I think there is some misunderstanding here. The issue is not over which metaphysical theory of time anyone does or doesn't understand – it's about the plausibility of P3, which so far as I can see, still has no plausibility whatsoever as an intuitive claim made using English.

Does one need to commit to some metaphysical theory in order for P3 to sound plausible? Will P3 sound plausible to a layman? Who is P3 attempting to convince, and why should anyone find it convincing?

It makes sense to the common everyday layperson but that doesn't mean it can't be false. The idea that the sun rises and sets would be acceptable to children who don't know any better, but that doesn't mean that the sun revolves around the earth no matter what.

Eternalism isn't common sense. It is not intuitive at all, and it certainly doesn't conform to our everyday beliefs about time. It says things that goes against our everyday notions of time, and that includes the idea that events had or will happen through the passage of time. That is just what it basically says. — Mr Bee

Don't you think that any theory that forces us to say that sensical things don't make sense should prima facie be disregarded, unless there is good reason to believe them? Is there any reason one would want to be an eternalist or a presentist? Probably not; they probably arise from verbal disputes and misunderstandings.

NB: 'The sun rises' is still true, of course.

Does one need to commit to some metaphysical theory in order for P3 to sound plausible? Will P3 sound plausible to a layman? — The Great Whatever

Nobody needs to commit to any metaphysical theory of time in order to accept P3. Technically, nobody even needs to have an explicit understanding of them, though understanding them will certainly help them in distinguishing between the senses of temporal now and the general NOW, which P3. relies upon. The examples I have given to explain what the term means requires an understanding of those theories of time, an understanding you don't seem to have at the moment, which is why I am having trouble conveying what the term means. I am not asking you to accept any metaphysical theory, just know what they entail. That is all.

Don't you think that any theory that forces us to say that sensical things don't make sense should prima facie be disregarded, unless there is good reason to believe them? Is there any reason one would want to be an eternalist or a presentist? Probably not; they probably arise form verbal disputes and misunderstandings. — The Great Whatever

Again, read up on the theories to know what they mean. It doesn't take that much to understand the difference. Presentism is actually commonly considered a common-sense view, while Eternalism is not. And yes, there are arguments for both positions, some even based upon scientific theory. It would probably make the conversation a lot easier if you know what I am talking about, instead of simply rejecting the theories I mention without even knowing what they mean.

Nobody needs to commit to any metaphysical theory of time in order to accept P3. — Mr Bee

Great! So let's talk about P3 independent of metaphysical theories of time. Let's suppose (as is true) that I have no stake in the game of which theory of time is right, and so am neutral on the subject.

P3 doesn't sound convincing at all to me. Why? Because I don't think my experience is limited to a single time – I think that I experienced some things yesterday, will experience others tomorrow, and so on. So it seems that I have different experiences at different times – and if that's true, my experience can't be limited to a single time.

Your response?

Great! So let's talk about P3 independent of metaphysical theories of time. Let's suppose (as is true) that I have no stake in the game of which theory of time is right, and so am neutral on the subject. — The Great Whatever

Again, if you could please read up on they mean then that would make both of our lives easier. You can still remain neutral even after reading about them and refrain from adopting any of them if you so wish. Why are you making this so hard?

I cannot respond to your comments because they seem like they rest upon a lack of understanding, one that you seem adamant about maintaining. If you don't want to do so, then I don't see the point of continuing to argue with you, given that we will most likely talk past each other like we have been over the past couple of days.

Again, if you could please read up on they mean then that would make both of our lives easier. You can still remain neutral even after reading about them and refrain from adopting any of them if you so wish. Why are you making this so hard?

I cannot respond to your comments because they seem like they rest upon a lack of understanding, one that you seem adamant about maintaining. If you don't want to do so, then I don't see the point of continuing to argue with you, given that we will most likely talk past each other like we have been over the past couple of days. — Mr Bee

OK, I've been pulling your leg a little bit. I actually am familiar with all of these theories, and have been playing dumb because I don't want to get into them and distract from the actual issues.

