Some components of teleodynamics might be pertinent to your intended changes to the present tense of the timeline.

Switching from the geocentric to the heliocentric model of the solar system does not change the direction that the planets move, it models the very same movement in a different way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Consider: the earth with respect to the sun and the sun with respect to the earth when the sun orbits the earth. In the limited context of this relationship, is the earth stationary and the sun mobile?

Consider: the sun with respect to the earth and the earth with respect to the sun when the earth orbits the sun. In the limited context of this relationship, is the sun stationary and the earth mobile?

In making a comparison of the two above considerations, do you say the two considerations model the very same movement in a different way?

The first statement of "when the sun orbits the earth", is what we know as the rotation of the earth on its axis. The second statement "the earth orbits the sun", is what we know as the earth revolving around the sun. These two do not model the same motion.

What we model as "the rotation of the earth" is the same motion as what you described as "when the sun orbits the earth". If we know the distance between the earth and sun, and assume the earth to be a point at the centre of a circular orbit, we could calculate the speed at which the sun orbits the earth, in that model in which the sun orbits the earth.

Time is unidirectional, future to past. This is an activity of the world, what we know as the future becoming the past, The day named as "tomorrow" becomes the day named as "yesterday" through this activity, this process of the future becoming the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Jan 5 is in the future before it is in the past. The flow of time has that portion of time named as Jan 5, in the future prior to it being in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

This process of the future becoming the past has the arrow of time moving in which direction: a) the events of Jan 5 change into the events of Jan 4; b) the events of Jan 4 change into the events of Jan 5?

Since you say, “time is unidirectional, future to past,” and also you say, “the day named as tomorrow becomes the day named as ‘yesterday,’” logically we have to conclude the arrow of time moves from Jan 5 to Jan 4. Entailed in this is the logical necessity that you become a day younger as the arrow of time continues to move from future to past.

Have you ever grown a day younger in your life? Speaking more dramatically, can you remember being ten years older than you are now?

Does today become tomorrow, or yesterday? Your answer speaks to your perception of the direction of the arrow of time.

This process of the future becoming the past has the arrow of time moving in which direction: a) the events of Jan 5 change into the events of Jan 4; b) the events of Jan 4 change into the events of Jan 5? — ucarr

I don't see what you are asking. The events of Jan 4 are the events of Jan 4, and the events of Jan 5 are the events of Jan 5. One does not become the other. However, the time marked by, or referred to as "Jan 4", itself moves from being in the future to being in the past, as does the time referred to as "Jan 5".

The difference is that in my model, time itself is assigned substantial existence, as something. What we know as "the passing of time", which is the process by which the time indicated as "Jan 5" changes from being in the future to being in the past, is reified, understood to be something real, a real process. This "something" can be understood as the cause of all events. Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events. And, we order events as past events being prior to future events, due to the way that events are observed by us through sensation. However, when we consider time on its own, as something which can be marked with indicators such as dates, then we understand that any indicated time, is in the future before it is in the past, like the example shows.

Here's another way of looking at it, which may or may not help you to understand. Imagine that there was a start to time, time started, there was a beginning to time. At the point when time began, there was future, but no past, because no time had passed yet, but there was time about to pass. And, as time passes, there becomes more and more past, and less and less future. Imagine a wind-up toy, fully wound, and ready to go. The process of its unwinding is fully in the future, but as it unwinds, it goes into the past. This demonstrates that future is prior to past.

Since you say, “time is unidirectional, future to past,” and also you say, “the day named as tomorrow becomes the day named as ‘yesterday,’” logically we have to conclude the arrow of time moves from Jan 5 to Jan 4. — ucarr

Why do you say this? If "Jan 4", and "Jan 5" referred to events, we'd say that Jan 4 occurs before Jan 5. But these do not refer to events, they refer to dates in time. If we made a timeline, based on our empirical observation of events, we'd see that the events of Jan 4 are prior in time, to the events of Jan 5, and we might be tempted to model "the flow of time" in that direction. However, this is because we are mapping the dates as events which occur. A true analysis shows that both Jan 4, and Jan 5. are in the future before they are in the past, so regardless of the order that these dates occur to us as events, the future part of time is prior to the past part of time.

Your conclusion doesn't seem to be valid, and I do not know how you derive it. The arrow of time has it that the day named as "Jan 4" was in the future before it was in the past, as is the case with the day named as "Jan 5". Now, today, the day named as "Jan 9" is in the future, but soon it will be in the past.

Now if we look at "Jan 9" as an event, instead of as a date, we will say that this event occurs after Jan 8 occurs, and we will represent this with a number line of sorts, showing that order. But according to my explanation, that number line represents the occurrence of events, it does not represent the passing of time.

I don't see what you are asking. The events of Jan 4 are the events of Jan 4, and the events of Jan 5 are the events of Jan 5. One does not become the other. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm asking you to say what you think happens as you travel in time. As you move from Jan 4 to Jan 5, do you get younger, or do you get older? If you get older, that means you have moved from the present to the updated, newer present. So, old moves toward new, so that's old before new, not new before old. So, if a man acknowledges he moves forward in time, he validates that movement as an example of the old, which comes first, moving forward toward the new, which comes after.

Saying the future moves toward the past and continues in this direction examples the past becoming the more distant past; this amounts to saying the future causes the past to move toward the more distant past. We know what you’re saying is backwards, as obviously the present*, as it moves forward in time, thus moving towards the updated, newer present, doesn’t move from the past to the more distant past.

*The empirical present, though it lags minutely behind the mathematical present, acts as an empirical present moving toward an ever mathematically updating newer present. The additional complication of the time lag still maintains the older present moving toward the newer present, not the reverse.

If we reverse our direction in time, with the newer present moving toward the older present, with the newer present first and the older present second, then that examples a man moving in time such that he’s getting younger instead of getting older. We know that’s not what’s happening in our empirical experience of time.

However, the time marked by, or referred to as "Jan 4", itself moves from being in the future to being in the past, as does the time referred to as "Jan 5". — Metaphysician Undercover

If you're saying Jan 4 progressing in time toward Jan 5 examples progressing from the future toward the past, then let us observe a man as part of this progression from the future toward the past; In so doing, we see you're also saying progressing in time from Jan 4 toward Jan 5 examples a man growing younger. We know from our empirical experience in time this is not true. We know this is not true because we know our future self is older than our past self.

Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events. — Metaphysician Undercover

You haven't shown time independent of the animation of material objects because your supporting example, a thought experiment based upon imagination, is not evidence. Logical possibility necessitating corresponding physics remains unproven. This lack of proof is memorialized in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. There are logical statements unproven by the rules that generate them, and there are physical systems unexplained logically. The scientific picture of the world is incomplete.

...we order events as past events being prior to future events, due to the way that events are observed by us through sensation. — Metaphysician Undercover

The time lag of experience rendered though the cognitive system has sentients experiencing the empirical present as a time-lagged older present relative to an ever-updating numerical present, an abstraction. This is evidence abstract thought is emergent from memory. Abstract thought emergent from memory is evidence the ever-updating numerical present is about time_future not yet extant. Since time_future is grounded in memory, this is evidence time_future is not an existentially independent reality standing apart from phenomena, but rather a component of a complex memory phenomenon.

...when we consider time on its own, as something which can be marked with indicators such as dates, then we understand that any indicated time, is in the future before it is in the past, like the example shows. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time is not on its own, i.e. not independent, for two reasons: a) time_future is an emergent property of a complex memory phenomenon; it is tied to the material animation of memory; b) time experienced empirically as the updating present is itself a physical phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be independent of itself. Relativity is a theory of physics; it is not a theory of abstract thought falsely conventionalized as immaterial.

...when we consider time on its own, as something which can be marked with indicators such as dates, then we understand that any indicated time, is in the future before it is in the past, like the example shows. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time experienced as the updating present is the empirical present ever moving forward within a physically real phenomenon. This movement from the present to a newer present posits an arrow of time from present to newer present. It also posits an arrow of entropy from the present state of order to a lesser state of order. Both arrows move toward a newer state.

Since time, being itself a phenomenon, is not prior to other phenomena, its progression is therefore contemporary with the animate phenomena it tracks numerically.

Imagine that there was a start to time, time started, there was a beginning to time. At the point when time began, there was future, but no past, because no time had passed yet, but there was time about to pass. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since the start of time takes time, there is no extant time without a past. Moreover, the theoretical vanishing point with zero dimension, the limit of the starting point you posit and something you seek to discard, plays a fundamental role in launching your thought experiment.

A true analysis shows that both Jan 4, and Jan 5. are in the future before they are in the past, so regardless of the order that these dates occur to us as events, the future part of time is prior to the past part of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

See above for my counter-narrative to your premise time is prior to the phenomena (events) it tracks numerically.

Now if we look at "Jan 9" as an event, instead of as a date, we will say that this event occurs after Jan 8 occurs, and we will represent this with a number line of sorts, showing that order. But according to my explanation, that number line represents the occurrence of events, it does not represent the passing of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

You seem to be separating time from occurrence of events. I think all occurrences of events happen in time. Following this line of reasoning that keeps time paired with events, separating an event from the date of its occurrence in time is a false separation we don't experience.

If your argument is predicated upon the premise events occur outside of time (which includes dates) - and that appears to be the case - then it is obviously false.

I'm asking you to say what you think happens as you travel in time. As you move from Jan 4 to Jan 5, do you get younger, or do you get older? — ucarr

We do not travel in time, we do not move from Jan 4 to Jan 5 in this model of time. This is the principal difference of the model. Things, or people, do not move through time, the passing of time itself is an activity, a process, and this process has an effect on us, it causes change. When you model an object as moving through time, you model it as moving from past to future, but if you model it as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, then change and movement are caused, by the passing of time.

this amounts to saying the future causes the past to move toward the more distant past. — ucarr

That's a correct representation. I described the future becoming the past as a force. We, as human beings work to maintain our position at the present (maintaining this position is known as survival), despite the force of the future pushing against us. But the force of the future always wins, and each human being is forced into death, then further and further into the past.

We know what you’re saying is backwards, as obviously the present*, as it moves forward in time, thus moving towards the updated, newer present, doesn’t move from the past to the more distant past. — ucarr

I see absolutely no reason to believe that the present moves, or changes in any way. The present is always the division between past and future, so clearly it does not change. And, movement, motion, is an observed property of physical things, relative to each other. We do not observe any such movement with respect to the present. You are simply assuming that the present is something moving through a static medium, "time", but this is a faulty representation, because what is actually moving is time itself. Imagine a membrane, a filter or something like that, and a substance is being forced through that membrane, and this results in a change to the substance. The membrane represents "the present", and the substance being forced through is time, being forced from future to past.

*The empirical present... — ucarr

As I explained, there is no such thing as the empirical present. Sensation is of the past, and anticipation is of the future. The two might be united in experience, but this does not produce an "empirical present", it produces a theoretical present. And, as I made great effort to explain to you, our theoretical present is inaccurate.

If you're saying Jan 4 progressing in time toward Jan 5... — ucarr

This is what your model would say, the model which puts the past as prior to the future. It would say that the past Jan 4 progresses toward the future, Jan 5. The rest of that passage makes no sense.

You haven't shown time independent of the animation of material objects because your supporting example, a thought experiment based upon imagination, is not evidence. Logical possibility necessitating corresponding physics remains unproven. This lack of proof is memorialized in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. There are logical statements unproven by the rules that generate them, and there are physical systems unexplained logically. The scientific picture of the world is incomplete. — ucarr

You just asked for an example, not proof. I gave you an example, not proof. Please don't take it as an attempt at proof.

The time lag of experience rendered though the cognitive system has sentients experiencing the empirical present as a time-lagged older present relative to an ever-updating numerical present, an abstraction. This is evidence abstract thought is emergent from memory. Abstract thought emergent from memory is evidence the ever-updating numerical present is about time_future not yet extant. Since time_future is grounded in memory, this is evidence time_future is not an existentially independent reality standing apart from phenomena, but rather a component of a complex memory phenomenon. — ucarr

This is very wrong. "Future" cannot be grounded in memory. Memory applies only toward what has happened, the past. There are no memories of the future. "Future" is grounded in our apprehension of possibilities and anticipation of things to come, not memories of things past.

Now, going back to how we relate to events, we understand that the possibility for an event must always precede the actual occurrence of that event. This implies that the event, exists as a possibility, in the future, prior to its actual existence. as the event moves into the past. Since it is the case, with all physical events, that the possibility of the event must be prior in time to the actual occurrence of the event, this is very clear evidence, "proof" I might say, that the future of every event, is prior in time to its past.

Time is not on its own, i.e. not independent, for two reasons: a) time_future is an emergent property of a complex memory phenomenon; it is tied to the material animation of memory; b) time experienced empirically as the updating present is itself a physical phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be independent of itself. Relativity is a theory of physics; it is not a theory of abstract thought falsely conventionalized as immaterial. — ucarr

Human experience consists of both memory of the past, and anticipation of the future. You are focusing on "memory" while completely ignoring anticipation, so your representation is woefully inadequate.

Time experienced as the updating present is the empirical present ever moving forward within a physically real phenomenon. This movement from the present to a newer present posits an arrow of time from present to newer present. It also posits an arrow of entropy from the present state of order to a lesser state of order. Both arrows move toward a newer state. — ucarr

Again, you are simply representing time as static, with the present moving through time. This is what I argue is the bad (unreal) representation. Any complete analysis, as I am working at, will reveal that time is really active, and "the present" is just the way that we conceptualize this activity.

