McTaggart argument for the unreality of time

[bahman]

I am currently reading about time. I came to this article about the unreality of time. I have a problem understanding this part:

However, there is a contradiction, he insists, because any attempt to explain why they are future, present, and past, at different times is (i) circular because we would need to describe the successive order of those "different times" again by invoking the determinations of being future, present or past, and (ii) this in turn will inevitably lead to a vicious infinite regress. The vicious infinite regress arises, because to explain why the second appeal to future, present, and past, doesn't lead again to the same difficulty all over, we need to explain that they in turn apply successively and thus we must again explain that succession by appeal to future, present, and past, and there is no end to such an explanation.

Do you understand this part of the argument? Does this passage mean that we need time to explain the passage of time?

[Impenitent]

I think he is claiming that because we exist in current time, what we call future, present and past is as mobile and requiring redefinition...

as I write this, 12:00pm on 9/28/2024 is a future event

when I read it at exactly 12:00pm on 9/28/2024 it is a present event (but only for a moment)

when I read this at 12:01pm on 9/28/2024 the previous writing will be a past event

our place in time is always changing - what "will be" becomes "is" becomes "was"... ad infinitum

-Imp

[bahman]

I think he is claiming that because we exist in current time, what we call future, present and past is as mobile and requiring redefinition...

as I write this, 12:00pm on 9/28/2024 is a future event

when I read it at exactly 12:00pm on 9/28/2024 it is a present event (but only for a moment)

when I read this at 12:01pm on 9/28/2024 the previous writing will be a past event

our place in time is always changing - what "will be" becomes "is" becomes "was"... ad infinitum

-Imp

Yes, we must always redefine past, present, and future to be consistent. I don't see any circularity in it.

[Impenitent]

I think he is claiming that because we exist in current time, what we call future, present and past is as mobile and requiring redefinition...

as I write this, 12:00pm on 9/28/2024 is a future event

when I read it at exactly 12:00pm on 9/28/2024 it is a present event (but only for a moment)

when I read this at 12:01pm on 9/28/2024 the previous writing will be a past event

our place in time is always changing - what "will be" becomes "is" becomes "was"... ad infinitum

-Imp

Yes, we must always redefine past, present, and future to be consistent. I don't see any circularity in it.

I think the circularity is within the constant conjunction of events as a circle- not necessarily circular reasoning

-Imp

[bahman]

I think he is claiming that because we exist in current time, what we call future, present and past is as mobile and requiring redefinition...

as I write this, 12:00pm on 9/28/2024 is a future event

when I read it at exactly 12:00pm on 9/28/2024 it is a present event (but only for a moment)

when I read this at 12:01pm on 9/28/2024 the previous writing will be a past event

our place in time is always changing - what "will be" becomes "is" becomes "was"... ad infinitum

-Imp

Yes, we must always redefine past, present, and future to be consistent. I don't see any circularity in it.

I think the circularity is within the constant conjunction of events as a circle- not necessarily circular reasoning

-Imp

I didn't mean circular reasoning either. Do you mind elaborating?

[Impenitent]

it may be that the circle of existence spins until the present no longer can absorb a future event as a present event - which becomes a past event as quickly as the future which became the present became the past...

it is never the future

it is never the past

the unreality of time may be that it is always now

we may have mental representations of the future and the past - but always presently

-Imp

[bahman]

it may be that the circle of existence spins until the present no longer can absorb a future event as a present event - which becomes a past event as quickly as the future which became the present became the past...

it is never the future

it is never the past

the unreality of time may be that it is always now

we may have mental representations of the future and the past - but always presently

-Imp

Well, the past and future are of course mental representations in presentism. We know it. How do you get infinite regress from this?

[Skepdick]

Yes, we must always redefine past, present, and future to be consistent. I don't see any circularity in it.

it is the act of defining which causes the inconsistencies.

By chopping up the flow of time you've categorized the non-categorical.

[bahman]

Yes, we must always redefine past, present, and future to be consistent. I don't see any circularity in it.

it is the act of defining which causes the inconsistencies.

What inconsistency?

By chopping up the flow of time you've categorized the non-categorical.

What do you mean?

[Skepdick]

What inconsistency?

The conceptual one.

What do you mean?

If you assume presentism it's always now. What you call the future is actually the past relative to some $now.

[bahman]

What inconsistency?

The conceptual one.

Do you mind elaborating?

What do you mean?

If you assume presentism it's always now.

Ok.

What you call the future is actually the past relative to some $now.

Yes. So what?

[Skepdick]

What inconsistency?

The conceptual one.

Do you mind elaborating?

What do you mean?

If you assume presentism it's always now.

Ok.

What you call the future is actually the past relative to some $now.

Yes. So what?

So you are stuck in the same cat-and-mouse game between ontology and epistemology.

Is point-in-time X the past, the present, or the future?

It's all of those. Relative to other points in time.

The categories of "paste", "present" and "future" are mental and social constructions.

There is no zero-object. No initial or final element. Nothing to act as a fixed point/location in time.

[bahman]

The conceptual one.

Do you mind elaborating?

If you assume presentism it's always now.

Ok.

What you call the future is actually the past relative to some $now.

Yes. So what?

So you are stuck in the same cat-and-mouse game between ontology and epistemology.

I know the distinction between ontology and epistemology.

Is point-in-time X the past, the present, or the future?

Which point?

It's all of those.

It is not all of those. A point in time is past, now, or future.

[Skepdick]

Which point?

Any point.

It is not all of those. A point in time is past, now, or future.

Relative to what?

[bahman]

Which point?

Any point.

The past and future do not exist according to presentism.

It is not all of those. A point in time is past, now, or future.

Relative to what?

Relative to now.