Also prior in space. That's the point. If a particular event or phenomena can be contextualized in more than one way, there's no compulsion to think of alternatives. Space being a more immediate experience than time, if it were X that were riding his cycle on that road, X would've no need to consider the temporal aspect of his experience, space being a more familiar, a more direct, a more obvious notion. — TheMadFool

It is not "also prior in space", that's the point that you are not getting. The "first mile" is the one that you traverse first in time and is called "first" because of that. If, somehow your spatial existence allowed you to traverse the other mile, which was further away, first in time, then you would call that other mile the "first mile". But the nature of spatial-temporal existence does not allow you start at the furthest away mile, so the closer mile is called "first". But it is not called "first" because it is closer spatially, it is called "first" because it is closer temporally.

Further, I do not see how you can say that space is "a more immediate experience than time". We experience the passing of time internally, what Kant called the internal a priori intuition, while we apprehend space as external, so Kant designated it as the external a priori intuition. Being apprehended internally, while space is apprehended as external, indicates that time is more immediate than space

But, is there a spatial sequence as well with respect to the food counter? — TheMadFool

There is such a thing as a spatial sequence, but as I argued already, it is always arbitrary, being created from a subjective perspective. Defining your sequence as relative to the food counter is that arbitrary subjective perspective.

Here's some other examples. Consider the numbers between one and ten. The phrase "the numbers between one and ten" specifies no particular order, so you could give these numbers any order. We would commonly order them by the quantity signified. But ordering according to quantity does not stipulate whether we start at ten, and count down, or start at one and count up. This is the problem with spatial ordering, we can see a pattern in space, but nothing distinguishes the start from the end, except an arbitrary designation (the food counter in your example). Then, if we attempt to give reason for using that particular starting point, ask why is this the starting point rather than something else, objectify it, then we must refer to temporal relations. We start at one when we count because we need to have one (temporally prior) before we can have ten. You order relative to the food counter because that's where the person will be first in time to be served.

Here's another example to consider. Suppose we start at zero. We can count upward, into the positive integers, or we could count downward into the negative. You might think that counting forward and counting backward are the exact same thing, in reverse of one another, but there is a problem. Counting forward is to count some sort of actual things, things we have, while counting backward is to negate actual things. If we start at zero, and begin to negate things, we are negating things which we do not actually have. But then when we carry out operations, and multiply two negative numbers, and the convention is to have a positive number. Well that's a huge problem, we count things we do not actually have, multiply them together and come up with things we actually have. So the mathematicians have introduced imaginary numbers as an attempt to resolve this problem, but it doesn't really resolve the issue, which is the difference between counting things we have and things we do not have. It doesn't resolve the problem because it doesn't provide the temporal reference required to objectify the ordering.

To me, these ideas comes into play only once there's something to be objective/arbitrary about. — TheMadFool

There is something to be objective/arbitrary about, and that is your designation of "first" and "second", your ordering. In the op you named the one tree first, and the other tree second, thereby handing them an order. You seem to think that your ordering can be justified spatially, when I've been telling you that such an order with only spatial reference is completely arbitrary, so your use of first and second can only be justified (objectified) through reference to time.

First the notion of space needs to be apprehended... — TheMadFool

Sure, but confusing space and time, or conflating them together does not allow you to properly apprehend "the notion of space". You assign attributes of time (priority and order) to space, and you come up with a notion of space which is wrong, and therefore prevents you from proceeding.

It is not "also prior in space", that's the point that you are not getting. The "first mile" is the one that you traverse first in time and is called "first" because of that. If, somehow your spatial existence allowed you to traverse the other mile, which was further away, first in time, then you would call that other mile the "first mile". But the nature of spatial-temporal existence does not allow you start at the furthest away mile, so the closer mile is called "first". But it is not called "first" because it is closer spatially, it is called "first" because it is closer temporally. — Metaphysician Undercover

I worded that wrongly. Do forgive the unnecessary diversion. I meant to say that as it is temporally sequenced, it is also spatially sequenced. That's all and that possibility - spatial sequence - being alive and kicking in the scenario I described and space being a more immediate experience - it's kinda in your face, or, if you prefer, sticks out like a sore thumb - and thus, space being more noticeable than time, I suggested that X, if he's the one riding along that road, would feel no necessity for looking at the temporal aspect of his journey. That's what you seem to be ignoring.