Since time, being itself a phenomenon, is not prior to other phenomena, its progression is therefore contemporary with the animate phenomena it tracks numerically. — ucarr

This is no progression of time in your representation, only a movement of the present to a newer present. But if the present moves this way, along the time line, or however you conceive it, something must move it, a cause, or force which propels the present along the line. But it should be obvious to you that there is no such activity as the present being propelled along a line. The real activity is the future becoming the past, and this is simply modeled as the present being propelled down a line. Of course that model is obviously wrong because the idea that there is a force in the world propelling the present down a line, is simply unintelligible, incoherent. What is really the case, is that there is a force which causes possibilities to actualize as time passes. This is very obvious, and this is the future (possibilities) becoming the past (actualities)..

See above for my counter-narrative to your premise time is prior to the phenomena (events) it tracks numerically. — ucarr

You have provided no counter-argument, only the assertion, which I agree to, that my example is not proof. It's just an example.

Since the start of time takes time, there is no extant time without a past. — ucarr

This is self-contradicting. If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past. Your claim that "the start of time takes time" is contradictory, implying that there is time prior to the start of time implying that time is already required for time to start. This is clearly wrong, all that is required is a future, and along with that the impetus which causes it to become past.

.

You seem to be separating time from occurrence of events. — ucarr

Exactly.

I think all occurrences of events happen in time. — ucarr

I agree, and we can conclude that time is required for events. This means that time is logically prior to events, but not vise versa.

Following this line of reasoning that keeps time paired with events... — ucarr

This is faulty logic. That all events happen in time implies that time is required for events, but it does not imply that events are required for time.

If your argument is predicated upon the premise events occur outside of time (which includes dates) - and that appears to be the case - then it is obviously false. — ucarr

Why would you think this, when I've been arguing the exact opposite? I have been saying that time can pass without an event occurring. You did not like my example, saying that it doesn't prove this claim. It was not meant to prove the claim, only to support it by showing that it is logically possible for there to be time passing with no events occurring.

We do not travel in time, we do not move from Jan 4 to Jan 5 in this model of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

When I finished reading this sentence, I slapped my palm to my forehead and exclaimed, "Oh, man! Now he tells me!"

Given that your theory makes radical changes to the view of time, whether it's viewed through the lens of common sense, or viewed scientifically, it's belatedly clear you have neglected your responsibility to your readers.

In order to prevent them from wasting their time with many irrelevant questions aimed at clarification of your premises and their applications, you need to write a pamphlet, booklet or book exposing the foundational components of your theory and their ramifications.

This is the principal difference of the model. Things, or people, do not move through time, the passing of time itself is an activity, a process, and this process has an effect on us, it causes change. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's another fragment from your list of radical premises: Time is an activity somehow distinct from the animation of material things. I infer from this that it's related to this: Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events.

Immediately another gnarly issue arises: there appears to be an inconsistency between: "the passing of time itself is an activity, a process..." and "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events." How is it that time as an activity is not an event? Perhaps you have a cogent answer to this question. What you've written here looks like a contradiction. In your writing, you're doing a terrible job of communicating.

So far, your rollout of your theory is a tissue of radical premises obscurely explained and embedded within a continuity containing contradictions.

When you model an object as moving through time, you model it as moving from past to future, but if you model it as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, then change and movement are caused, by the passing of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Now you tell us material objects are not animated, yet they are being changed by the flow of time. So, a material object doesn't move. Is this true for, say, a mechanical clock with a winding mainspring? If so, it's not the kinetic energy stored in the mainspring, but time, a separate phenomenon that makes the clock turn? Well, you say that material things don't move, yet they are changed by the flow of time. How is it that change involves no motion?

You make a pronouncement that flies in the face of everyday experience, then give us no explanation why it isn't blatant nonsense. Perhaps it's not nonsense, but that's not clear because your contradictory communication is terrible.

I described the future becoming the past as a force. — Metaphysician Undercover

This contradicts: "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events."

I see absolutely no reason to believe that the present moves, or changes in any way.... And, movement, motion, is an observed property of physical things, relative to each other... We do not observe any such movement with respect to the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

You say that motion is relative, and you say that the present is dimensionally extended. Since relative motion requires dimensional extension, you must explain why a dimensionally extended present is not a part of the phenomenon of relative motion. This explanation is especially important given the role of the present as a separator of future and past that moves in relation to them. How else could it separate them? Remember, when you're standing stationary on a train station platform, you're stationary relative to the stationary station, but your both are in relative motion with respect to the moving train leaving the station. You know this because you've seen a stationary person standing on the platform who appears to start moving as you, a passenger on the train, start moving away with the moving train, which to you appears stationary. All of this relative motion is supported by the dimensional extension your theory advocates!

You are simply assuming that the present is something moving through a static medium, "time" — Metaphysician Undercover

No one understanding relativity thinks spacetime is static. Einstein's 4-Manifold keeps the moon in its orbit around the earth; it keeps our solar system intact.

*The empirical present... — ucarr

As I explained, there is no such thing as the empirical present. Sensation is of the past, and anticipation is of the future. The two might be united in experience, but this does not produce an "empirical present", it produces a theoretical present. And, as I made great effort to explain to you, our theoretical present is inaccurate. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm finding your statement contradictory and confusing. I've been understanding you to be propounding a dimensional present while refuting it as a theoretical point of zero dimensions. If the present is dimensional, how can it not be our empirical experience of things happening now, albeit with the understanding there is a minute time lag between the empirical now as perceived and the mathematical now, a math limit closely approached by the dimensional, empirical now.

This is what your model would say, the model which puts the past empirical now as prior to the future. It would say that the past empirical now of Jan 4 progresses toward the future, Jan 5. — Metaphysician Undercover

You just asked for an example, not proof. I gave you an example, not proof. Please don't take it as an attempt at proof. — Metaphysician Undercover

Imagine that there is a shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world, a Planck time duration. Now imagine half a Planck time. That is a duration of time during which an object changing its place in space is impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

The example needs to be evidence supporting your claim time stands independent of the animation of material things. What's the value of an "example" that's merely whimsy about how the world might be? An act of imagination can have value as a thought experiment that poses a counter-narrative supported by a valid argument. In your imagined Planck scale multiplied by one half, you omit to make a valid argument why this minute space can only contain time without animate things. I say this because given the wording of your thought experiment (see above), you violate: "...there is a shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world, a Planck time duration." Half a Planck time, your would be counter-narrative, contains no explanation why Planck time is divisible after all. Also, it contains no explanation why sub-Planck time cannot contain animate things. As such, your "example" is only a flight of fancy. It lacks the component meeting the threshold of a thought experiment: a valid argument.

The time lag of experience rendered though the cognitive system has sentients experiencing the empirical present as a time-lagged older present relative to an ever-updating numerical present, an abstraction. This is evidence abstract thought is emergent from memory. Abstract thought emergent from memory is evidence the ever-updating numerical present is about time_future not yet extant. Since time_future is grounded in memory, this is evidence time_future is not an existentially independent reality standing apart from phenomena, but rather a component of a complex memory phenomenon. — ucarr

This is very wrong. "Future" cannot be grounded in memory. Memory applies only toward what has happened, the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Although I admit the above passage could've been written with more clarity, the correct meaning is there to be read, but you have mis-interpreted it.

Time_future not yet extant is part of the empirical now. Aboutness, my awkward-sounding neologism, expresses intentional thinking - something occurring in the present- but about the future state of things as manipulated by a rational plan for attaining that desired future state of things.

There are no memories of the future. "Future" is grounded in our apprehension of possibilities and anticipation of things to come, not memories of things past. — Metaphysician Undercover

I know your narrative overall is very complicated, but for the moment, I ask how can memories of the future not be what humans experience, given your claim time is prior to events? Since human lives consist of moments strung together, and time, as you say, is prior to all of these moments, how can our lives not be memories of what hasn't yet happened? You're the one frequently claiming the future jumps into the past.

Now, going back to how we relate to events, we understand that the possibility for an event must always precede the actual occurrence of that event. This implies that the event, exists as a possibility, in the future, prior to its actual existence. as the event moves into the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since it is the case, with all physical events, that the possibility of the event must be prior in time to the actual occurrence of the event, this is very clear evidence, "proof" I might say, that the future of every event, is prior in time to its past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Firstly, understanding that the possibility for an event must always precede the actual occurrence of that event is an awareness that happens in the empirical now, not in the future. So, the possibility of an event, an abstraction of the mind, does not reside in the mind in the future, but rather in the empirical now.

Secondly, in what direction does the arrow of time for the conscious human individual move? If we say it moves from the future toward the past, then we’re also saying the conscious human individual grows younger with the passing of time.

So, knowing we don’t grow younger with the passing of time, logically we must conclude the arrow of time is moving toward the future, not toward the past.

Time is not on its own, i.e. not independent, for two reasons: a) time_future is an emergent property of a complex memory phenomenon; it is tied to the material animation of memory; b) time experienced empirically as the updating present is itself a physical phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be independent of itself. Relativity is a theory of physics; it is not a theory of abstract thought falsely conventionalized as immaterial. — ucarr

Human experience consists of both memory of the past, and anticipation of the future. You are focusing on "memory" while completely ignoring anticipation, so your representation is woefully inadequate. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since cognition of anticipation of the future, like cognition of memory of the past, is actually the empirical present minutely time-lagged after the theoretical point of zero dimensions, memory contains memory of anticipation no less than it contains memory of remembrance.

Time experienced as the updating present is the empirical present ever moving forward within a physically real phenomenon. This movement from the present to a newer present posits an arrow of time from present to newer present. It also posits an arrow of entropy from the present state of order to a lesser state of order. Both arrows move toward a newer state. — ucarr

Again, you are simply representing time as static, with the present moving through time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since the present moves in time, it's not static. My understanding of the timeline is that the ever-updating present is a dynamical system, whereas past and future are mental abstractions never experienced dynamically. As abstract thoughts, they keep us oriented within the experience of the dynamical present. In this environment, the dynamical present is our empirical experience of time. It is not static.

This is no progression of time in your representation, only a movement of the present to a newer present. But if the present moves this way, along the time line, or however you conceive it, something must move it, a cause, or force which propels the present along the line. — Metaphysician Undercover

The dynamical present is part of a phenomenal system of animate objects. From this system time emerges as a dimension that can function as a numerical tracker of animation. Regarding forces, it seems sensible to think the dynamism of animate objects expands time. If this is the case, then time as a dimension is tied to the dynamism of animate objects.

But it should be obvious to you that there is no such activity as the present being propelled along a line. The real activity is the future becoming the past, and this is simply modeled as the present being propelled down a line. Of course that model is obviously wrong because the idea that there is a force in the world propelling the present down a line, is simply unintelligible, incoherent. What is really the case, is that there is a force which causes possibilities to actualize as time passes. This is very obvious, and this is the future (possibilities) becoming the past (actualities).. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is the premise of free will which makes the future to past flow of time evident, as we seek the means to avoid being swept into the past (the means to survival), by the force of the future becoming the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

You say, as time passes, possibilities actualize by the force of the future becoming the past. Time is a dimension, not a force. In order for possibilities to actualize by the force of the future becoming the past, it would require that the animate things actualize the possibilities by driving the expansion of the dimension of time. However, we know from empirical experience events comprised of material things don't run backwards from the future to the past.

Since time, being itself a phenomenon, is not prior to other phenomena, its progression is therefore contemporary with the animate phenomena it tracks numerically. — ucarr

You have provided no counter-argument, only the assertion, which I agree to, that my example is not proof. It's just an example. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you deny time is a phenomenon? You say time is a process; that's a functional system. Time is not a system, but a part of a system in the role of a dimension. A system has mass and, as Roger Penrose says, "Mass requires time." Time doesn't require either mass or force, and you can and this may persuade you to imagine its existence apart from them. However, because time is a part of physics as a dimension, time apart from mass and force still is not apart from physics, and thus time is itself a phenomenon, and thus it is not apart from phenomena, and thus it is not prior to phenomena.

For this reason, there is no true equilibrium devoid of motion, and there is no temperature truly zero. Time apart from phenomena, following this reasoning, entails infinite compression of dimension. Just as there is no singularity, there is no infinite compression of time, which would be the same thing as time apart from phenomena.

Since the start of time takes time, there is no extant time without a past. — ucarr

If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past. — Metaphysician Undercover

With this claim you validate the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit of the present. You also validate the phenomenal system which consists of the numerical present at the front end, i.e. the point with zero dimensions, and the empirical present, the minutely time-lagged approach to the numerical present at the back end.

Practically speaking, with the theoretical point in place up front, the temporal timeline is never without its past_present_future triad. More precisely, the cosmic timeline has no start, nor has it a finish. There is the ever-closer approach to a start and to an end, but no arrival. This asymptotic approach is consistent with the phenomenal system of the dynamical present.

Your claim that "the start of time takes time" is contradictory, implying that there is time prior to the start of time implying that time is already required for time to start. This is clearly wrong, all that is required is a future, and along with that the impetus which causes it to become past. — Metaphysician Undercover

When does the start of time start? We can't say exactly. As you have acknowledged, there is a time lag between the numerical start of something and the perception of that start, which is the empirical start. Math allows us to forever approach the starts and endings of things; we don't actually arrive. QM tells something similar with its demand we accept super-position. Well, this connects with the understanding we can't say precisely where we are. At the Newtonian scale, we've got a functionally accurate measure of where we are, but, in point of fact, exactly where we are at any given moment is, per Heisenberg, uncertain. So, in summation, the start of time is a high probability accurate measurement of the left side of the dynamical present, but it, being uncertain, maintains a sloppy border with the prior iterations of the dynamical present.

I think all occurrences of events happen in time. — ucarr

I agree, and we can conclude that time is required for events. This means that time is logically prior to events, but not vise versa. — Metaphysician Undercover

No one disputes time being required for events. How does the temporal extension of events prove time is logically prior to them? I don't read your statement as a self-evident truth. You still haven't described what action time performs alone that is a necessary prelude to the occurrence of events. Moreover, you haven't described any action time performs apart from material things.

You claim time, acting in isolation, causes events, but you have not described any functions of solitary time that effect that causation.

