McTaggart argument for the unreality of time

[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.

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

But, you human beings do not need 'time', itself, to explain a duration.

What you need is 'a duration' to explain 'a duration'.

But, first you need to learn how to understand what the word ''time' actually means, and/or refers to, which actually works and fits in, perfectly, with other words, and their definitions, then, and only then, you could move along here.

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.

[Age]

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?

"bahman" believes the Universe does not 'flow', but happens in 'discrete segments, instead.

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 ?

[Age]

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".

But, they cannot. If 'the programmer' has not 'programmed' them with 'this ability'.

Obviously, if 'the programmer', itself, does not, yet, know what 'time' is, exactly, then 'that programmer' cannot 'program' the ones, in the computer, with the knowledge of what 'time' is, nor with 'the ability' to work out what 'time' is. Unless, of course, they were programmed, or installed, with 'intelligence, itself.

In which case 'they' may work out what 'time' is, exactly, before 'the programmer', itself, does.

How?

With 'intelligence'. But, obviously, you human beings could not install some thing, into something else, which you do not, yet, even fully understand, nor know, what 'it' is, exactly, and how 'it' works, exactly.

[Age]

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.

Why not here, 'now', when you have 'previously'?

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.

It does not, logically.

Only through unsound and/or invalid 'reasoning' 'infinite regress' follows, and obviously I could add.

'Infinite regress' does not, logically, follow from any thing.

All things are logically concluded, through reasoning and justifications, when the Right words, and definitions, are being used.

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]

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.

I shared the part of the argument that I have a problem with in OP. The definition of A-series is given in the link I provided in OP. Now please explain how the infinite regress follows from the definition of A-series.

[bahman]

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?

But, you human beings do not need 'time', itself, to explain a duration.

What you need is 'a duration' to explain 'a duration'.

I am not talking about duration here. I am talking about the passage of time.

But, first you need to learn how to understand what the word ''time' actually means, and/or refers to, which actually works and fits in, perfectly, with other words, and their definitions, then, and only then, you could move along here.

The A-series of time is defined in the article. I provided a link to the article in OP.

[Skepdick]

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

We have formal languages powerful enough to deal with infinities.

English won't do...

If you want to handle infinite time - pick up a system capable of infinite computations.

Please let's put aside the computer game!

No can do. If you don't understand computation you must certainly don't understand time.

Programming languages embed/encode time and temporal phenomena by default. English doesn't.

[Age]

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.

I shared the part of the argument that I have a problem with in OP. The definition of A-series is given in the link I provided in OP. Now please explain how the infinite regress follows from the definition of A-series.

It does not. That is the point.

[Age]

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

But, you human beings do not need 'time', itself, to explain a duration.

What you need is 'a duration' to explain 'a duration'.

I am not talking about duration here. I am talking about the passage of time.

And, obviously, you are absolutely incapable of explaining to the readers here what is 'time', exactly, as well as what the term and phrase 'the passage of time' means, and refers to, exactly.

Also, I am not talking about some made up and unsubstantiated phrase and term like, 'the passage of time'. I am talking about 'duration'.

Now, if you human beings, supposedly, 'need' to explain the 'passage of time', then just do it.

But, first you need to learn how to understand what the word ''time' actually means, and/or refers to, which actually works and fits in, perfectly, with other words, and their definitions, then, and only then, you could move along here.

The A-series of time is defined in the article.

Is the so-called 'A-series of time' a proved and irrefutable Fact?

Or, was just it just some thing made up, in some hope of getting some pre-existing belief backed up and support in some way?

I provided a link to the article in OP.

And, I can provide you with many links, to many things, as well. But, just doing so never means that what is in the link is factual, nor provable, nor even right and correct.

[Age]

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

We have formal languages powerful enough to deal with infinities.

English won't do...

But, it already has done. Obviously though, you may not yet be aware of this Fact.

If you want to handle infinite time - pick up a system capable of infinite computations.

Or, you can do the other more logical, easier, and simpler thing that you can do.

Please let's put aside the computer game!

No can do. If you don't understand computation you must certainly don't understand time.

LOL 'This one', still, believes just about every thing is around, or solved by, 'computation/s.

Programming languages embed/encode time and temporal phenomena by default. English doesn't.

And, what even is 'time', to you, exactly, "skepdick"?

[bahman]

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

We have formal languages powerful enough to deal with infinities.

English won't do...

If you want to handle infinite time - pick up a system capable of infinite computations.

Please let's put aside the computer game!

No can do. If you don't understand computation you must certainly don't understand time.

Programming languages embed/encode time and temporal phenomena by default. English doesn't.

He provided the argument in English. Do you understand his argument?

[Skepdick]

He provided the argument in English. Do you understand his argument?

I don't understand the argument because it's in English.

I understand the argument because I have a priori understanding of temporal and a temporal logic/reasoning.

I have a foundation I can lean on outside of English.

[bahman]

He provided the argument in English. Do you understand his argument?

I don't understand the argument because it's in English.

I understand the argument because I have a priori understanding of temporal and a temporal logic/reasoning.

What do you mean by the bold part?

[Skepdick]

He provided the argument in English. Do you understand his argument?

I don't understand the argument because it's in English.

I understand the argument because I have a priori understanding of temporal and a temporal logic/reasoning.

What do you mean by the bold part?

I mean that I have studied both types of logical systems.

Ones that don't encode time e.g classical/propositional logic.
+
Ones that do encode time e.g temporal logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_logic

So I have an intuition about the ways in which they are different.

[bahman]

I don't understand the argument because it's in English.

I understand the argument because I have a priori understanding of temporal and a temporal logic/reasoning.

What do you mean by the bold part?

I mean that I have studied both types of logical systems.

Ones that don't encode time e.g classical/propositional logic.
+
Ones that do encode time e.g temporal logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_logic

So I have an intuition about the ways in which they are different.

Ok, never mind.