If this doesn't convince you think of children...which concept do you think comes to them more readily - space or time? They seem to be able to handle space easily and before time, which has to be taught to them and, from my experience with my own daughter, clocks are a mystery to children. I'll say no more. Please reconsider your position on the matter. If you still find something wrong with what I'm saying, let's just agree to disagree. Thank you.

it is always arbitrary, being created from a subjective perspective. Defining your sequence as relative to the food counter is that arbitrary subjective perspective. — Metaphysician Undercover

As far as I can tell, you're conflating the notions of arbitrary with relativity. All sequences must be/are relative in the sense that we can choose an origin, the beginning, the start and that beginning, start or point of origin can be anywhere in space. Arbitrariness has a connotation - that of being false/mistaken in some sense - that isn't applicable in the context of my post.

Sure, but confusing space and time, or conflating them together does not allow you to properly apprehend "the notion of space" — Metaphysician Undercover

Where is the confusion in two trees being separated by a distance in space and two states of a fruit being separated by a duration?

That said, I do agree that if something can be contextualized in both space and time, there'll be no compulsion to consider the more difficult alternative viz. time.

I will not discuss this anymore. Thank you for your time.

Imagine today is 1 Jan 2021. The day following that is 2 Jan 2021 and the day following that is 3 Jan 2021, and so on and so forth. First things first, we have to agree on the sequence/order of the dates: basically, we have to concur that if dates are given a numerical sequence then they will be experienced in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...and so on. Said differently, the date 1 Jan 2021 comes before the date 2 Jan 2021 and that date comes before 3 Jan 2021... Are we on the same page here? — TheMadFool

No, we're not on the same page at all, you're missing the point. If today is Jan 1 2021, then Jan 2 2021 is not existent, it has not yet happened, and therefore it is not a day which can be counted. The only days which can be counted are the days of the past, the real days which have occurred. So we start with Jan1, and since it is present, not completed we can assign 0 to it, as the starting point. After this, is the first day which has occurred, Dec 31 and the second, Dec 30, etc.. Therefore in our ordering of the days, Jan 1 2021 is prior to Dec 31 2020.

Let's assume that there are imaginary future days, as you suggest, Jan 2, Jan 3, etc.. Since our count of real existent days extends from the present (0), in one direction, into the past, we can count from the present into the future, imaginary days, by assigning -1 to Jan 2, -2 to Jan3, etc. This way we have a consistent way of counting days which recognizes the difference between past days and future days, the future days being imaginary, non-existent things.

If we are then imagine now that you're living through the month of January 2021. A few days go by and you've now arrived at the date 4 Jan 2021. What date was before 4 Jan 2021? Pause a bit and go back to what we've agreed on viz. the sequence of dates and that Jan 1 2021 comes before 2 Jan 2021 and that comes before 3 Jan 2021 and this date (3 Jan 2021) comes before 4 Jan 2021. You have to answer the question "what date was before 4 Jan 2021?" with "3 Jan 2021" but 3 Jan 2021 is in the past and, as we've found out, it's perfectly reasonable to refer to 3 Jan 2021 as the date before 4 Jan 2021. The bottom line is this: given a sequence of numbers, and dates are that, you have to ask yourself "what comes before a date x?" Surely, the date x - 1, right? But, this is obvious, the date x - 1 is in the past. — TheMadFool

See, your way of sequencing the days, described here is faulty, because it does not allow for the difference between past days which have really happened, and future days which are completely imaginary. And you cannot say that you rely on this faulty sequencing method because we do not have the means to distinguish between real days and imaginary days, in our count, because we do. As I described, we count real things which we have (the days of the past) with the use of positive numbers, and we count imaginary things, which we do not have (the days of the future) with negative numbers.