Time is a dimension that platforms the animation of material things and their associated forces in terms of temporal parameters. You imply time possesses parameters in isolation. Well, those parameters should be measurable. What are those measurements?

If it's true time in isolation has no measurable parameters, then we can sensibly ask whether time exists in isolation.

I think all occurrences of events happen in time. Following this line of reasoning that keeps time paired with events, separating an event from the date of its occurrence in time is a false separation we don't experience. — ucarr

I agree, and we can conclude that time is required for events. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is faulty logic. That all events happen in time implies that time is required for events, but it does not imply that events are required for time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't exactly agree time is required for events. Events and time are parts of a dynamical system, with time supplying the temporal parameters of the system. Is time the cause of something it's a part of? This question spotlights the likely fact time under your theory's causal hiearchy is a proper subset of the dynamics of physics. If it's a cause of its own superset, then that's saying it is its own superset. The comprehension restriction of set theory prohibits a set from being the proper subset of itself.

Now if we look at "Jan 9" as an event, instead of as a date, we will say that this event occurs after Jan 8 occurs, and we will represent this with a number line of sorts, showing that order. But according to my explanation, that number line represents the occurrence of events, it does not represent the passing of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here you say the present-towards-the-future timeline represents the occurrence of events, it does not represent the passing of time. So you are separating events from time.

If your argument is predicated upon the premise events occur outside of time (which includes dates) - and that appears to be the case - then it is obviously false. — ucarr

Why would you think this, when I've been arguing the exact opposite? I have been saying that time can pass without an event occurring. You did not like my example, saying that it doesn't prove this claim. It was not meant to prove the claim, only to support it by showing that it is logically possible for there to be time passing with no events occurring. — Metaphysician Undercover

Now I get it. You're saying time can pass without events occurring, but events cannot occur without time passing. So, the present-towards-the-future timeline is wrong because time is prior to events.

Okay. So show me your measurements of time passing without events passing concurrently.

Bear in mind, the act of measuring time passing entails the event of the measurement happening concurrently.

When I finished reading this sentence, I slapped my palm to my forehead and exclaimed, "Oh, man! Now he tells me!"

Given that your theory makes radical changes to the view of time, whether it's viewed through the lens of common sense, or viewed scientifically, it's belatedly clear you have neglected your responsibility to your readers.

In order to prevent them from wasting their time with many irrelevant questions aimed at clarification of your premises and their applications, you need to write a pamphlet, booklet or book exposing the foundational components of your theory and their ramifications. — ucarr

I think it was obvious what I was saying. And it's obvious to anyone who has given it any thought. What I was saying is very simple, and consistent with experience and how we commonly speak. We say that time is passing when the day of Jan 4 is replaced with the day of Jan 5. We say that time passed overnight. We do not say that we were moving through time while we were asleep

Here's another fragment from your list of radical premises: Time is an activity somehow distinct from the animation of material things. I infer from this that it's related to this: Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events.

Immediately another gnarly issue arises: there appears to be an inconsistency between: "the passing of time itself is an activity, a process..." and "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events." How is it that time as an activity is not an event? Perhaps you have a cogent answer to this question. What you've written here looks like a contradiction. In your writing, you're doing a terrible job of communicating.

So far, your rollout of your theory is a tissue of radical premises obscurely explained and embedded within a continuity containing contradictions. — ucarr

Activity is the condition of being active, an event is a thing which happens. I see no contradiction in saying that the passing of time is an activity which is not an event. This is simply to say that there is not any particular physical "thing" (event) which happens, which is describable as the activity which we know as the passing of time. It is an activity which cannot be described as "a thing which happens". Instead, we describe it by the general terms of "time passing".

I see that you have problems imagining the possibility of time passing without anything happening, and you are inclined to refuse this conception, but that's simply your refusal, your denial, having an effect on your ability to understand what I am saying.

Now you tell us material objects are not animated, yet they are being changed by the flow of time. So, a material object doesn't move. — ucarr

No, I did not say this, and this is not what I am proposing at all. As I said movement is the change of position of an object relative to another. What I said is that movement is caused by the passing of time.

You make a pronouncement that flies in the face of everyday experience, then give us no explanation why it isn't blatant nonsense. — ucarr

I think what I say is very consistent with everyday experience, and saying things like "we move through time" "the present moves through time", is what is not consistent with our experience. Really, when people say that we are moving through time, this only makes sense as a metaphor. Where is this medium called "time" which we would be traveling through? Obviously, anyone who considers the reality of the situation recognizes that time is passing, and we are not passing through time.

This contradicts: "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events." — ucarr

It appears contradictory to you, because in your condition of denial, you refuse to allow the possibility of what I demonstrated as a valid logical possibility, that time could be passing without any physical event occurring. Therefore you refuse to accept the distinction between being active, and being an event.

The term "event" is restricted to a physical happening, but "active" is not restricted in this way. Therefore whatever it is which is active, is not necessarily a physical event. A physicalist would deny this difference, disallowing that there is anything more to reality than physical things and events. But anyone who recognizes the reality of what is known as "the immaterial", will allow for the reality of activity which is other than physical.

This is why I warned you that it would be pointless to proceed into this discussion without accepting the reality of freewill. The concept of "freewill" allows for the reality of a cause which is not a physical event. If you cling to physicalist/determinist principles, you will simply deny and refuse the principles which make this thesis intelligible, and claim contradiction, as you are doing. So, if you refuse to relinquish this attitude, further discussion would be pointless.

You say that motion is relative, and you say that the present is dimensionally extended. Since relative motion requires dimensional extension, you must explain why a dimensionally extended present is not a part of the phenomenon of relative motion. This explanation is especially important given the role of the present as a separator of future and past that moves in relation to them. How else could it separate them? — ucarr

I really do not understand what you are asking, but it appears like you are saying that any separator between future and past must be moving. I explained to you why this is false, and provided an example, the substance being forced through a membrane.

What's the value of an "example" that's merely whimsy about how the world might be? — ucarr

I told you the value of the example. It's a logical possibility. You refuse things based on your claim of "contradictory". But it only appears contradictory to you because you refuse to accept a valid logical possibility. When you accept it as a valid possibility, then your claim of contradiction disappears. It is logically possible that time can pass without any physical change occurring. You refuse and deny this logical possibility, and that's what creates problems for you. You frame it as a problem for my theory of time, but it's not. It's just a problem with your attitude.

I know your narrative overall is very complicated, but for the moment, I ask how can memories of the future not be what humans experience, given your claim time is prior to events? Since human lives consist of moments strung together, and time, as you say, is prior to all of these moments, how can our lives not be memories of what hasn't yet happened? You're the one frequently claiming the future jumps into the past. — ucarr

Sorry, I really can't decipher what you are asking here.

Firstly, understanding that the possibility for an event must always precede the actual occurrence of that event is an awareness that happens in the empirical now, not in the future. So, the possibility of an event, an abstraction of the mind, does not reside in the mind in the future, but rather in the empirical now. — ucarr

I'm not talking about "possibility" here, as an abstraction in the mind. I am talking about ontological possibility.

Secondly, in what direction does the arrow of time for the conscious human individual move? If we say it moves from the future toward the past, then we’re also saying the conscious human individual grows younger with the passing of time. — ucarr

That's a false conclusion for the reasons I've already explained.

Since the present moves in time, it's not static. — ucarr

Your preferred model of time might have the present moving in time, mine does not. And, I explained to you why mine does not. If you want to understand mine, then you have to drop this idea, because the two are incompatible. If you insist that time must be modeled as having the present moving in time, then we might as well end the discussion right now, because I'm not interested in that model, I think it is obviously false.

Time is a dimension, not a force. — ucarr

A "dimension" is an aspect, or feature of something. If time is a dimension, then what is it a dimension of?

Time is not a system, but a part of a system in the role of a dimension. — ucarr

OK then, what is "the system" which time is a dimension of? You do realize that all systems are artificial don't you? There is physical systems, and theoretical systems, but they are all produced by human beings. Are you saying that time is simply theoretical, part of a theoretical system? I think this is what you said earlier, when you defined time as a mathematical measurement.

I explained why you have to get beyond that idea of time if you want to develop a true understanding of time. As I said, you need to drop these preconceived ideas, if you want to discuss time with me, because I am not interested in discussing time with someone who will relentlessly insist on false premises.

With this claim you validate the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit of the present. — ucarr

Again, you are applying incompatible premises in an effort to make what I say look contradictory.. The start time does not have to be "the present". It's not, that's the point of the example. As the example clearly shows, the start time is "the future". The future is first. If time started then it is necessary that there was a future before there was a past or a present. The only way to avoid this is to say that time is eternal, but that has problems.

There is the ever-closer approach to a start and to an end, but no arrival. — ucarr

I'm not interesting in discussing the deficiencies of mathematics.

No one disputes time being required for events. How does the temporal extension of events prove time is logically prior to them? — ucarr

As I said, this is not proven, That time might pass without physical events, is offered as a logical possibility which needs to be considered, instead of simply rejected as impossible.

I don't read your statement as a self-evident truth. — ucarr

What is offered as self-evident truth is free will. And, when something other than a physical event (a free will), selects a possibility, and causes a physical event, this implies an activity (cause) which is not a physical event. Do you understand this basic principle? The physical event which is caused by a free will, is not caused by a physical event, it is caused by a free will. This implies a cause which is not a physical event. As a cause, it is necessarily an activity. And, activity requires time. Therefore we have time and activity without a physical event. There is an event which is caused by that activity but such an event is posterior to that activity.

Moreover, you haven't described any action time performs apart from material things. — ucarr

This is not true. I described the activity of time, as the future becoming the past. You simply did not accept my description, insisting instead on a model which has the present moving from past to future. But, as I explained above, my model of "time passing" is consistent with how we experience, know, and understand the reality of time. Your model of "the present moving", is not consistent with our experience.

No one disputes time being required for events.

...

I don't exactly agree time is required for events. — ucarr

Hmm, what can I say about this, sloppy writing?

Events and time are parts of a dynamical system, with time supplying the temporal parameters of the system. Is time the cause of something it's a part of? This question spotlights the likely fact time under your theory's causal hiearchy is a proper subset of the dynamics of physics. If it's a cause of its own superset, then that's saying it is its own superset. The comprehension restriction of set theory prohibits a set from being the proper subset of itself. — ucarr

Let me remind you, a "system" is always artificial. In one sense of "system" we construct a physical system, according to a design. In another sense of "system" we model a natural thing according to system theory. The thing itself is not taken to be a system, it is modeled according to a system theory.

You may model a system, and include time as a part of that system, but I'm not interested in such false representations.

So you are separating events from time. — ucarr

Well of course. If you're just starting to see that now, then where were you?

So show me your measurements of time passing without events passing concurrently. — ucarr

We discussed the difference between the measurement and the thing which is measured, way back.
Now, do you agree that a measurement requires an act of measuring. There is no measurement without that act of measuring. However, the thing to be measured exists as the thing to be measured, regardless of whether it has been measured or not. Because I am discussing the thing to be measured, and an approach toward the means for making accurate measurements, your request for measurements is unwarranted.



.

We do not say that we were moving through time while we were asleep — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps we don't say it, but we think it, don't we? I mean, if someone asked you, "Does time continue passing while you're asleep," you'd answer, "yes" wouldn't you?

Activity is the condition of being active, an event is a thing which happens. I see no contradiction in saying that the passing of time is an activity which is not an event. — Metaphysician Undercover

Does an activity, including the passing of time, happen?

I see that you have problems imagining the possibility of time passing without anything happening, and you are inclined to refuse this conception, but that's simply your refusal, your denial, having an effect on your ability to understand what I am saying. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time is conventionally conceived as being a dimension. It is part of a dynamic system of matter_energy transfer. We observe it as attached to the animation of material things. As time emerges from the animation of matter, so to speak, we mark its passing with a progression of numbers. In turn, time helps us gain a sense of duration with temporal parameters.

I now suspect you're theory posits time, not as a dimension emergent from matter_energy transfer systems, but as another dynamical system in itself. Even if it is, cast in this role, it exemplifies the animation of matter, and is therefore not apart from it. Check around and you’ll see that time has no mass. If you already know this, then you need to immediately tell your reader you’re rejecting the conventional wisdom and embarking on a radically different path to discovery about the identity of time.

Sound thinking in physics says spacetime can exist without matter_energy. If it’s the source of matter_energy systems, then we ask whether time alone is a system. If so, what kind of system, how does it work, and how does it ground matter_energy systems? I think these major concepts should be put into the first paragraph of your theory.

When you model an object as moving through time, you model it as moving from past to future, but if you model it as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, then change and movement are caused, by the passing of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Now you tell us material objects are not animated, yet they are being changed by the flow of time. So, a material object doesn't move. — ucarr

No, I did not say this, and this is not what I am proposing at all. As I said movement is the change of position of an object relative to another. What I said is that movement is caused by the passing of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you model an object as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, does the modeled object remain static and only appear to be animated on the basis of relative motion?

You make a pronouncement that flies in the face of everyday experience, then give us no explanation why it isn't blatant nonsense. — ucarr

I think what I say is very consistent with everyday experience, and saying things like "we move through time" "the present moves through time", is what is not consistent with our experience. Really, when people say that we are moving through time, this only makes sense as a metaphor. Where is this medium called "time" which we would be traveling through? Obviously, anyone who considers the reality of the situation recognizes that time is passing, and we are not passing through time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is time passing without anything happening an activity of time? I ask this question because if time makes itself pass, then to my understanding that's time being active, and thus it's an activity of time. To me these seem to be correct readings of what the language signifies.

Is the activity of time passing without anything happening an event? I ask this question because it seems to me that time passing without anything happening is something happening and I know events happen, so this too must be something happening, even though it's time passing without anything happening.

