McTaggart argument for the unreality of time

[Skepdick]

The past and future do not exist according to presentism.

Depends on what you mean by "exist". Ontologically time doesn't exist either.

It's just a concept we use to organize our thoughts and memories.

Relative to now.

Now? Then?

Now is not now is not now is not now.

There is no now.

[bahman]

The past and future do not exist according to presentism.

Depends on what you mean by "exist". Ontologically time doesn't exist either.

Time, now, exists according to presentism. We need to prove that it does not exist so here we are with McTaggart's argument again. I don't understand it. Do you?

It's just a concept we use to organize our thoughts and memories.

That is just a claim. We need to prove it.

Relative to now.

Now? Then?

I mean at any instance we can define past, now, and future as, what is passed, what exists, and what is becoming.

Now is not now is not now is not now.

There is no now.

Now, you are not making any sense!

[Skepdick]

Time, now, exists according to presentism. We need to prove that it does not exist so here we are with McTaggart's argument again. I don't understand it. Do you?

According to presentism it's always NOW. Ontology. Future and past are memories. e.g epistemology.

I think it was Brandom who distinguished between things with histories and things without histories.

e.g you can't tell how old an electron is.

Because an electron lacks history/memory.

That is just a claim. We need to prove it.

I have no idea what that means outside the context of logic/Mathematics.

What's a proof?

I mean at any instance we can define past, now, and future as, what is passed, what exists, and what is becoming.

What's an "instance"? That's just another word for "now". Which you can't define.

Q.E.D ciruclar.

Now, you are not making any sense!

It absolutely makes sense that time doesn't make sense. You aren't a timeless creature.

[bahman]

Time, now, exists according to presentism. We need to prove that it does not exist so here we are with McTaggart's argument again. I don't understand it. Do you?

According to presentism it's always NOW. Ontology.

Correct.

Future and past are memories. e.g epistemology.

Past is memory. The future is undecided. But I agree that they are mental and not real. So what?

I think it was Brandom who distinguished between things with histories and things without histories.

e.g you can't tell how old an electron is.

Because an electron lacks history/memory.

Do you understand McTaggart's argument or not?

That is just a claim. We need to prove it.

I have no idea what that means outside the context of logic/Mathematics.

What's a proof?

Do you understand McTaggart's argument or not? If yes, please explain it to me since you didn't provide another argument for the existence of time!

I mean at any instance we can define past, now, and future as, what is passed, what exists, and what is becoming.

What's an "instance"? That's just another word for "now". Which you can't define.

Q.E.D circular.

Yeah, by instance I mean now. Here we are not talking about the circularity in the definition!

Now, you are not making any sense!

It absolutely makes sense that time doesn't make sense. You aren't a timeless creature.

No.

[Age]

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?

Yes.

Does this passage mean that we need time to explain the passage of time?

No.

[Age]

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...

But it is not.

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

What other way could 'you' human beings have mental representations of the future and/or the past, in the days when this is being written, or in the days when this is being read?

[Age]

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?

'Infinite regress' is just another 'mental construct,' and not some thing that is actually Real, or could actually exist.

[Age]

What inconsistency?

The conceptual one.

Do you mind elaborating?

There are absolutely no inconsistencies absolutely anywhere. Except, of course, within mental constructs and concepts, only.

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]

Past is memory.

Future is also memory. How else could I possibly know that I am going to have a cup of coffee in 5 minutes?

Now is undecided.

The future is undecided. But I agree that they are mental and not real. So what?

Now is undecided. When does now become the past? When does the future become the present?

Do you understand McTaggart's argument or not?

Yes. It's a trivial consequence of his axioms.

Do you understand McTaggart's argument or not? If yes, please explain it to me since you didn't provide another argument for the existence of time!

What is it you don't understand? If you accept his premises - his conclusions follow.

That's how proofs work.

Yeah, by instance I mean now. Here we are not talking about the circularity in the definition!

So what are you talking about? Now is now.... is it still now?

How about now?

Still now?

Same now or different now?

[Age]

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.

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

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

Again, this is because absolutely every thing is relative, to 'the observer'.

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.

Except, of course, for the HERE, NOW.

This is, obviously, the only 'fixed' point/location. From which everything else 'is relative to'.

[Skepdick]

Again, this is because absolutely every thing is relative, to 'the observer'.

Which one? There's so many of them.

One observer for every instant in time even.

Except, of course, for the HERE, NOW.

You mean THERE, THEN?

This is, obviously, the only 'fixed' point/location. From which everything else 'is relative to'.

Which observer is this obvious to? Which fixed point are you talking about?

[Age]

Do you mind elaborating?


Ok.


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.

So, what is the, actual, distinction between ontology and epistemology, to you, exactly?

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.

These people, really, could not, yet, SEE how Truly illogical, nonsensical, absurd, and irrational it is, and was, to introduce the word, itself, which they were trying define/explain, into the 'very words' of 'the definition', or explanation.

