — Benj96

What space is it not possible for anything to occupy? And why is it impossible for anything to occupy it? Perhaps a black hole? But a black hole - just like any other object - moves through space too, thus freeing up that space for other objects to occupy.

Do you mean at a given moment in time?