I described the future becoming the past as a force. — Metaphysician Undercover

This contradicts: "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events." — ucarr

It appears contradictory to you, because in your condition of denial, you refuse to allow the possibility of what I demonstrated as a valid logical possibility, that time could be passing without any physical event occurring. Therefore you refuse to accept the distinction between being active, and being an event. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here you're keeping activity and event distinct? Also, since time is physical, please explain how time passes without any physical event occurring.

The term "event" is restricted to a physical happening, but "active" is not restricted in this way. Therefore whatever it is which is active, is not necessarily a physical event. A physicalist would deny this difference, disallowing that there is anything more to reality than physical things and events. But anyone who recognizes the reality of what is known as "the immaterial", will allow for the reality of activity which is other than physical. — Metaphysician Undercover

When time in isolation causes itself to pass, this is an example of immaterial time involved in an activity where no physical system is present? So, "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events"?

This is why I warned you that it would be pointless to proceed into this discussion without accepting the reality of freewill. The concept of "freewill" allows for the reality of a cause which is not a physical event. If you cling to physicalist/determinist principles, you will simply deny and refuse the principles which make this thesis intelligible, and claim contradiction, as you are doing. So, if you refuse to relinquish this attitude, further discussion would be pointless. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, time, being immaterial, causes material things to change by passing. This, then, exemplifies the concept of "freewill" that allows for the reality of a cause which is not a physical event?

You say that motion is relative, and you say that the present is dimensionally extended. Since relative motion requires dimensional extension, you must explain why a dimensionally extended present is not a part of the phenomenon of relative motion. This explanation is especially important given the role of the present as a separator of future and past that moves in relation to them. How else could it separate them? — ucarr

I really do not understand what you are asking, but it appears like you are saying that any separator between future and past must be moving. I explained to you why this is false, and provided an example, the substance being forced through a membrane. — Metaphysician Undercover

The argument is simple. Inside a spaceship, the substance being forced through a membrane establishes a frame of reference wherein it's stationary relative to the substance being forced through it. Outside the spaceship, we realize the membrane, like the substance being forced through it, exists in a state of motion. Anything dimensionally extended - something you want to do to the present tense - has a variable state of motion depending upon its frame of reference. So your dimensionally extended present tense is part of the phenomenon of relative motion. How does this agree with your claim the present, dimensionally extended, is static, and thus future moves directly to past, skipping over present?

What's the value of an "example" that's merely whimsy about how the world might be? — ucarr

I told you the value of the example. It's a logical possibility. You refuse things based on your claim of "contradictory". But it only appears contradictory to you because you refuse to accept a valid logical possibility. When you accept it as a valid possibility, then your claim of contradiction disappears. It is logically possible that time can pass without any physical change occurring. You refuse and deny this logical possibility, and that's what creates problems for you. You frame it as a problem for my theory of time, but it's not. It's just a problem with your attitude. — Metaphysician Undercover

Imagine that there is a shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world, a Planck time duration. Now imagine half a Planck time. That is a duration of time during which an object changing its place in space is impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

There remains the chance your logical possibility is based upon valid reasoning to a false conclusion. This can happen if your valid reasoning includes a false premise. Suppose: a) 0.5 Planck time is inside a gluon; b) the gluon is inside a quark; c) the 0.5 Planck time is inside the quark. This is a valid argument. However, if premise a) is false because 0.5 Planck time is proven impossible, then 0.5 Planck time is not inside the quark, so the valid argument does not, in this case, lead to a true conclusion. This shows logical possibility is not always proof of facts. So, a logically valid argument does not necessarily support a given proposition, such as time can pass in a duration closed to events.

Perhaps we don't say it, but we think it, don't we? I mean, if someone asked you, "Does time continue passing while you're asleep," you'd answer, "yes" wouldn't you? — ucarr

Of course, but I think that time passes. You, on the other hand think that the present moves through time instead of time passing. That's the issue, do you really think that you're moving through time while you're sleeping, or do you think that time is passing while you're sleeping?

Time is conventionally conceived as being a dimension. — ucarr

I know, and that's what I am arguing is a faulty conception. You can explain it to me all you want, but unless you justify it, your explanations do nothing for me.

I now suspect you're theory posits time, not as a dimension emergent from matter_energy transfer systems, but as another dynamical system in itself. — ucarr

That's right, but for the reason explained, "system" is the wrong word.

Even if it is, cast in this role, it exemplifies the animation of matter, and is therefore not apart from it. — ucarr

This is backward. The animation of matter exemplifies time, not vice versa. The animation of matter is the example. This means that the animation of matter is not separate from time, but time is separate from the animation of matter. The relationship of necessity is in one direction, but not the other.

Human beings exemplify "animal" and there is a relationship of logical necessity which means that a human being is necessarily an animal. But "animal" is separate from humane beings, and there could be animals even if there was no human beings, because there is no logical necessity that an animal is a human being. Likewise, there is a relationship of necessity which means that animated matter implies that time is passing. However, "time" is separate from the animation of matter because there is no logical necessity which implies that if time is passing there must be animated matter.

This is the "logical possibility" I demonstrated to you, which you refuse to accept. Since this is causing you difficulty, here is another way to look at it. Consider that during a period of time, it is possible that some things can be stationary relative to each other. If it is possible that during one period of time some things can be stationary relative to each other, then it is also possible that at a period of time all things might be stationary relative to each other.

If you already know this, then you need to immediately tell your reader you’re rejecting the conventional wisdom and embarking on a radically different path to discovery about the identity of time. — ucarr

Of course, I've been dismissing "the conventional wisdom" on time, from the beginning. That is the point. We started with a discussion of how "the present" as a point in time, a convention which enabled the measurement of periods of time, leads to significant ontological problems. When you appeared receptive to that analysis which demonstrated the faults of this conception, I proceeded toward explaining a possible solution. But now you seem very reluctant to leave the comfort of your convention, and so you fall back on "conventional wisdom" insisting that we adhere to it, despite the fact that you seemed to agree with the demonstration which showed that the conventional wisdom is faulty.

Sound thinking in physics says spacetime can exist without matter_energy. If it’s the source of matter_energy systems, then we ask whether time alone is a system. If so, what kind of system, how does it work, and how does it ground matter_energy systems? I think these major concepts should be put into the first paragraph of your theory. — ucarr

As I explained, systems are artificial, made by human beings, and time existed before there was human beings. So this "systems" perspective is a non-starter.

When you model an object as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, does the modeled object remain static and only appear to be animated on the basis of relative motion? — ucarr

No, it means that without the passage of time, the object would not change. It, the object in itself, is fundamentally static, and the passing of time is what causes it to be active.

Is time passing without anything happening an activity of time? I ask this question because if time makes itself pass, then to my understanding that's time being active, and thus it's an activity of time. To me these seem to be correct readings of what the language signifies. — ucarr

Correct.

Is the activity of time passing without anything happening an event? I ask this question because it seems to me that time passing without anything happening is something happening and I know events happen, so this too must be something happening, even though it's time passing without anything happening. — ucarr

No, I drew this distinction all ready. An "event" is a particular physical thing which happens. It is describable by the terms and laws of physics. That is the way we understand "event". The activity of time passing is something more general which encompasses all events. Therefore it cannot be an event itself.

Imagine that each and every event exemplifies the passing of time. It's impossible that the passing of time could itself be an event, for much the same reason that it is impossible for a set to be a member of itself.

For example, consider a multitude of particular objects which exemplify the colour red. In order for a multitude to exemplify that property, "red", there must be something which forms the basis for that category, "red". It is impossible that the basis for that category is itself a red thing, because this would mean that every object in that category would have to be the exact same as that one red thing, leaving that thing as the sole member of the category.

For those reasons, you can see why it is necessary to maintain the distinction between the particular "event", and the general activity called "the passing of time".

Here you're keeping activity and event distinct? Also, since time is physical, please explain how time passes without any physical event occurring. — ucarr

Time is not physical, and that's a big reason why "conventional wisdom" is so faulty. Since there is no physical thing, which qualifies as "time" we just stipulate principles, like we do with mathematical axioms. When the principles prove to be useful, they become conventional. Neither "conventional" nor "useful" implies true.

So, "Time passing is not the events, nor is it an event, but it is the cause of events"? — ucarr

Correct.

So, time, being immaterial, causes material things to change by passing. This, then, exemplifies the concept of "freewill" that allows for the reality of a cause which is not a physical event? — ucarr

I'd say rather, that it is consistent with the concept of free will.

The argument is simple. Inside a spaceship, the substance being forced through a membrane establishes a frame of reference wherein it's stationary relative to the substance being forced through it. Outside the spaceship, we realize the membrane, like the substance being forced through it, exists in a state of motion. Anything dimensionally extended - something you want to do to the present tense - has a variable state of motion depending upon its frame of reference. So your dimensionally extended present tense is part of the phenomenon of relative motion. How does this agree with your claim the present, dimensionally extended, is static, and thus future moves directly to past, skipping over present? — ucarr

This argument is irrelevant because you are talking about spatial dimensions, and I am talking about temporal dimensions, so the principles do not apply. You are comparing apples and oranges. And only through the incompatible premise which makes time a spatial dimension, could the comparison be made.

This shows logical possibility is not always proof of facts. So, a logically valid argument does not necessarily support a given proposition, such as time can pass in a duration closed to events. — ucarr

As I said, the logical possibility is not presented as proof. However it does support the proposition, as evidence. But freewill allows us to deny and refuse (which is your approach), even things which are necessary. But the evidence remains evidence for those who accept it, until it is proven to be actually impossible.

I know your narrative overall is very complicated, but for the moment, I ask how can memories of the future not be what humans experience, given your claim time is prior to events? Since human lives consist of moments strung together, and time, as you say, is prior to all of these moments, how can our lives not be memories of what hasn't yet happened? You're the one frequently claiming the future jumps into the past. — ucarr

Sorry, I really can't decipher what you are asking here. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm asking you why you think it's empirically true that we remember what happens before our present tense experience? You say there's a jump from future to past, with time being the force pushing us into the past. Since you want to extend the present dimensionally - I think it already dimensionally extended as theoretic numerical present tense closely followed by empirical present tense - that means the jump from future to past is now a jump from theoretic numerical present to empirical present tense. You see, there's no empirical experience of either the future tense nor the past tense - we only experience the tempirical present tense minutely time-lagged behind the theoretic numerical present.

Firstly, understanding that the possibility for an event must always precede the actual occurrence of that event is an awareness that happens in the empirical now, not in the future. So, the possibility of an event, an abstraction of the mind, does not reside in the mind in the future, but rather in the empirical now. — ucarr

I'm not talking about "possibility" here, as an abstraction in the mind. I am talking about ontological possibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Possibility is a logical understanding, whether ontological or not. In either case, the sentient experiences this awareness in the empirical present tense whereas both the past and the future are abstractions of the empirically present tense mind.

Secondly, in what direction does the arrow of time for the conscious human individual move? If we say it moves from the future toward the past, then we’re also saying the conscious human individual grows younger with the passing of time. — ucarr

That's a false conclusion for the reasons I've already explained. — Metaphysician Undercover

Check around and you'll see, if you haven't already, that the arrow of time and the arrow of entropy point in the same direction. This is due to the obvious fact that entropy changes in time. I don't expect you to deny this given your claim time changes all things. This means that if the arrow of time points from future to past, then the arrow of entropy also points from future to past. This means, then, that living things are born at their greatest age and progressively grow younger.

Since the present moves in time, it's not static. — ucarr

Your preferred model of time might have the present moving in time, mine does not. And, I explained to you why mine does not. If you want to understand mine, then you have to drop this idea, because the two are incompatible. If you insist that time must be modeled as having the present moving in time, then we might as well end the discussion right now, because I'm not interested in that model, I think it is obviously false. — Metaphysician Undercover

Note - You've been very patient and very generous with your time, as I've needed a lot of repetition from you as I have corrected my misreadings of your intended meanings. Only recently have I realized immaterial time is the central part of your theory. Now knowing this, I have a better grasp of your point of view. I'm grateful to you for giving me ample chance to understand you. Also, I'm grateful for the extensive workout; I like to believe it has strengthened my ability to reason.

I've been understanding you've decided to extend the present tense in a way that sometimes allows it to overlap with past or future. I see now that even given this, your concept of the present tense does not move in time. Have you written a paper that organizes all of the components of your theory?

Time is not a system, but a part of a system in the role of a dimension. — ucarr

OK then, what is "the system" which time is a dimension of? You do realize that all systems are artificial don't you? There is physical systems, and theoretical systems, but they are all produced by human beings. Are you saying that time is simply theoretical, part of a theoretical system? I think this is what you said earlier, when you defined time as a mathematical measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Einstein has described time as a temporal dimension attached to three spatial dimensions. This complex of four dimensions, the four-manifold, goes by the name spacetime. It is examined in terms of
a local frame of reference determining the relativity of time. Also, it is examined in terms of gravity which is space as the four-manifold. The role of time within gravity does not match its role within QM. Some QM physicists question whether time exists within QM. All or most physicists agree that time within QM is a separate and passive background that doesn't impact upon quantum events. This view parallels Newton's view of space as a separate and passive background that doesn't impact upon human scale events.

The human mind organizes natural events into logical patterns. Whether logic and numbers are discovered in nature or imposed upon it by the rational mind is a perennial debate I don't think it prudent for us to embark upon here.

I explained why you have to get beyond that idea of time if you want to develop a true understanding of time. As I said, you need to drop these preconceived ideas, if you want to discuss time with me, because I am not interested in discussing time with someone who will relentlessly insist on false premises. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are asking me to set aside my physicalist concept of time in order to examine your non-physicalist concept of time? Yes, I want to examine your non-physicalist concept of time. I want to compare and contrast it with my physicalist concept of time. If you have a paper that organizes everything within your theory, I’ll read it.