[Age]

The past and future do not exist according to presentism.

Depends on what you mean by "exist". Ontologically time doesn't exist either.

Time, now, exists according to presentism. We need to prove that it does not exist so here we are with McTaggart's argument again. I don't understand it. Do you?

It's just a concept we use to organize our thoughts and memories.

That is just a claim. We need to prove it.

If you want it proved, then just speak to any person of any tribe who, still, has no 'sense of time'.

The 'concept of time' only came about after you human beings devised/came across 'a tool' which measured the duration between, (perceived), events.

Relative to now.

Now? Then?

I mean at any instance we can define past, now, and future as, what is passed, what exists, and what is becoming.

So what?

Again, this is, literally, just a conceptual concept.

Now is not now is not now is not now.

There is no now.

Now, you are not making any sense!

Agreed.

But, 'that' makes sense to 'that one'.

Which, again, is further absolute irrefutable proof that absolutely every thing 'is relative', to 'the observer'.

[Age]

Time, now, exists according to presentism. We need to prove that it does not exist so here we are with McTaggart's argument again. I don't understand it. Do you?

According to presentism it's always NOW. Ontology. Future and past are memories. e.g epistemology.

I think it was Brandom who distinguished between things with histories and things without histories.

e.g you can't tell how old an electron is.

Because an electron lacks history/memory.

Well as far as you human beings, in the days when this was being written, were aware of, anyway.

Also, it could be fair to say that 'rocks' do not have memory also, but is it possible to 'tell' how old they are?

Furthermore, did rocks always have history, or did they only gain 'history' after you human beings learned how to measure how old they are?

Or, in other words, if and when it is worked out how to measure how old an electron is, is this when electrons obtain history/memory, or will they have 'always' had history/memory?

Just some more questions to think about, and ponder over, in regards to 'your claims' here.

That is just a claim. We need to prove it.

I have no idea what that means outside the context of logic/Mathematics.

What's a proof?

An unambiguous true fact, which cannot be refuted.

I mean at any instance we can define past, now, and future as, what is passed, what exists, and what is becoming.

What's an "instance"? That's just another word for "now". Which you can't define.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that "bahman" cannot just define the word 'instance'?

Can you define the word 'instance', "skepdick"?

Q.E.D ciruclar.

Can you define 'Q.E.D'?

If yes, then how do you, personally, define 'Q.E.D', exactly?

But, if you can not, then, maybe, this was what was meant to be shown, and maybe 'proved', here.

Now, you are not making any sense!

It absolutely makes sense that time doesn't make sense.

So, here 'we' have another one, and another example, who when some thing does not make sense, to them, then 'that thing' does not, and must not, make sense to absolutely anyone else, either.

You aren't a timeless creature.

How do 'you' know that 'you' are not a so-called 'timeless creature'?

And, can 'you' define 'timeless creature'?

If not, then does that also mean 'Q.E.D' circular, or non circular also?

If yes, then how, and why, exactly?

[Skepdick]

Time, now, exists according to presentism. We need to prove that it does not exist so here we are with McTaggart's argument again. I don't understand it. Do you?

According to presentism it's always NOW. Ontology. Future and past are memories. e.g epistemology.

I think it was Brandom who distinguished between things with histories and things without histories.

e.g you can't tell how old an electron is.

Because an electron lacks history/memory.

Well as far as you human beings, in the days when this was being written, were aware of, anyway.

Also, it could be fair to say that 'rocks' do not have memory also, but is it possible to 'tell' how old they are?

Furthermore, did rocks always have history, or did they only gain 'history' after you human beings learned how to measure how old they are?

Or, in other words, if and when it is worked out how to measure how old an electron is, is this when electrons obtain history/memory, or will they have 'always' had history/memory?

Just some more questions to think about, and ponder over, in regards to 'your claims' here.

That is just a claim. We need to prove it.

I have no idea what that means outside the context of logic/Mathematics.

What's a proof?

An unambiguous true fact, which cannot be refuted.

I mean at any instance we can define past, now, and future as, what is passed, what exists, and what is becoming.

What's an "instance"? That's just another word for "now". Which you can't define.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that "bahman" cannot just define the word 'instance'?

Can you define the word 'instance', "skepdick"?

Q.E.D ciruclar.

Can you define 'Q.E.D'?

If yes, then how do you, personally, define 'Q.E.D', exactly?

But, if you can not, then, maybe, this was what was meant to be shown, and maybe 'proved', here.

Now, you are not making any sense!

It absolutely makes sense that time doesn't make sense.

So, here 'we' have another one, and another example, who when some thing does not make sense, to them, then 'that thing' does not, and must not, make sense to absolutely anyone else, either.

You aren't a timeless creature.

How do 'you' know that 'you' are not a so-called 'timeless creature'?

And, can 'you' define 'timeless creature'?

If not, then does that also mean 'Q.E.D' circular, or non circular also?

If yes, then how, and why, exactly?

When?