So with that said, what's wrong with my objection to P3? Reading it over again, it sounds way more plausible than P3 itself. Why should I think my experience is limited to a single time (again, prior to accepting any metaphysical theory – do not ask me to accept a certain theory of time in your justification without first arguing for it)?

OK, I've been pulling your leg a little bit. I actually am familiar with all of these theories, and have been playing dumb because I don't want to get into them and distract form the actual issues. — The Great Whatever

Okay? I thought they were important, but you didn't. That sounds like an issue in itself.

Do you understand what the term NOW means then, or is that still over your head?

P3 doesn't sound convincing at all to me. Why? Because I don't think my experience is limited to a single time – I think that I experienced some things yesterday, will experience others tomorrow, and so on. So it seems that I have different experiences at different times – and if that's true, my experience can't be limited to a single time. — The Great Whatever

If you are really serious about this claim, then it sounds like you are still operating upon some misunderstanding. Saying that you "experienced" and "will experience" something if you mean that in an A-theoretic sense with the passage of time means you are not experiencing them NOW.

Why should I think my experience is limited to a single time (again, prior to accepting any metaphysical theory)? — The Great Whatever

Because the total experiences I find myself in NOW have the contents of only a single time (or something very close to it). My experience doesn't include the contents of multiple moments or times. I don't find myself having an experience of being in my room, and an experience of being on the train to work, for instance.

I don't find myself having an experience of being in my room, and an experience of being on the train to work, for instance. — Mr Bee

But I do find that – at different times of course.

Saying that you "experienced" and "will experience" something if you mean that in an A-theoretic sense — Mr Bee

I mean that in the perfectly ordinary sense. Forget about the A and B theories – we're not assuming we accept any particular theory of time, remember?

You mean that you find that you have them one-by-one with the passage of time?

I mean that I exist at different times, and find myself having different sorts of experiences at those different times.

And do you have those sorts of experiences NOW?

By NOW, do you mean something like 'ever' or 'while I exist?'

So do you mean to ask me, 'do you ever have those sorts of experiences?' or 'Do you have those sorts of experiences while you exist?'

In answer to the former, yes, and in answer to the latter, yes (surely I must exist to have the experiences).

If that is not what you mean, can you clarify what you are asking me?

When you say you experience both sitting in a room and being on a train, are you saying that you find yourself having an experience where sitting in your room and being on the train are parts of that experience?

What do you mean by 'parts of that experience?' For example, I could describe an experience that takes place over the course of a day, in which I first sit in a room, and then get on a train. And I have had such experiences, and might say that the sitting and being on the train were both part of the same experience.

By 'parts of that experience,' do you mean, do I experience them at the very same instant? Then no.

Not at the same instant no. By parts of an experience I mean just that. For instance, I have a visual experience of a forest, but it can contain a bunch of smaller visual experiences of trees located in differents parts of my vision as parts.

If I have an experience of getting up and going to work, that experience might both involve sitting in my room, and then later being on the train, yes.

In the case just described, it is an experience of "Skydiving and Smelling burnt toast". It is not just having an experience of "Skydiving" and an experience of "Smelling burnt toast" separately.

Or if you are okay with a completely visual example, in the case where I am seeing a red patch in my vision and a blue patch, there will be a larger visual experience of seeing both of them together (for instance, it could be an image that has red on the left side and blue on the right). — Mr Bee

But the skydiving that I did five years ago and the burnt toast that I am smelling today are separate experiences and do not form a combined singular experience. I don't have some meta-experience of both experiences, except maybe in memory, but recalling them is not the same experience as undergoing them. You seem to want to attribute experience to the worm itself. For you, it's not just that a person has experiences one-by-one with the passing of time, in a presentist sort of way. You also want to say that there is some sort of eternalist way to have experiences. I reject this claim, and your example of simultaneously seeing a red and a blue patch (at the same time!) does not help to address how one can possibly have some "larger experience" of two different experiences that are temporally distant from each other.