If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past. — Metaphysician Undercover

With this claim you validate the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit of the present. — ucarr

Again, you are applying incompatible premises in an effort to make what I say look contradictory.. The start time does not have to be "the present". It's not, that's the point of the example. As the example clearly shows, the start time is "the future". The future is first. If time started then it is necessary that there was a future before there was a past or a present. The only way to avoid this is to say that time is eternal, but that has problems. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is a question whether my statements spotlight the incompatibility of your axiomatic system with another, or if they spotlight inconsistencies and contradictions internal to your system. If I correctly infer a statement from your text that examples a contradiction in your logic, it not being written there explicitly does not allow you to jump to the conclusion I'm applying an external standard of measure incompatible with your premises.

If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past. — Metaphysician Undercover

I infer from this statement that time without a past cannot be dimensionally extended because this state of the system presupposes the system being a proper subset of itself, a cosmic contradiction. The contradiction is established within the literature of logic. Within set theory, a set being a proper subset of itself, a situation positing the subset as its own superset and vice-versa, examples an obvious contradiction simultaneously equating things and anti-equating the same things. It's not established in the physicalist cosmology. This extension from the abstraction of logic to the existential cosmology is my doing.

The correction to the cosmological contradiction of a pure origin - there are no pure origins - embodies as the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit of the present. As we move in time, we make an approach to the numerical present - that's the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit - without arrival. This asymptotic progression toward the numerical present is evidence of QM properties being present within the Newtonian scale of physics. This is a way of saying we humans, like the elementary particles, have only a probable location in spacetime. At the Newtonian scale of physics, this seems not to be the case, and that's why Newton himself didn't include it within his physics.

There is the ever-closer approach to a start and to an end, but no arrival. — ucarr

I'm not interesting in discussing the deficiencies of mathematics. — Metaphysician Undercover

The infinite series of the calculus and it's limit work very well. They aren't deficiencies. Moreover, they are centrally pertinent to our discussion because you're attacking the theoretical point with zero dimensions. In its role as the numerical present tense, it stands as the limit of an infinite series.

As I said, this is not proven, That time might pass without physical events, is offered as a logical possibility which needs to be considered, instead of simply rejected as impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is an important acknowledgement on your part. I will keep it in mind. I've already been evaluating the factual content of this conjecture.

I think all occurrences of events happen in time. — ucarr

I agree, and we can conclude that time is required for events. This means that time is logically prior to events, but not vise versa. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't read your statement as a self-evident truth. — ucarr

What is offered as self-evident truth is free will. And, when something other than a physical event (a free will), selects a possibility, and causes a physical event, this implies an activity (cause) which is not a physical event. Do you understand this basic principle? The physical event which is caused by a free will, is not caused by a physical event, it is caused by a free will. This implies a cause which is not a physical event. As a cause, it is necessarily an activity. And, activity requires time. Therefore we have time and activity without a physical event. There is an event which is caused by that activity but such an event is posterior to that activity. — Metaphysician Undercover

In claiming free will as a self-evident truth, you're ignoring a perennial debate stretching across millennia. The continuing doubt about the existence of free will renders your following argument undecided WRT free will.

Since you identify free will with non-physical and also with activity, that puts your supposition of a non-physical reality and your definition of non-physical activity within the same category of undecided.

The physical event, which is caused by a free will, is not caused by a physical event, it is caused by a free will. This implies a cause which is not a physical event. As a cause, it is necessarily an activity. And, activity requires time. Therefore we have time and activity without a physical event.

So, time, acting as a function of causation, animates events. There's a question whether time, or any other dimension, is causal. However, your premise thus far, might be worth propounding. Everything changes when you reach the point where you claim activity is non-physical. Since time, per Relativity, is physical, in order for your conclusion to be true, you must overturn Relativity.

Moreover, you haven't described any action time performs apart from material things. — ucarr

This is not true. I described the activity of time, as the future becoming the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since time is a physical dimension, but not dynamic, its status as a cause of things that are dynamic is doubtful. Time and events are paired as physical things. So, time as one of the three tenses pushing the past further into the past, if it happens, examples a physical-to-physical relationship. The problem, again, is that time, although physical, is not dynamic. You haven't shown contact between the non-physical and the physical.

Let me remind you, a "system" is always artificial. In one sense of "system" we construct a physical system, according to a design. In another sense of "system" we model a natural thing according to system theory. The thing itself is not taken to be a system, it is modeled according to a system theory. — Metaphysician Undercover

You say, "we construct a physical system, according to a design." Why isn't the physical thing a system?

So show me your measurements of time passing without events passing concurrently. — ucarr

We discussed the difference between the measurement and the thing which is measured, way back.

Now, do you agree that a measurement requires an act of measuring. There is no measurement without that act of measuring. However, the thing to be measured exists as the thing to be measured, regardless of whether it has been measured or not. Because I am discussing the thing to be measured, and an approach toward the means for making accurate measurements, your request for measurements is unwarranted. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is your argument supporting the separation of activity from event? Thinking about doing something is not equal to the actual doing of the something thought about. In order to support your claim non-physical activity is prior - both logically and existentially - to events, you must show that priority, both logically and existentially. Show me, with mathematical inference, how non-physical time passes inside the Cern particle accelerator in such manner as to cause the animation of the material things that populate events.

Man, you two are really going at it. Is there any hope for any kind of resolution here, one way or the other? Or is this one of those problems that can be discussed for all eternity, without being able to ever reach a solution to it?

Perhaps we don't say it, but we think it, don't we? I mean, if someone asked you, "Does time continue passing while you're asleep," you'd answer, "yes" wouldn't you? — ucarr

Of course, but I think that time passes. You, on the other hand think that the present moves through time instead of time passing. That's the issue, do you really think that you're moving through time while you're sleeping, or do you think that time is passing while you're sleeping? — Metaphysician Undercover

Regarding passing through time, time is the dimension of duration, so is it false to think of my temporal experience as passing through a duration? Consider that it takes one hour to travel from point A to point B. Don't you think about your travel by car as passing through the interval of time required to arrive at your destination? I think it less intuitive to picture time as a separate thing passing away from me as I remain stationary.

Time is conventionally conceived as being a dimension. — ucarr

I know, and that's what I am arguing is a faulty conception. You can explain it to me all you want, but unless you justify it, your explanations do nothing for me. — Metaphysician Undercover

How about I let Einstein justify it?

Time dilation caused by gravity or acceleration
Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different times after different accelerations. For example, time goes slower at the ISS, lagging approximately 0.01 seconds for every 12 Earth months passed. - Wikipedia

Note the above is not a thought experiment. It is scientific verification with real evidence supporting a prediction of Relativity.

I now suspect you're theory posits time, not as a dimension emergent from matter_energy transfer systems, but as another dynamical system in itself. — ucarr

That's right, but for the reason explained, "system" is the wrong word. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let me remind you, a "system" is always artificial. In one sense of "system" we construct a physical system, according to a design. In another sense of "system" we model a natural thing according to system theory. The thing itself is not taken to be a system, it is modeled according to a system theory. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you're trying to reject system as a label for dynamic patterns organized logically, then you'll need to do more than the reasoning posted above. For example, you say, "...we model a natural thing according to system theory. The thing itself is not taken to be as a system..." Must be a piss poor model if it in no way resembles systemically the systemization of the natural thing it models. I say this because your denial of the systemization of natural things does not apply to living organisms.

Even if it is, cast in this role, it exemplifies the animation of matter, and is therefore not apart from it. — ucarr

This is backward. The animation of matter exemplifies time, not vice versa. The animation of matter is the example. This means that the animation of matter is not separate from time, but time is separate from the animation of matter. The relationship of necessity is in one direction, but not the other. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't forgotten your claim time causes the animation of events. If time is animated with passing time in isolation, it's a dynamic system. This being the case even if the passing of time is the only animation present. Well, this is just the same as what other dynamic systems do, so time is another example of thermo-dynamics and therefore it cannot be apart from or prior to other events given it being itself an event.

..."time" is separate from the animation of matter because there is no logical necessity which implies that if time is passing there must be animated matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

Relativity says something different.

In the context of special relativity, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer. - Wikipedia

Can space and time exist separately?
In the theory of general relativity, spacetime is described as a unified concept where space and time cannot be considered separately. Spacetime is a framework in which events occur and objects move and interact. - MIT.edu

If space and time are inseparable, then time is also inseparable from animate matter because space is equal to the warpage of gravitation, and that is an event.

This is the "logical possibility" I demonstrated to you, which you refuse to accept. — Metaphysician Undercover

Logical validity doesn’t necessarily establish what is factual.

If a valid conclusion is necessarily based upon a false premise, then that conclusion, being always counter-factual, is not logically possible.

Conversely, in order for something to be logically possible, it must always be possible to use true premises towards its arrival as a valid conclusion.

If it is possible that during one period of time some things can be stationary relative to each other, then it is also possible that at a period of time all things might be stationary relative to each other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, your argument, even if valid, doesn't necessarily establish what is factual.

What conditions would describe the heat death of the universe?
The heat death of the universe is a postulated end to the universe as we know it. It is when a state of maximum disorder, or entropy, is reached; where no thermodynamic processes occur and time itself becomes meaningless. - tcd.ie

Will the universe reach absolute zero?
Long after the last star in the Universe has [+] burned out, the final black hole will decay away. Even after that happens, however, and even after waiting arbitrarily long amounts of time for the Universe to dilute and the radiation to redshift, the temperature still will not drop to absolute zero. - Forbes

In the first example, time, instead of passing in isolation, becomes meaningless. In the second example, the temperature never drops to zero, which signifies energy and motion.

...now you seem very reluctant to leave the comfort of your convention, and so you fall back on "conventional wisdom" insisting that we adhere to it, despite the fact that you seemed to agree with the demonstration which showed that the conventional wisdom is faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover

My understanding of an evaluation of a paper says its premises and conclusions get referenced to established facts about the true nature of things. Conventional wisdom, if true and pertinent, stands up as good, not bad. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Sound thinking in physics says spacetime can exist without matter_energy. If it’s the source of matter_energy systems, then we ask whether time alone is a system. If so, what kind of system, how does it work, and how does it ground matter_energy systems? I think these major concepts should be put into the first paragraph of your theory. — ucarr

As I explained, systems are artificial, made by human beings, and time existed before there was human beings. So this "systems" perspective is a non-starter. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let me remind you, a "system" is always artificial. In one sense of "system" we construct a physical system, according to a design. In another sense of "system" we model a natural thing according to system theory. The thing itself is not taken to be a system, it is modeled according to a system theory. — Metaphysician Undercover

You also explained how "we model a natural thing according to system theory." No doubt your understanding of time is based upon the artifice of human-centered system theory. So your view of time is no less artificial than mine.

When you model an object as fundamentally static, yet being changed by the flow of time, does the modeled object remain static and only appear to be animated on the basis of relative motion? — ucarr

No, it means that without the passage of time, the object would not change. It, the object in itself, is fundamentally static, and the passing of time is what causes it to be active. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your vague language leaves it unclear whether time imparts to fundamentally static things the relativity of motion. I ask this because the relativity of motion - apart from that relativity - leaves material things intact, i.e., fundamentally static. If relativity of motion changed you in any way besides relativistically, your appearance would keep changing. It doesn't. This sounds like what you're saying is that time, rather than motion, imparts relativistic motion to things. The problem with having it be time instead of energy is the fact time is not a force and thus cannot impart relativistic motion to material things.

It's impossible that the passing of time could itself be an event, for much the same reason that it is impossible for a set to be a member of itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

Incorrect $→$

Some sets are members of themselves and others are not: for example, the set of all sets is a member of itself, because it is a set, whereas the set of all penguins is not, because it is not a penguin. - Oxford Reference.com

It is impossible that the basis for that category is itself a red thing — Metaphysician Undercover

Without getting into set theory, I can say that passing time, being part of a 4-manifold, involves the energy of animated things to which it is attached. Therefore, like Roger Penrose says, "Where there's mass, there's time. This tells me time doesn't pass apart from events populated by animated things.

Time is not physical, and that's a big reason why "conventional wisdom" is so faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time, a physical dimension, and being part of the 4-manifold, together with three spatial dimensions, forms a container of events.

Anything dimensionally extended - something you want to do to the present tense - has a variable state of motion depending upon its frame of reference. So your dimensionally extended present tense is part of the phenomenon of relative motion. — ucarr

This argument is irrelevant because you are talking about spatial dimensions, and I am talking about temporal dimensions, so the principles do not apply. You are comparing apples and oranges. And only through the incompatible premise which makes time a spatial dimension, could the comparison be made. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time is relative. Through acceleration or gravity, time speeds up or slows down. Obviously, acceleration and gravity are both part of space, so their effect on time shows that time and space are connected, and thus your apples and oranges defense is what's irrelevant here.

...the logical possibility is not presented as proof. However it does support the proposition, as evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Logic works with proofs. How does logic, short of a proof, support a proposition? You don't have any evidence because there's no experimental verification of a half-Planck scale.

I'm having a great time. MU has been patient with my blunders, and he's been generous with his time. I can't lose overall because I'm having an enriching experience.

I'm asking you why you think it's empirically true that we remember what happens before our present tense experience? — ucarr

No wonder I couldn't understand. I don't think that.

You say there's a jump from future to past, — ucarr

I never said anything about a jump. In fact i was implying that the future and past overlap, with my description of the dimensionality of the present. How is that a jump?

You are badly misrepresenting me.

Possibility is a logical understanding, whether ontological or not. In either case, the sentient experiences this awareness in the empirical present tense whereas both the past and the future are abstractions of the empirically present tense mind. — ucarr

This is what I would say is the mistaken assumption. Really, we are aware of the past, through memory. And, we are also aware of the future, through our anticipations and intentions. The "present" is just an abstraction. That's what I discussed concerning the faulty idea that "the present" is a nondimensional point which divides future from past.