My point is that you order the events that will occur - those that are in the future - by assigning them ordinal numbers such as first, second, third, and so on. If ordered thus, it's obvious that you'll experience the said events in the sequence first, second, third, and so on.. — TheMadFool

The problem is that future events are possible events, and the order which we assign to them is just the order that we think that they ought to occur in. There is no guarantee that they will pass in the order given, and something or someone might act to change the order assigned. So we cannot truthfully say that we will experience the events in the sequence we've created, it's only a possibility.

Allowing that these events are experienced, let them flow through the present into the past and suppose that you're now at the fourth event. At this point ask yourself, "what event occurred before this moment, this moment when I'm experiencing the fourth event?" Obviously, the answer is the third event which we know is in the past. In short, it's ok to refer to the past with the word "before". — TheMadFool

Now you have four events which you have experienced. You agreed with me that the future is before the past. So, when we turn around from the future to look at these four events in the past, isn't it obvious to you that the most recent event is closer to the future and ought to be ordered as before the less recent?

I suggest that the only reason you are inclined to say that the events further back in time are before the others is that you adhere to the convention of a linear time, which stretches from the past, through the present and into the future. My argument is that this is a mistaken model of time because it does not properly account for the difference between future and past

You mean to say that calendars are bogus? People seem to plan events with calendars and excepting the odd contingency, their plans seem fairly well executed. I don't see how that's possible if the future weren't sequenced as you seem to be claiming. — TheMadFool

I wouldn't say that calendars are bogus, they are a convention of convenience. My argument is that such conventions of convenience can very often hide the truth when the reality of the matter is complex, and more difficult to understand, just like the convention of saying that the sun comes up and the sun goes down.

Too, your point was the future becomes the past. You'll have to explain to me how things changed so radically between the two that they're, as per your claims, no longer comparable in any sense of that word. To my reckoning, the sequence in which events occurred in the future must be preserved in the past and they are, right? :chin: — TheMadFool

Do you not recognize that the difference between the possibility of something, and the actual existence of something, is a radical difference? This is the difference between future and past. Notice that you must live with what has happened in the past. Whether you like the event which occurred or not, it cannot be changed and you must live with the consequences of it. However, a future event which appears unpleasant, you can take measures to avoid, and one which you desire you can attempt to make happen. This is a radical difference, and acknowledgement of that difference seems to permeate all of our living activities. The past ensures that you are what you are at the present, but the future allows you to change.

No, we're not on the same page at all, you're missing the point. If today is Jan 1 2021, then Jan 2 2021 is not existent, it has not yet happened, and therefore it is not a day which can be counted. The only days which can be counted are the days of the past, the real days which have occurred. So we start with Jan1, and since it is present, not completed we can assign 0 to it, as the starting point. After this, is the first day which has occurred, Dec 31 and the second, Dec 30, etc.. Therefore in our ordering of the days, Jan 1 2021 is prior to Dec 31 2020 — Metaphysician Undercover

You mean to say that the earth will not rotate on its axis or that the moon will stop revolving around the earth or that the earth will not go around the sun if it's in the future? These are the phenomena, fairly dependable I should say, on which a day, a month and a year are defined. If they will occur, there's a certain rhythm, a period, and these periods are days, months, years, all sequenceable i.e. we can assign numbers to them. I won't discuss this anymore. Thank you.

I suggest that the only reason you are inclined to say that the events further back in time are before the others is that you adhere to the convention of a linear time, which stretches from the past, through the present and into the future. My argument is that this is a mistaken model of time because it does not properly account for the difference between future and past — Metaphysician Undercover

The two of us are talking past each other. I already admitted that you're right and that I am too and, most importantly, there's no inconsistency we should argue about to decide who's right. I'm no longer going to discuss this. Again, thank you.

I wouldn't say that calendars are bogus, they are a convention of convenience. My argument is that such conventions of convenience can very often hide the truth when the reality of the matter is complex, and more difficult to understand, just like the convention of saying that the sun comes up and the sun goes down. — Metaphysician Undercover

Surely, you're not arguing that calendars are just a matter of convenience. All important events, in our lives and on a global level, are planned and executed based on them. If there were something wrong with them even in the slightest sense, it would stick out like a sore thumb - they would be too obvious to miss for the consequences would be worldwide chaos.