If I have an experience of getting up and going to work, that experience might both involve sitting in my room, and then letter being on the train, yes. — The Great Whatever

Do both of these experiences exist together NOW? (Not saying if they exist at the same time, mind you). Or does this experience of getting up and going to work require events passing in time?

You also want to say that there is some sort of eternalist way to have experiences. I reject this claim, and your example of simultaneously seeing a red and a blue patch (at the same time!) does not help to address how one can possibly have some "larger experience" of two different experiences that are temporally distant from each other. — Luke

I was giving you an example of what I mean when I talk about what a larger experience is. Nowhere does this definition refer to anything like having to experience red and blue "simultaneously". You were the one who imposed that restriction earlier and here you continue to insist upon it now. But I see no reason for this restriction.

You might as well say that by having red and blue experiences together, we must always refer to having them all in the same place (the same spatial point!). But of course that is just false. Some parts of my eye can register red experiences while other parts can register blue experiences, both being spatially separated. So being an extended body that has those eyes as parts of me, I am exposed to a set of experiences that consists of me having red experiences at some spatial locations of my body and blue experiences at others. But that doesn't stop me from having a combined experience which includes both. I can have a combined experience which is described as "red at the left side of my vision and blue on the right". In fact, I always find I do have to have such an experience if I were to have them both.

Similarly, I see no reason why a temporal worm extended in time, who would be exposed to, say, experiencing skydiving at t1 and smelling burnt toast at t2 would not have a combined experience of "skydiving at t1 and smelling burnt toast at t2" in a manner similar to how we can experience "red on the left side of my vision and blue on the right". Despite the differences between the two, time is a dimension just like space (which is even more true when we consider the block universe!), and here, being extended over time and having multiple experiences over time is no different than being extended over space and having multiple experiences over space. In the latter case you seem to want to allow such beings to have a combined experience, but in the former you don't.

Do both of these experiences exist together NOW?[/quote]

I really don't know how to answer this question. Is it translatable into English?

One of them happens at some time t1, the other at some other time t2, where t1 precedes t2. I have both of them, one at each respective time.

Do you know what NOW means? Does your conception of having multiple experiences require the passage of time (yes/no)?

I keep asking you questions like these, but you either choose not to answer them or not answer them directly. I cannot understand what you mean when you say something like "clearly I experience more than just this one time" unless you help clear up my specific concerns. Maybe it sounds obvious to you, but so far, it seems like you are operating on a misunderstanding, though it is one I still have yet to determine exactly.

Do you know what NOW means? — Mr Bee

No.

Does your conception of having multiple experiences require the passage of time (yes/no)? — Mr Bee

What do you mean by the passage of time? It requires that there be different times, with each of the experiences had at different ones.

No. — The Great Whatever

Okay, we could've just continued from there then. What is NOW includes what generally exists. According to the Block Universe all times are NOW, while presentism states that only a single present moment is NOW. Assuming that you understand these theories (and aren't pulling my leg), what do you find difficult to understand here?

What do you mean by the passage of time? It requires that there be different times, with each of the experiences had at different ones. — The Great Whatever

If you don't really understand what the passage of time is, then I don't know if I can really tell you, since to me it's a basic concept. It's that thing that everyone in the philosophy of time talks about.

Also, I don't know what to make of that other statement of yours. At least not in terms of a specific interpretation.

What is NOW includes what generally exists. — Mr Bee

What does it mean to generally exist? Is that different from existing?

Is your question, 'Do both of these experiences exist together what generally exists?'

If you don't really understand what the passage of time is, then I don't know if I can really tell you, since to me it's a basic concept. It's that thing that everyone in the philosophy of time talks about. — Mr Bee

I think that there's a time t1 at which I have an experience and then later another time t2 at which I have another. Is that the passage of time?

What does it mean to generally exist? Is that different form existing? — The Great Whatever

It just means what it says. If something exists, then it is a part of what is NOW.