Check around and you'll see, if you haven't already, that the arrow of time and the arrow of entropy point in the same direction. — ucarr

I can't see an arrow of time, nor an arrow of entropy. These are abstractions, part of a (faulty in my belief) conceptual structure.

Note - You've been very patient and very generous with your time, as I've needed a lot of repetition from you as I have corrected my misreadings of your intended meanings. Only recently have I realized immaterial time is the central part of your theory. Now knowing this, I have a better grasp of your point of view. I'm grateful to you for giving me ample chance to understand you. Also, I'm grateful for the extensive workout; I like to believe it has strengthened my ability to reason. — ucarr

You may claim to have a "better grasp" of what I'm saying, but you still badly misrepresent me, especially on the subject of the flow of time. The problem is, that you have this idea that the past is before the future, and this works as a model for determinist causation. When I tell you that it is necessary to understand the future as prior to the past, in order to understand the freewill perspective, you simply reverse the flow of time, and present that as my perspective. But I keep telling you that is not the case, the flow of time is exactly the same, whether it's modeled with past before the future, or future before the past. What is changed is the way that one understands the floe of time.

Do you agree that it is necessary to understand that the possibility for an event precedes the actual occurrence of that event? And do you understand that possibilities only exist in the future, not the past? What happens at the present is that possibilities coming from the future, are selected for, actualized, and then become past. Therefore the future is prior to the past.

The role of time within gravity does not match its role within QM. — ucarr

That's good evidence that Einstein's spacetime is a faulty theory of time.

I infer from this statement that time without a past cannot be dimensionally extended because this state of the system presupposes the system being a proper subset of itself, a cosmic contradiction. — ucarr

The "time without a past" is not dimensionless though. That's the point. It still has a future, which is a dimension of time. And, the further point is that this condition you mention, "time without a past", i.e. only a future, is necessarily prior to there being a past, if we rule out eternal or infinite time. Therefore if the extension of time is not infinite, future is necessarily prior to past.

The correction to the cosmological contradiction of a pure origin - there are no pure origins - embodies as the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit of the present. As we move in time, we make an approach to the numerical present - that's the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit - without arrival. This asymptotic progression toward the numerical present is evidence of QM properties being present within the Newtonian scale of physics. This is a way of saying we humans, like the elementary particles, have only a probable location in spacetime. At the Newtonian scale of physics, this seems not to be the case, and that's why Newton himself didn't include it within his physics — ucarr

Again, this is a terrible model. Why exclude "origins"? Having a model which excludes origins as unintelligible renders real origins as unintelligible. That origins appear to be unintelligible is the fault of the model, not because real origins are actually unintelligible. Origins are modeled as unintelligible, so whenever there is an origin it appears to be unintelligible. That's a faulty model.

Look, the following makes no sense:

"As we move in time, we make an approach to the numerical present - that's the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit - without arrival. "

Earlier, you said we are in the "empirical present". Now you say we're moving in time, but never reaching the present. What does this mean, that we are always in the past, yet empirically in the present? Well how do we ever make freewill acts to change things then? The past is already fixed as unchangeable, if we never reach the present we never have the capacity to make a freewill act.

The infinite series of the calculus and it's limit work very well. They aren't deficiencies. — ucarr

Yes, infinite series' are deficiencies, because as you yourself show, they make origins unintelligible, requiring that there is an infinite series to be traversed between now and then. And, the appearance of infinite time here provides an avoidance of the argument which demonstrates that the future is necessarily prior to the past. Only if time was infinite, could this argument be avoided, and the calculus which works with the infinite series produces that illusion of infinity.

Now we have a contradictory scenario, there is supposed to be an origin on the other side of that infinite series, but the infinite series denies the reality of the origin. Then arguments like mine which actually address the origin, can be dismissed, because the infinite series makes a real origin impossible. So all we have is 'waffle-land', deny discussions which take an origin as a premise, because the infinite series doesn't allow the origin to be real, yet also deny that there is an infinite regress by claiming that there is an origin behind the infinite series.

In claiming free will as a self-evident truth, you're ignoring a perennial debate stretching across millennia. The continuing doubt about the existence of free will renders your following argument undecided WRT free will. — ucarr

Since the determinist perspective, and the freewill perspective produce incompatible models of time, we need to choose on or the other. I am not interested in discussing time with anyone who makes the self-contradicting choice, i.e. choosing that choice is not possible.

There's a question whether time, or any other dimension, is causal. — ucarr

You continue to misrepresent "time" as a dimension, in the incompatible determinist way. I mean that's acceptable to that model of time, but if you want to understand "time" in this model you need to rid yourself of those incompatible premises. "Time" here is not a dimension of something, it is something with dimensions.

Since time, per Relativity, is physical, in order for your conclusion to be true, you must overturn Relativity. — ucarr

Overturning relativity is not what is required, only to demonstrate it's deficiencies, like the one mentioned above. Another one which I've been arguing is that it wrongly renders the logical possibility of time without physical events as impossible. When a theory renders a logical possibility as impossible, through stipulation rather than through empirical observation, that theory must be held suspect.

Since time is a physical dimension... — ucarr

Bad premise!

You haven't shown contact between the non-physical and the physical. — ucarr

You haven't dropped your bad premise. Once you drop that premise that time is physical, what you ask for is accomplished.

You say, "we construct a physical system, according to a design." Why isn't the physical thing a system? — ucarr

The physical thing is a "system", but it's artificial. Then there's the other meaning of "system", as in system theory. In this sense we might model a natural things as a "system", but the natural things don't actually fit the theoretical system, so boundaries and things like that, need to be fudged. Both senses of "system", the physical system, and the theoretical system, refer to something artificial. Natural things just don't fulfill the requirement of "system".

This is your argument supporting the separation of activity from event? Thinking about doing something is not equal to the actual doing of the something thought about. In order to support your claim non-physical activity is prior - both logically and existentially - to events, you must show that priority, both logically and existentially. Show me, with mathematical inference, how non-physical time passes inside the Cern particle accelerator in such manner as to cause the animation of the material things that populate events. — ucarr

I've told you many times now, it's taken as a logical possibility, not as a proof. However, when we accept this logical possibility as reality, it makes freewill very intelligible. And, you can deny free will if you so choose, but then we'll have nothing more to talk about.

[

Regarding passing through time, time is the dimension of duration, so is it false to think of my temporal experience as passing through a duration? Consider that it takes one hour to travel from point A to point B. Don't you think about your travel by car as passing through the interval of time required to arrive at your destination? I think it less intuitive to picture time as a separate thing passing away from me as I remain stationary. — ucarr

No, I think of passing through the space between A and B when I travel, and I think that this takes time, i.e. time passes while I traverse this space. I definitely do not think that I travel through time in the way I traverse space, because moving from one place to another requires energy, but time passes without any effort on my part. This is a very big difference which you need to respect. We need to propel ourselves to change locations, but time passes with no effort on our part. That is because time itself is the thing which is active when we supposedly "move through time", not us.

How about I let Einstein justify it?

Time dilation caused by gravity or acceleration
Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different times after different accelerations. For example, time goes slower at the ISS, lagging approximately 0.01 seconds for every 12 Earth months passed. - Wikipedia

Note the above is not a thought experiment. It is scientific verification with real evidence supporting a prediction of Relativity. — ucarr

I don't see how this proves anything.

Must be a piss poor model if it in no way resembles systemically the systemization of the natural thing it models. — ucarr

I didn't say "it in no way resembles..." If one thing resembles another, that does not mean it is the other. That's piss poor logic. If a natural thing resembles an artificial system, it's piss poor logic to conclude that it is a system.

Again, your argument, even if valid, doesn't necessarily establish what is factual. — ucarr

How many times do I have to tell you? I am in no way trying to "establish what is factual". I am discussing logical possibilities. Do you understand this? This is a theory based in possibilities, not based in what is actual, or factual. This is what makes it consistent with freewill, that it deals with possibilities.

The heat death of the universe is a postulated end to the universe as we know it. It is when a state of maximum disorder, or entropy, is reached; where no thermodynamic processes occur and time itself becomes meaningless — ucarr

That's very faulty. Look, "entropy" is a feature of a system, it accounts for the energy of a system which is no longer useful to that system, and cannot be account for. The universe is not a system. And, assuming a "heat death" is actually accounting for the energy which the concept of "entropy" explicitly indicates cannot be accounted for. So this heat death idea is just self-contradicting, even if you overlook the first fault, that the universe is not a system. Double bad does not make a theory good.

No doubt your understanding of time is based upon the artifice of human-centered system theory. — ucarr

Sure, but I don't pretend that the model is the thing modeled. My model is a model of possibility. You think time is the measurement, so all you are doing is modeling the model.

The problem with having it be time instead of energy is the fact time is not a force — ucarr

Again, you are just adopting incompatible premises to deny the theory. Clearly, in this theory time is a force, so your premise that time is not a force is irrelevant. Furthermore, you replace time as the force, with "energy" as the force, but energy is just a measurement, it's not a real independent thing like time is. We take measurements, and determine "the energy" of something, but that is just physical laws and mathematics. So "energy" is the product of measurements and applied mathematics, it is not a real force in the world, like the passing of time is. It appears your theory has swallowed up your reality.

"Where there's mass, there's time. This tells me time doesn't pass apart from events populated by animated things. — ucarr

This is an invalid conclusion. Like I explained, "where there's mass, there's time", implies that mass cannot exist without time, but it does not imply that time cannot exist without mass.

You need to learn how to understand "logical priority".

Logic works with proofs. How does logic, short of a proof, support a proposition? You don't have any evidence because there's no experimental verification of a half-Planck scale. — ucarr

Clearly you take one way in which logic is used, and assume that this is all that logic does. You see to be totally missing out on some of the greatest uses of it.

...how can our lives not be memories of what hasn't yet happened? You're the one frequently claiming the future jumps into the past. — ucarr

Sorry, I really can't decipher what you are asking here. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm asking you why you think it's empirically true that we remember what happens before our present tense experience? You say there's a jump from future to past, with time being the force pushing us into the past. — ucarr

No wonder I couldn't understand. I don't think that. — Metaphysician Undercover

I never said anything about a jump. In fact i was implying that the future and past overlap, with my description of the dimensionality of the present. How is that a jump? — Metaphysician Undercover

You have written about the arrow of time as moving from future to past, with the force of the future pushing the past into the more distant past, so I've been reading that as an arrow of time that skips over the present.

Now it seems you're telling me the future moves to the present, and then the present mediates an overlap of the future and the past. So far, I can't picture the empirical experience of the merger of two temporal tenses: future and past in this example. Since you believe this to be happening, you should be able to provide a description of what it's like for a person to experience being simultaneously in the future and the past.

Possibility is a logical understanding, whether ontological or not. In either case, the sentient experiences this awareness in the empirical present tense whereas both the past and the future are abstractions of the empirically present tense mind. — ucarr

Really, we are aware of the past, through memory. And, we are also aware of the future, through our anticipations and intentions. The "present" is just an abstraction. That's what I discussed concerning the faulty idea that "the present" is a nondimensional point which divides future from past. — Metaphysician Undercover

This statement from you needs unpacking. I think we're aware of all three temporal tenses within the empirical present. We can neither go to the future nor to the past. Even if we could time travel, arrival at either past or future would be, for us, more experience of the empirical present. The arrow of time outside of the boundaries of the empirical present is an abstraction. Neither the past nor the future are for us existentially real; only the empirical present is existentially real for us. I, like you, postulate an extended present, but my version contains neither future nor past.

Check around and you'll see, if you haven't already, that the arrow of time and the arrow of entropy point in the same direction. — ucarr

I can't see an arrow of time, nor an arrow of entropy. These are abstractions, part of a (faulty in my belief) conceptual structure. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're saying you don't believe the two arrows represent dynamical things existentially real, or you're saying you think they're understood in terms of a distorted perception that needs to be corrected?

The problem is, that you have this idea that the past is before the future, and this works as a model for determinist causation. — Metaphysician Undercover

What we have here is a complicated interplay of different frames of reference. I keep my perception oriented by confining myself to the present tense view of all three tenses, with the understanding only the present tense is, for me, pragmatically real beyond the neuronal activity of my brain.

Keeping this in mind, I can ask why the future-to-past arrow and the past-to-future arrow don't both possess determinist causation?

When I tell you that it is necessary to understand the future as prior to the past, in order to understand the freewill perspective, you simply reverse the flow of time, and present that as my perspective. — Metaphysician Undercover

But I keep telling you that is not the case, the flow of time is exactly the same, whether it's modeled with past before the future, or future before the past. What is changed is the way that one understands the floe of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

...it is necessary to understand the future as prior to the past, in order to understand the freewill perspective... — Metaphysician Undercover

If, as you claim, the arrow of time is the same for both directions, then how could one be any less causal than the other? I ask this question bearing in mind your talk of free will. Even if we somehow inhabit the future pragmatically and thus also paradoxically, and therein exercise our free will such that the past events following this future free will decision making are caused by it, how is that an example of the future-to-past arrow of time being any less determinist that the past-to-future arrow of time?

The role of time within gravity does not match its role within QM. — ucarr

That's good evidence that Einstein's spacetime is a faulty theory of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

You acknowledge that time is a dimension, as it is claimed by Relativity. Is your understanding of time as a dimension different from Einstein's understanding? If this is why your theory of dimensional time is correct while Einstein's isn't; can you list the ramifications of each theory of dimensional time side by side for comparison and contrast? Moreover, can you then present an analysis that shows your version of dimensional time prevailing over his regarding the truth content of their respective ramifications?

