Page 1 of 4
McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2024 11:18 am
by 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?
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:34 pm
by 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
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2024 1:25 pm
by bahman
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:34 pm
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.
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2024 1:44 pm
by Impenitent
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 1:25 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:34 pm
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
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2024 3:20 pm
by bahman
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 1:44 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 1:25 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:34 pm
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?
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:55 pm
by 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
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:23 am
by bahman
Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:55 pm
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?
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:25 am
by Skepdick
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 1:25 pm
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.
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:28 am
by bahman
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:25 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 1:25 pm
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?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:25 am
By chopping up the flow of time you've categorized the non-categorical.
What do you mean?
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:35 am
by Skepdick
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:28 am
What inconsistency?
The conceptual one.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:28 am
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.
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:05 pm
by bahman
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:35 am
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:28 am
What inconsistency?
The conceptual one.
Do you mind elaborating?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:35 am
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:28 am
What do you mean?
If you assume presentism it's always now.
Ok.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:35 am
What you call the future is actually the past relative to some $now.
Yes. So what?
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:36 pm
by Skepdick
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:05 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:35 am
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:28 am
What inconsistency?
The conceptual one.
Do you mind elaborating?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:35 am
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:28 am
What do you mean?
If you assume presentism it's always now.
Ok.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:35 am
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.
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:39 pm
by bahman
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:36 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:05 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:35 am
The conceptual one.
Do you mind elaborating?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:35 am
If you assume presentism it's always now.
Ok.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:35 am
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.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:35 am
Is point-in-time X the past, the present, or the future?
Which point?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:35 am
It's all of those.
It is not all of those. A point in time is past, now, or future.
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:59 pm
by Skepdick
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:39 pm
Which point?
Any point.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:39 pm
It is not all of those. A point in time is past, now, or future.
Relative to what?
Re: McTaggart argument for the unreality of time
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:03 pm
by bahman
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:59 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:39 pm
Which point?
Any point.
The past and future do not exist according to presentism.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:59 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:39 pm
It is not all of those. A point in time is past, now, or future.
Relative to what?
Relative to now.