I think that there's a time t1 at which I have an experience and then later another time t2 at which I have another. Is that the passage of time? — The Great Whatever

So far as I can tell, nope. But then again, you also mention that you "will" have experiences at those times and have "had" other experiences, which seem indicative of you talking about the passage of time. Though really, how can I tell?

It just means what it says. If something exists, then it is a part of what is NOW. — Mr Bee

So why use the word NOW? Can you just reword your claim using the word 'exists' instead?

Are you asking if I have both experiences while I exist. Of course – I have to exist to have an experience.

So why use the word NOW? Can you just reword your claim using the word 'exists' instead? — The Great Whatever

Because you asked me to create a new word to describe what it means to you. If just using the word exists suffices for you then whatever. So according to eternalism, past present and future events all exist. According to presentism only the present moment exists. Does that make sense to you?

Are you asking if I have both experiences while I exist. Of course – I have to exist to have an experience. — The Great Whatever

Do you object to this statement: "Both the experience of sitting in my room and the experience of being on a train exist"?

More specifically, do both the experience of sitting in my room and the experience of being on the train exist like we would say that both the events of the big bang and the event of the creation of Earth are said to exist under the Block universe (again, I'm not requiring to you to accept the latter)?

Both the experience of sitting in my room and the experience of being on a train exist — Mr Bee

When did they happen? If they both happen in the past, I would say they both existed.

More specifically, do both the experience of sitting in my room and the experience of being on the train exist like we would say that both the events of the big bang and the event of the creation of Earth are said to exist under the Block universe (again, I'm not requiring to you to accept the latter)? — Mr Bee

I think a more sensible thing to say about past events is that they happened. Asking whether they exist seems infelicitous to begin with, but to the extent I can make sense of it, it seems to be a matter of asking whether they're happening, which of course they aren't, but they did happen.

Because you asked me to create a new word to describe what it means to you — Mr Bee

I asked you to use a new word because you were abusing the English word 'now' by using it incorrectly.

I asked you to use a new word because you were abusing the English word 'now' by using it incorrectly. — The Great Whatever

So? Doesn't change the fact that you asked me to do something but then asked me why I was doing it later.

When did they happen? If they both happen in the past, I would say they both existed. — The Great Whatever

See, it's statements like these that make me think you are bringing in a flow of time.

(BTW, what is your stance on time? I've asked you this question before with no response but I am genuinely curious, even if it is not going to be relevant.)

I think a more sensible thing to say about past events is that they happened. Asking whether they exist seems infelicitous to begin with, but to the extent I can make sense of it, it seems to be a matter of asking whether they're happening, which of course they aren't, but they did happen. — The Great Whatever

In the block universe, those events both exist though. If you are saying that the experience of sitting in your room and the experience of the train do not exist (you reject the above statement), then I cannot see how you can say we experience both, other than by saying that they are experienced with the passage of time.

Of course, my P3. has nothing to do with this notion. It says for the experiences that exist that I have, they are only limited to a single time, because the contents that I find in my total experience are only of a single time.

If you are saying that the experience of sitting in your room and the experience of the train do not exist (you reject the above statement) — Mr Bee

They did exist.

then I cannot see how you can say we experience both, other than by saying that they are experienced with the passage of time. — Mr Bee

I experienced both. I have no idea what you mean by 'the passage of time,' if you're using that phrase somehow technically. If you mean in the ordinary sense, of course I believe in the passage of time, because time passes. But if you require this to be an argument contingent on eternalism, as it seems to be in your OP, it seems you can just as easily convert any such notion into there just being distinct times at which things happen. I mean, I think eternalism is stupid, but that isn't my point, I'm just focusing on your argument, which has an unconvincing premise.

It says for the experiences that exist that I am have — Mr Bee

I can't parse this clause.

they are only limited to a single time, because the contents that I find in my total experience are only of a single time.

But again, this is just false. If I think about my total experiences, I find that I have had some, have some now and will have others later. So clearly they aren't limited to a single time. Why would I believe P3, then?