If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past. — Metaphysician Undercover

I infer from this statement that time without a past cannot be dimensionally extended because this state of the system presupposes the system being a proper subset of itself, a cosmic contradiction. — ucarr

The "time without a past" is not dimensionless though. That's the point. It still has a future, which is a dimension of time. And, the further point is that this condition you mention, "time without a past", i.e. only a future, is necessarily prior to there being a past, if we rule out eternal or infinite time. Therefore if the extension of time is not infinite, future is necessarily prior to past. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's a logical problem in your statement. In the situation of "time without a past," how can the "future" be prior to something that doesn't exist? Obviously, priority depends upon a relativity of position of first to second. That can't be the case in a situation with only a first and no second.

Continuing our reasoning, imagine in this situation the present in relation to the future becomes the past. Okay, there’s the missing second in the form of the past. Now, however, another problem arises: this is a situation with no present. It follows logically that a situation with no present has no presence, i.e., doesn’t exist. (By the way, this is the reason why neither past or future have any presence beyond the abstract mind; it’s not possible for future or past to exist outside their connection to their relatives; that is a connection only possible in the abstract thinking of the mind.)

The correction to the cosmological contradiction of a pure origin - there are no pure origins - embodies as the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit of the present. As we move in time, we make an approach to the numerical present - that's the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit - without arrival. This asymptotic progression toward the numerical present is evidence of QM properties being present within the Newtonian scale of physics. This is a way of saying we humans, like the elementary particles, have only a probable location in spacetime. At the Newtonian scale of physics, this seems not to be the case, and that's why Newton himself didn't include it within his physics — ucarr

Again, this is a terrible model. Why exclude "origins"? Having a model which excludes origins as unintelligible renders real origins as unintelligible. That origins appear to be unintelligible is the fault of the model, not because real origins are actually unintelligible. Origins are modeled as unintelligible, so whenever there is an origin it appears to be unintelligible. That's a faulty model. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you've ever tackled the question: "Why is There Not Nothing?" or, stated differently: "Why Existence?" or read up on approaches made by others, then you know why this question, still unsolved, predates Socrates. There is a gnarly cosmological question, specifically invoked by this question: What's the Origin of the Totality of Existence? The question, "What predates the singularity of the Big Bang" is a stumper event the great thinkers still succumb to.

Look, the following makes no sense: — Metaphysician Undercover

As we move in time, we make an approach to the numerical present - that's the theoretical point with zero dimensions as the limit - without arrival. — ucarr

Earlier, you said we are in the "empirical present". Now you say we're moving in time, but never reaching the present. What does this mean, that we are always in the past, yet empirically in the present? Well how do we ever make freewill acts to change things then? The past is already fixed as unchangeable, if we never reach the present we never have the capacity to make a freewill act. — Metaphysician Undercover

We're in the empirical present - how we consciously perceive the world around us, moment to moment - which time lags behind the theoretical numerical present. Speaking in terms of the relative positions, the nearly present, our empirical present, chases closely behind what to us relatively speaking is the near future. This is a way of saying we're some tiny fraction of a second behind the numerical present. Now, to be sure, perception of the numerical present gets gnarly when we home in on its details in high resolution. We can only approach the numerical present as a changing variable traveling the highway of an infinite series. We're always approaching and never arriving at a relative future we're trying to make present here and now. Since these discrepancies at the Newtonian scale are minute, we ignore them. However, if we wish to talk scientifically, we say our position is spacetime is probable, not certain. So, now you see why the present is represented as a theoretical point of zero dimensions.

The infinite series of the calculus and it's limit work very well. They aren't deficiencies. — ucarr

Yes, infinite series' are deficiencies, because as you yourself show, they make origins unintelligible, requiring that there is an infinite series to be traversed between now and then. And, the appearance of infinite time here provides an avoidance of the argument which demonstrates that the future is necessarily prior to the past. Only if time was infinite, could this argument be avoided, and the calculus which works with the infinite series produces that illusion of infinity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, infinite series' are deficiencies, because as you yourself show, they make origins unintelligible, requiring that there is an infinite series to be traversed between now and then. And, the appearance of infinite time here provides an avoidance of the argument which demonstrates that the future is necessarily prior to the past. Only if time was infinite, could this argument be avoided, and the calculus which works with the infinite series produces that illusion of infinity.

Now we have a contradictory scenario, there is supposed to be an origin on the other side of that infinite series, but the infinite series denies the reality of the origin. Then arguments like mine which actually address the origin, can be dismissed, because the infinite series makes a real origin impossible. So all we have is 'waffle-land', deny discussions which take an origin as a premise, because the infinite series doesn't allow the origin to be real, yet also deny that there is an infinite regress by claiming that there is an origin behind the infinite series. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since you're complaining about a never-ending present, maybe you should ask yourself, "Have I ever been bodily present within either the past or the future?" We both know you know the answer is "no." Have you ever awakened from sleep and discovered you're either in the past or in the future? No, you haven't. Even if you could get into a time machine and travel to either one million years past, or one million years future, upon your arrival, wouldn't you be in what for you is the present? Yes, you would. If you find enjoyment in life, and you wish to continue going forward in it, then clearly you have no legitimate reason for complaining about your never-ending experience of being in the present. After all, those not in the present are dead.

This is further evidence we cannot travel to the future; if we could, that would mean we never had a present, and thus we never existed. What prevents this is the fact any time travel is always from the present to another present. Well, that's the infinite present. For clarity, let's look at this from the opposite direction.

If you tried to go from the future backwards of the arrow of time that goes forward, you'd discover you cannot go to the past, because, being of the future and going directly to the past, you'd have no present and thus no presence and thus no existence. Again, going this way, your non-existence is prevented by the fact you can only go from one present to another present.

Now we see why the arrow of time goes in the same direction as the arrow of entropy: past_present_future, with an infinite present, means going in either direction is just a temporal journey from one present to another. Without the arrow of entropy, the past_present_future skein is equal in both directions; temporal travel, either way, is a journey from one present to another present. What gives the arrow of time its unidirectionality is its pairing with the arrow of entropy.

We know we're following the arrow of time only going forward because we know from our life experience we are born young and die older; we understand this as the present going forward to the future. In this sequence, youth, which we look back upon from old age, comes first at birth, old age at death, comes second. We also understand that the reverse of that direction is going from being older to being younger. Since we never see ourselves or anyone else growing younger, we know going forward in time is the only way we're moving in time.

In claiming free will as a self-evident truth, you're ignoring a perennial debate stretching across millennia. The continuing doubt about the existence of free will renders your following argument undecided WRT free will. — ucarr

Since the determinist perspective, and the freewill perspective produce incompatible models of time, we need to choose on or the other. I am not interested in discussing time with anyone who makes the self-contradicting choice, i.e. choosing that choice is not possible. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're saying the past_present_future arrow of time is self-contradicting because it cancels the free-will option?

There's a question whether time, or any other dimension, is causal. — ucarr

You continue to misrepresent "time" as a dimension, in the incompatible determinist way. I mean that's acceptable to that model of time, but if you want to understand "time" in this model you need to rid yourself of those incompatible premises. "Time" here is not a dimension of something, it is something with dimensions. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're saying time stands independent of space?

Regarding compatibility between the paradigm of judgment and the work judged, I'm mainly using Relativity as my paradigm, now that I'm clear on your positioning immaterial time at the center of your theory. Surely you're not surprised that examiners of your theory turn to Relativity as their paradigm. I struggle to see how it's legit to brush off Relativity as incompatible and irrelevant. Since you're the one trying to overthrow it, aren't you responsible for meeting it head on with cogent arguments? Waving the flag of incompatibility plays like a dodge.

Since time, per Relativity, is physical, in order for your conclusion to be true, you must overturn Relativity. — ucarr

Overturning relativity is not what is required, only to demonstrate it's deficiencies, like the one mentioned above. Another one which I've been arguing is that it wrongly renders the logical possibility of time without physical events as impossible. When a theory renders a logical possibility as impossible, through stipulation rather than through empirical observation, that theory must be held suspect. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, you hold that time is not physical.

Also, you hold that time passes with no events happening.

Since you fault Relativity for dismissing time-passing-without-events without empirical observation, you plan on supporting your claim of immaterial time with empirical observation.

Since time is a physical dimension... — ucarr

Bad premise! — Metaphysician Undercover

You haven't shown contact between the non-physical and the physical. — ucarr

You haven't dropped your bad premise. Once you drop that premise that time is physical, what you ask for is accomplished. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps time isn't physical, but Relativity's belief in same connects it with our lives, which are, at least in part, physical. Why should I drop my belief in the connection linking physical me with physical time? If It's something unreal - as according to your understanding - shouldn't you show me that immaterial time is somehow connecting with my physical life using cogent logic that overturns my belief. In the boxing ring, the challenger, in order to win, must knock out the champ. This is another kind of boxing ring.

Now, do you agree that a measurement requires an act of measuring. There is no measurement without that act of measuring. However, the thing to be measured exists as the thing to be measured, regardless of whether it has been measured or not. Because I am discussing the thing to be measured, and an approach toward the means for making accurate measurements, your request for measurements is unwarranted. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is your argument supporting the separation of activity from event? Thinking about doing something is not equal to the actual doing of the something thought about. In order to support your claim non-physical activity is prior - both logically and existentially - to events, you must show that priority, both logically and existentially. Show me, with mathematical inference, how non-physical time passes inside the Cern particle accelerator in such manner as to cause the animation of the material things that populate events. — ucarr

I've told you many times now, it's taken as a logical possibility, not as a proof. However, when we accept this logical possibility as reality, it makes freewill very intelligible. And, you can deny free will if you so choose, but then we'll have nothing more to talk about. — Metaphysician Undercover

With activity, you refer to time imagined in total isolation acting as a transitive verb with events as its object. The transitive action of time is to move events into the past. The objects of time are events. We see a distinction between time as transitive verb and events as objects of time's activity. Time moves and events get moved. The distinction in this particular situation becomes a false generalization when applied to all actions involving time and objects. Its false because the objects moved can act as transitive verbs acting on time. Since time as a dimension has duration, an argument can be made for the actions of moving things acting as movers of time, with time getting moved because its duration increases.

Don't you think about your travel by car as passing through the interval of time required to arrive at your destination? — ucarr

No, I think of passing through the space between A and B when I travel, and I think that this takes time, i.e. time passes while I traverse this space. — Metaphysician Undercover

Passing through an hour of space and passing through the hour of time elapsed in passing through that space are two aspects of the same experience. We know this because we do both simultaneously. You cannot cite me one example wherein you pass through space without simultaneously passing through time. Being able to do that would mean being able to travel distance in zero time. Flipping this around, we know time doesn't pass without passing through space because that would mean being able to do the temporal expansion of numerical tracking as a dimension with zero dimension.

Time is conventionally conceived as being a dimension. — ucarr

I know, and that's what I am arguing is a faulty conception. You can explain it to me all you want, but unless you justify it, your explanations do nothing for me. — Metaphysician Undercover

How about I let Einstein justify it?

Time dilation caused by gravity or acceleration
Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different times after different accelerations. For example, time goes slower at the ISS, lagging approximately 0.01 seconds for every 12 Earth months passed. - Wikipedia

Note the above is not a thought experiment. It is scientific verification with real evidence supporting a prediction of Relativity. — ucarr

I don't see how this proves anything. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you don't see how time expanding temporally under influence of gravity or acceleration examples it as a relative, dimension of variable measurements experimentally verified, then it's probably because you don't see what you don't want to see.

If a natural thing resembles an artificial system, it's piss poor logic to conclude that it is a system. — Metaphysician Undercover

A tree has a system of roots that feed into it. A switchboard has a system of cables that feed into it.

I am in no way trying to "establish what is factual". I am discussing logical possibilities. — Metaphysician Undercover

If a supposed state of reality is, in fact, real, then a valid argument that such a state is possible is factual. Any supposition not concerned with culminating in verification as being factual is whimsy.

Look, "entropy" is a feature of a system, it accounts for the energy of a system which is no longer useful to that system... — Metaphysician Undercover

With heat death, motion stops, time becomes meaningless. This describes your situation where nothing is happening, not even the passing of time. Time still exists, but I'm guessing it's collapsed to a point of zero dimension. That's a meaningless existence for a dimension.

My model is a model of possibility. You think time is the measurement, so all you are doing is modeling the model. — Metaphysician Undercover

Show me a measurement of any kind with no duration of time attached to it.

So "energy" is the product of measurements and applied mathematics, it is not a real force in the world, like the passing of time is. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm assuming that when a person dies of electrocution, you think it's due to time passing and not the presence of enough electromotive force to cook the person alive like a piece of meat in a hot skillet.

Where there's mass, there's time. This tells me time doesn't pass apart from events populated by animated things. — ucarr

This is an invalid conclusion. Like I explained, "where there's mass, there's time", implies that mass cannot exist without time, but it does not imply that time cannot exist without mass. — Metaphysician Undercover

Read again what I said and you'll see I said time cannot pass apart from mass; I didn't say it cannot exist without mass.

You need to learn how to understand "logical priority". — Metaphysician Undercover

Logical priority exists when one category, being more broadly inclusive that another lesser category, logically contains the lesser category. If A is logically prior to B, then A is a necessary condition of B; A is the ground of B.

Logic works with proofs. How does logic, short of a proof, support a proposition? — ucarr

Clearly you take one way in which logic is used, and assume that this is all that logic does. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you think logical priority can stand on mere possibility absent proof?

You imply my demand that logic prove something in order to have value is short sighted. The laws of physics don't forbid time moving in both directions. It doesn't. This means the logical analysis of the direction of time is incomplete. Hence, it's unsound reasoning to propound a theory that reverses the arrow of time from the one established by consensus. You don't think it does. I believe it does because the direction of time from future to past has the arrow of entropy moving from birth into old age to death in pre-fertilization.

You're not interested in continuing your dialogue with a physicalist; I've benefitted greatly from dialoguing with you, an immaterialist.

From you I've learned time can exist apart from matter and energy.

I don't believe in your central premise: time passes in isolation from matter, energy and space.

We're both dug into our positions across the aisle from each other.