Do you not recognize that the difference between the possibility of something, and the actual existence of something, is a radical difference? This is the difference between future and past. Notice that you must live with what has happened in the past. Whether you like the event which occurred or not, it cannot be changed and you must live with the consequences of it. However, a future event which appears unpleasant, you can take measures to avoid, and one which you desire you can attempt to make happen. This is a radical difference, and acknowledgement of that difference seems to permeate all of our living activities. The past ensures that you are what you are at the present, but the future allows you to change. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not saying there's no difference between the past and the future and the present for that matter. The very definitions of these terms bespeak a real distinction among the three. However, numerically sequencing time is a different matter. An order in time that exists in the future will persist through the present and into the past i.e. given two events x and y, if x is before y in the future, x will be before y in the present and x has to be before y in the past also.

I worded that wrongly. Do forgive the unnecessary diversion. I meant to say that as it is temporally sequenced, it is also spatially sequenced. That's all and that possibility - spatial sequence - being alive and kicking in the scenario I described and space being a more immediate experience - it's kinda in your face, or, if you prefer, sticks out like a sore thumb - and thus, space being more noticeable than time, I suggested that X, if he's the one riding along that road, would feel no necessity for looking at the temporal aspect of his journey. That's what you seem to be ignoring. — TheMadFool

I wonder whether "spatial sequence" has any really meaning, or is it just a misnomer? If you had one, two, three, four or more distinct things with spatial separation between them, what would make you think that they form a sequence? I can see how one might say that they make a spatial pattern, but what aspects of the pattern would make you say that it is a sequence, if you are not inferring a temporal order to the things?

Space might be "in your face", but time is in your body. That's why I say time is more immediate, you don't even need external senses to apprehend its passing.

I suggested that X, if he's the one riding along that road, would feel no necessity for looking at the temporal aspect of his journey. That's what you seem to be ignoring. — TheMadFool

I do not see how X would would refer to one mile as the first mile, and the other mile as the second mile without looking at the temporal aspect of his journey. You seem to think that X might somehow look back on his journey, remove the temporal aspect of that journey, and then refer to one mile as the first and the other as the second. But I don't think that makes any sense. If X could really look at that journey without the temporal aspect, why would he be inclined to order one or the other as first?

If this doesn't convince you think of children...which concept do you think comes to them more readily - space or time? They seem to be able to handle space easily and before time, which has to be taught to them and, from my experience with my own daughter, clocks are a mystery to children. I'll say no more. Please reconsider your position on the matter. If you still find something wrong with what I'm saying, let's just agree to disagree. Thank you. — TheMadFool

Understanding the human concept of time, or space, is completely different from apprehending the thing's existence. I think children apprehend time long before they apprehend space. Time is something very real and concrete to them, as they learn to wait to be fed, and they are given mealtimes, and bedtimes etc.. Space is very abstract. Sure, they recognize that there is distance between them and others, but is this really apprehending "space", as being made to wait is apprehending "time"?

s far as I can tell, you're conflating the notions of arbitrary with relativity. All sequences must be/are relative in the sense that we can choose an origin, the beginning, the start and that beginning, start or point of origin can be anywhere in space. Arbitrariness has a connotation - that of being false/mistaken in some sense - that isn't applicable in the context of my post. — TheMadFool

My argument is that a temporal sequence is not arbitrary, that's the point. There is a real "now" which serves as the objective start, and this makes the true sequence not arbitrary. To the contrary, your assumption of a spatial sequence is simply false/mistaken, because there is no spatial principle which allows you to order first and second. Therefore you are claiming that there is such a thing as first and second, justified completely by spatial reference, but this is a false proposition.

Where is the confusion in two trees being separated by a distance in space and two states of a fruit being separated by a duration? — TheMadFool

The confusion is in you naming the trees first and second, and asserting that this designation is done completely through spatial reference, without reference to time.

