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?

Yes.

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

No.

Could you please explain the argument to me?

[Age]

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?

By, literally, just 'making it', happen.

Just like you can possibly know that you are going to clean up around you and stop fighting arguing with others.

Now is undecided.

By who and what, exactly, and/or 'relative to' 'who and/or what', exactly?

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?

But, 'now', itself, cannot become the past, nor the future.

However, at any given 'now', what 'was' now, is in 'the past', and what 'will become' now, is in 'the future'.

Do you understand McTaggart's argument or not?

Yes. It's a trivial consequence of his axioms. [/quote]

How and why, exactly?

Also, can some thing be a 'trivial consequence' and still be sound and valid, and thus irrefutable.

And, when 'you' say and use the 'his' word here, does that give 'the axioms' any lessor or more so-called 'weight' in being true, right, accurate, and/or correct?

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.[/quote]

If you, supposedly, know how proofs work, then what are 'proofs', to you, exactly?

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?

[Skepdick]

Could you please explain the argument to me?

That's not possible. All words/language use linear (temporal) logic.
Using temporal logic to talk about time is circular.

Imagine you are the programmer of the computer game SIMs.
Imagine the characters in the computer game trying to describe how time works.

What language could the characters possibly use given that their entire universe is built using temporal logic?

[Age]

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

Which one? There's so many of them.

Which is why all things 'are relative'.

Which one would all things be 'relative to', to 'you'?

One observer for every instant in time even.

Again, using words like 'every instant' and then 'in time' just makes what 'you' are saying Truly nonsensical.

And, this is proved by not one of 'you' human beings being about to explain, irrefutably, what 'every instant in time' even means, exactly.

Unless, of course, you think or believe 'you' can "skepdick".

Except, of course, for the HERE, NOW.

You mean THERE, THEN?

Here is 'another one' who makes a statement and claim, but then puts a question mark at the end of it.

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

Which observer is this obvious to?

To 'the One', and 'the ones', who can SEE 'this'.

Also, if 'you' are, still, unaware 'One' and 'ones' are different 'things'.

Which fixed point are you talking about?

As I just said above, HERE-NOW.

[Age]

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.

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.

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.

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?

Once again, 'this one' just cannot clarify, nor just 'stand behind' what it says, and claims, and so 'tries to' deflect, and thus 'tries to' deceive, as well.

[bahman]

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 and now are undecided. The future is not a memory.

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?

We are living now in one instance. The next instance now becomes past and future becomes now.

Do you understand McTaggart's argument or not?

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

Could you please explain it to me since it is not trivial to me?

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.

I understand his definition of A-series of time. How does the regress follow from this definition?

[Age]

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

Do you understand this part of the argument?

Yes.

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

No.

Could you please explain the argument to me?

The 'whole' argument, or just the above part of 'the argument'?

[Age]

Could you please explain the argument to me?

That's not possible. All words/language use linear (temporal) logic.
Using temporal logic to talk about time is circular.

Imagine you are the programmer of the computer game SIMs.
Imagine the characters in the computer game trying to describe how time works.

What language could the characters possibly use given that their entire universe is built using temporal logic?

Once again, more deceptive illogical nonsense.

[bahman]

Yes.


No.

Could you please explain the argument to me?

The 'whole' argument, or just the above part of 'the argument'?

I don't understand how he derives infinite regress from the definition of A-series of time.

[bahman]

Could you please explain the argument to me?

That's not possible. All words/language use linear (temporal) logic.
Using temporal logic to talk about time is circular.

Why? Because we need time to explain the passage of time?

Imagine you are the programmer of the computer game SIMs.
Imagine the characters in the computer game trying to describe how time works.

What do you mean? Do you mean the characters in the computer game are cognitively closed to understand time?

What language could the characters possibly use given that their entire universe is built using temporal logic?

The same language that we are using.

[Skepdick]

The future and now are undecided. The future is not a memory.

Contradiction.

If it's not in your head - then what are you talking about when you refer to "the future" ?

We are living now in one instance. The next instance now becomes past and future becomes now.

Sorry. I don't understand the notion of "next". What's the next number after 0?

If you think time is discrete you already have a conceptual problem.

Could you please explain it to me since it is not trivial to me?

In what language would you like the explanation?

Do you have any intuition about the contrast between temporal and atemporal logic?

I understand his definition of A-series of time. How does the regress follow from this definition?

Is the context in which you "understand it" temporal or atemporal ?

[Skepdick]

Why? Because we need time to explain the passage of time?

No. Because language flows from left to right. Beginning to end.

It's a temporal construct. It's built into the way language works.

First you have to escape that trap.

What do you mean? Do you mean the characters in the computer game are cognitively closed to understand time?

Sure. What is it that the characters are going to understand? System time (as clock in the computer/game tick*tock*tick*tock); or as the clock on the programmer's desk?

The same language that we are using.

How could they possibly do that? They don't have a perspective "outside" of the game. You do.

The characters are first going to have to work their way to recognizing that you-the-programmer exist; and then they are going to have to work their way to your perspective. A perspective on "virtual time" and "real time".

How?

[bahman]

The future and now are undecided. The future is not a memory.

Contradiction.

If it's not in your head - then what are you talking about when you refer to "the future" ?

Memory to me is something that happened and it is a part of the past. We have a concept of the future in our heads but that does not mean that it is a memory.

We are living now in one instance. The next instance now becomes past and future becomes now.

Sorry. I don't understand the notion of "next". What's the next number after 0?

Do you understand the continuum? Time is continuous.

If you think time is discrete you already have a conceptual problem.

Well, I am not treating time as discrete here but it could be.

Could you please explain it to me since it is not trivial to me?

In what language would you like the explanation?

English. I simply don't understand how the regress follows from the definition of A-series of time.

Do you have any intuition about the contrast between temporal and atemporal logic?

Sure yes.

I understand his definition of A-series of time. How does the regress follow from this definition?

Is the context in which you "understand it" temporal or atemporal?

I don't understand how the regress follows from the definition of A-series of time. A-series is temporal opposite of B-series which is atemporal!

[bahman]

Why? Because we need time to explain the passage of time?

No. Because language flows from left to right. Beginning to end.

It's a temporal construct. It's built into the way language works.

First you have to escape that trap.

What does the language have to do with the infinite regress that he proposed?

What do you mean? Do you mean the characters in the computer game are cognitively closed to understand time?

Sure. What is it that the characters are going to understand? System time (as clock in the computer/game tick*tock*tick*tock); or as the clock on the programmer's desk?

The same language that we are using.

How could they possibly do that? They don't have a perspective "outside" of the game. You do.

The characters are first going to have to work their way to recognizing that you-the-programmer exist; and then they are going to have to work their way to your perspective. A perspective on "virtual time" and "real time".

How?

Please let's put aside the computer game!

[Age]

Could you please explain the argument to me?

The 'whole' argument, or just the above part of 'the argument'?

I don't understand how he derives infinite regress from the definition of A-series of time.

Okay.

Just out of curiosity, are you under some sort of illusion that just because someone presents 'an argument', that 'the conclusion' then has to, or even was, derived logically, rationally, or even sensibly?

Once again, only 'the arguments' that are Truly sound and valid are worthy of being repeated.

And, when those ones are formulated, and presented, then just about every adult will be repeating them, talking about them, and sharing them. While all of the 'other arguments', like the one above here, will be left by 'the wayside', where they belong.