I agree with doing what you've been suggesting you want us to do: go our separate ways (for now), agreeing to disagree.

The arrow of time outside of the boundaries of the empirical present is an abstraction. — ucarr

We seem to have a fundamental disagreement concerning "the empirical present". I deny that there is such a thing, because "empirical" requires "observation", or "experience", and anything observed or experienced is past. Therefore I find "empirical present" to be self-contradicting. So I incorporate both, empirical (past), and anticipatory (future) elements into my conception of "present". You refuse to relinquish your idea of an empirical present, and this makes it impossible for you to understand my explanations.

What we have here is a complicated interplay of different frames of reference. I keep my perception oriented by confining myself to the present tense view of all three tenses, with the understanding only the present tense is, for me, pragmatically real beyond the neuronal activity of my brain. — ucarr

See, this is your supposed "empirical present" dominating your thought.

Keeping this in mind, I can ask why the future-to-past arrow and the past-to-future arrow don't both possess determinist causation? — ucarr

I wouldn't say that either one "possesses" determinist causation. Both allow for determinist causation. However, the past-to-future direction renders determinist causation as necessary due to the fixedness of the past. The future-to-past direction recognizes that the past is fixed, but since the flow is not from the past, but from the future, and the future consists of possibility, this causation is not necessary. The lack of necessity in this efficient causation is recognized by Hume, and even Newton as well, who said that his first law of motion relies on the Will of God.

If, as you claim, the arrow of time is the same for both directions, then how could one be any less causal than the other? I ask this question bearing in mind your talk of free will. Even if we somehow inhabit the future pragmatically and thus also paradoxically, and therein exercise our free will such that the past events following this future free will decision making are caused by it, how is that an example of the future-to-past arrow of time being any less determinist that the past-to-future arrow of time? — ucarr

The past-to-future representation does not allow for the future-to-past causation, which is required for free will, because no future-to-past flow is allowed for, Because possibilities are in the future, and actualities are in the past, the flow must be future-to-past to allow that possibilities can get selected and actualized at the present. This is required for the reality of free will. Under this representation efficient causation is understood as a human representation produced from inductive reasoning, therefore lacking true necessity, as explained by Hume.

Even if we somehow inhabit the future pragmatically and thus also paradoxically, and therein exercise our free will such that the past events following this future free will decision making are caused by it, how is that an example of the future-to-past arrow of time being any less determinist that the past-to-future arrow of time? — ucarr

The future consists of possibility.

You acknowledge that time is a dimension... — ucarr

I told you, time is not a dimension, it has dimensions.

There's a logical problem in your statement. In the situation of "time without a past," how can the "future" be prior to something that doesn't exist? — ucarr

In the case of all contingent things, the possibility of the thing is prior to the thing's actual existence.

That can't be the case in a situation with only a first and no second. — ucarr

Sure, but we're looking back, after the second has come into existence, and realizing that the first was necessarily prior to the second. As is indicated by the nature of "possibility", when there is only the first, and the first provides the possibility for a second, the second is not necessary. So you're correct to say that if there is only a first it makes no sense to say that the first is prior to the second, because there is no second. However, that is not our perspective. From our perspective there is both, and we can judge one as prior to the other.

Now, however, another problem arises: this is a situation with no present. It follows logically that a situation with no present has no presence, i.e., doesn’t exist. — ucarr

That's correct, but it's really not a problem. Possibility cannot be said to be an existent thing. We cannot say that anything in the future "exists" nor does the future "exist" by how we define that word. But this does not mean that the future is not real, it just means that it cannot be described by that word. So we use "possible" to refer to future things, rather than "exists". This is not a problem, it's just a recognition of the complexity of reality.

We're in the empirical present - how we consciously perceive the world around us, moment to moment - which time lags behind the theoretical numerical present. Speaking in terms of the relative positions, the nearly present, our empirical present, chases closely behind what to us relatively speaking is the near future. This is a way of saying we're some tiny fraction of a second behind the numerical present. Now, to be sure, perception of the numerical present gets gnarly when we home in on its details in high resolution. We can only approach the numerical present as a changing variable traveling the highway of an infinite series. We're always approaching and never arriving at a relative future we're trying to make present here and now. Since these discrepancies at the Newtonian scale are minute, we ignore them. However, if we wish to talk scientifically, we say our position is spacetime is probable, not certain. So, now you see why the present is represented as a theoretical point of zero dimensions. — ucarr

"Empirical present" is a faulty concept for the reason I explained above. All you are saying here, is that the empirical present isn't the real present, it's the past. What I propose is that we add to this aspect of being conscious (what you call the empirical present, which is really the past), the aspect of anticipation and intention (which is really the future), to have a more complete representation of being conscious at the present. The present includes some past and some future.

"Have I ever been bodily present within either the past or the future?" — ucarr

I consider myself to be present in both future and past, because I believe "the present" to be an overlapping of future and past. This I explained days ago with my dimensional representation of the present.

We both know you know the answer is "no." — ucarr

What I've been explaining is that a thorough analysis of the nature of time produces the need to answer this question with "yes". We believe ourselves to be in the present. But analysis of "the present" reveals that it cannot be a dimensionless point, as we've discussed. This implies that the present must be a duration of time. This duration cannot be completely in the past or we'd have to call it "the past". It cannot be completely in the future or we'd be calling it "the future". So introspection reveals that this duration must be partially past and partially future.

We know we're following the arrow of time only going forward because we know from our life experience we are born young and die older; we understand this as the present going forward to the future. — ucarr

That's not true. We understand this as the passing of time. The reason why we grow old is because time passes, this is not "the present going forward to the future". That doesn't even make sense. How could the present going forward to the future cause you to grow old? And don't say because of entropy. Entropy is not a cause and we're just left with asking what causes entropy. And that is the passing of time. Here we are, entropy is caused by the passing of time when time is modeled as past-to-future.

So when we model time as past-to-future, we are stuck with "entropy". And if we ask what causes entropy, we must answer that it is caused by the passing of time. Therefore, we must conclude that the past-to-future model is wrong, because it leaves us with something, "entropy", which can only be accounted for by a different model, by representing time as a cause, actively passing, and this implies future-to-past.

You're saying the past_present_future arrow of time is self-contradicting because it cancels the free-will option? — ucarr

No, I'm saying that to choose determinism over freewill is self-contradicting.

Surely you're not surprised that examiners of your theory turn to Relativity as their paradigm. I struggle to see how it's legit to brush off Relativity as incompatible and irrelevant. — ucarr

I understand that relativity provides the go-to perspective for many people. What I am saying, is that if you want to understand what I'm proposing, you must relinquish that perspective. If you can't apprehend as "legit", examining a completely different theory, because you think that relativity has got the ground covered, then we ought to stop right now. You would have no doubt that relativity provides all the answers, so there would be no point to pitching a new proposal to you.

Since you're the one trying to overthrow it, aren't you responsible for meeting it head on with cogent arguments? — ucarr

No, That's not my MO at all. I am very confident that relativity is sorely deficient in the way that it models time. And, I am very confident that many other people will notice this as well, because it is quite obvious. Therefore, I am also confident that there will be people interested in alternative theories.

There is no need to meet that theory "head on", or attempt to "overthrow it". What is required is to work on the true model of time.

Since you fault Relativity for dismissing time-passing-without-events without empirical observation, you plan on supporting your claim of immaterial time with empirical observation. — ucarr

No, that would be impossible. Since one whole dimension of time, the future, is completely hidden from empirical observation, and the other dimension, the past, has been observed but is currently unobservable, understanding of time is based in logical reasoning, not empirical observation.

Perhaps time isn't physical, but Relativity's belief in same connects it with our lives, which are, at least in part, physical. Why should I drop my belief in the connection linking physical me with physical time? If It's something unreal - as according to your understanding - shouldn't you show me that immaterial time is somehow connecting with my physical life using cogent logic that overturns my belief. In the boxing ring, the challenger, in order to win, must knock out the champ. This is another kind of boxing ring. — ucarr

The immaterial is not unreal, so I don't know what you are asking for. Don't your plans for the future, next minute, next hour, tomorrow, etc;, connect with your physical life? These things in your plans are completely immaterial. So it seems very obvious to me how the immaterial connects to your physical life, through desires, plans, goals, intentions, etc.. Do you, for some reason, not apprehend this fact?

The distinction in this particular situation becomes a false generalization when applied to all actions involving time and objects — ucarr

There is no false generalization, because all events require time. That's a true generalization.

Its false because the objects moved can act as transitive verbs acting on time. Since time as a dimension has duration, an argument can be made for the actions of moving things acting as movers of time, with time getting moved because its duration increases. — ucarr

Again, you are just applying the incompatible premise, the premise I say is false. The thing is, events can be modeled in different ways. Each way will model the events to some degree of acceptability, depending on the purpose. But the two models cannot be mixed. Relativity theory might tell you that each way is equally valid, and this might incline you to think that one way is no truer than any other.

So it's like if I were handing you a theory about the motions of the earth, sun, moon, planets, and stars, and I was telling you that the earth is spinning, and I model those other objects accordingly. Then you tell me "an argument can be made", that these things are orbiting the earth. Sure, but how is pointing out that there is another way of modeling these things any indication that my way is wrong? The issue is that we need a model of time which allows for the reality of freewill. Your model doesn't provide this, and mine does, that's why I say mine is better.

You cannot cite me one example wherein you pass through space without simultaneously passing through time. — ucarr

I will cite you every example of motion. In each case, when something moves through space, time is passing. It is obviously not the case that the thing is passing through time, because time is passing for everything, even the things which are not moving. Therefore the proper representation is that time is passing, whether a thing is moving or not. Otherwise a thing would be moving through time only when it's moving, and not moving through time when it's not moving.

With heat death, motion stops, time becomes meaningless. — ucarr

Good thing you defined "whimsy" for me, because this is a perfect example.

I'm assuming that when a person dies of electrocution, you think it's due to time passing and not the presence of enough electromotive force to cook the person alive like a piece of meat in a hot skillet. — ucarr

The primary cause is time passing, because "electromotive force" requires this it is a secondary cause.

Logical priority exists when one category, being more broadly inclusive that another lesser category, logically contains the lesser category. If A is logically prior to B, then A is a necessary condition of B; A is the ground of B. — ucarr

Right, now do you see that "time" is logically prior to "event", "motion", and "change"? All of these, "event", "motion", and "change", are the lesser categories than "time". Time is the necessary condition for them. Further, "event", "motion:, and "change" imply "time", but "time" does not imply any of these. That is the order of logical priority.

Do you think logical priority can stand on mere possibility absent proof? — ucarr

Of course, logical priority is based in definition, no proof is required. That's why you can question the logical priority of "time" over "event", by defining "time" in a way which makes the logical priority which I described above, not hold.

The problem though, is that we can manipulate definitions, for various purposes, to the point where it doesn't correspond with reality. Sometimes we can correct ourselves by looking at common usage. So we see that in common usage "time passes", and we do not "pass through time". And if you propose a definition for the purpose of avoiding the logical priority which would prove your argument wrong, and the definition (such as "pass through time") is not consistent with our common understanding, that is a problem for your argument.

You don't think it does. I believe it does because the direction of time from future to past has the arrow of entropy moving from birth into old age to death in pre-fertilization. — ucarr

As explained above, "entropy" is just a symptom of a problematic representation of time. The proper representation of time has no need for this concept which is the result of trying to model something which is not a system as if it was a system.

From you I've learned time can exist apart from matter and energy. — ucarr

At least it wasn't a complete waste of time. And to be fair, I've learned something from you too, physicalists are not completely hopeless. Can I ask, what immaterialist premise gets through to you? What makes you think that it might be worth your while to read this? Is it the supposition of freewill?

Can I ask, what immaterialist premise gets through to you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Five of Your Key Talking Points

• Spacetime is an immaterial concept

• The independent system of passing time is the immaterial first cause, and it is logically prior to
  dynamism

• The future-to-past arrow of time establishes mind over matter

• Free will resides within the mind-over-matter hierarchy

• If time is immaterial, then time passing with nothing happening stems from immateriality conceived
  as nothing material happening

The arrow of time outside of the boundaries of the empirical present is an abstraction. — ucarr

We seem to have a fundamental disagreement concerning "the empirical present". I deny that there is such a thing, because "empirical" requires "observation", or "experience", and anything observed or experienced is past. Therefore I find "empirical present" to be self-contradicting. So I incorporate both, empirical (past), and anticipatory (future) elements into my conception of "present". You refuse to relinquish your idea of an empirical present, and this makes it impossible for you to understand my explanations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time passing in the future is prior to observing the changes in things time passing causes, which is in the past? This is why you say, "anything observed or experienced is past"?

I can ask why the future-to-past arrow and the past-to-future arrow don't both possess determinist causation? — ucarr

Both allow for determinist causation. However, the past-to-future direction renders determinist causation as necessary due to the fixedness of the past. The future-to-past direction recognizes that the past is fixed, but since the flow is not from the past, but from the future, and the future consists of possibility, this causation is not necessary. — Metaphysician Undercover

The flow of future-to-past direction has the future tense flowing toward the past tense?

Since the flow of future-to-past direction recognizes that the past is fixed, does that tell us it is conscious?

To what subject does the consciousness of the future-to-past direction belong?

Because possibilities are in the future, and actualities are in the past, the flow must be future-to-past to allow that possibilities can get selected and actualized at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Regarding "Because possibilities are in the future," If I say, "It's now possible for me to lift my left arm." am I speaking in the present or in the future?

Regarding "and actualities are in the past," The dictionary defines one of the senses of "actual" as "existing now; current." Is it wrong?

...time is not a dimension, it has dimensions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Dimensions are a part of time.

How are dimensions connected to time?

Does time have other kinds of parts?

If there is a start to time, then it is necessary to conclude that at the start there is no past. — Metaphysician Undercover

In your example, does time start in the present?