I wonder whether "spatial sequence" has any really meaning, or is it just a misnomer? If you had one, two, three, four or more distinct things with spatial separation between them, what would make you think that they form a sequence? I can see how one might say that they make a spatial pattern, but what aspects of the pattern would make you say that it is a sequence, if you are not inferring a temporal order to the things? — Metaphysician Undercover

I suppose, given that you don't mention if the separations between the things are themselves regular, I'd say that proximity to the observer can very well be the grounds of a sequence

I do not see how X would would refer to one mile as the first mile, and the other mile as the second mile without looking at the temporal aspect of his journey. You seem to think that X might somehow look back on his journey, remove the temporal aspect of that journey, and then refer to one mile as the first and the other as the second. But I don't think that makes any sense. If X could really look at that journey without the temporal aspect, why would he be inclined to order one or the other as first? — Metaphysician Undercover

I checked, and 1 mile means the first mile spatially - the 1 means the first length that's 1 mile long and mile 2 is the second length that's again 1 mile long, again spatially. In all this, I'm not at all tinkering with the temporal aspect of the setup. If X is intelligent enough he may immediately realize the temporal dimension of it all. However, given that he's travelling at speeds that regular bikes do, the duration to cover a two-mile stretch of road will not be adequate for any noticeable change that has to be put in a time-context to occur. All, I'm saying is that there's no necessity for X, the rider, to think of time in the given situation.

Understanding the human concept of time, or space, is completely different from apprehending the thing's existence. I think children apprehend time long before they apprehend space. Time is something very real and concrete to them, as they learn to wait to be fed, and they are given mealtimes, and bedtimes etc.. Space is very abstract. Sure, they recognize that there is distance between them and others, but is this really apprehending "space", as being made to wait is apprehending "time"? — Metaphysician Undercover

I suppose you're right on that score. Children probably do possess a circadian rhythm which regularly posts updates on the body's status into consciousness - telling them to cry when they're hungry and also when they need to be sung a lullaby to put them to sleep. What I'm referring to is conscious awareness of time and space in the sense that if a mind is alive to these concepts, you'll notice planning behavior that take into account knowledge of these aspects of reality. I've seen a 2 year old navigating space with the utmost ease i.e. they can plan their movements in space but I've never seen 2 year olds ask what time it is or that they to go to the toy shop at 4 on the dot. This is what I'm getting at.

My argument is that a temporal sequence is not arbitrary, that's the point. There is a real "now" which serves as the objective start, and this makes the true sequence not arbitrary. To the contrary, your assumption of a spatial sequence is simply false/mistaken, because there is no spatial principle which allows you to order first and second. Therefore you are claiming that there is such a thing as first and second, justified completely by spatial reference, but this is a false proposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

While I can't confirm your claim, I'll admit that I sympathize with it. I suppose that makes me a time absolutist like Newton but then we have this mountain of evidence gathered from relativity experiments that contradict your position and my intuitions on the matter for what they're worth. FYI, even if time is objective in the sense that there's, what you call a NOW, the alleged real beginning, it doesn't matter to X's conceptualization of time for however much time has passed since that beginning, the change in the condition of the apple occurs in a duration that he actually experiences in those days by the tree.

The confusion is in you naming the trees first and second, and asserting that this designation is done completely through spatial reference, without reference to time. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I said, the sequence is with respect to proximity given the possibility that X might not have a unit of measuring distance at hand.

Thank you for your contribution. They've been very helpful.

You mean to say that the earth will not rotate on its axis or that the moon will stop revolving around the earth or that the earth will not go around the sun if it's in the future? These are the phenomena, fairly dependable I should say, on which a day, a month and a year are defined. If they will occur, there's a certain rhythm, a period, and these periods are days, months, years, all sequenceable i.e. we can assign numbers to them. I won't discuss this anymore. Thank you. — TheMadFool

Dependability does not give you a countable thing. For example, I might know that the bus will be there in the morning, for me to step on. This is very dependable. But I cannot count the stepping on to the bus, as an instance of stepping on to the bus, until after it occurs. Likewise, regardless of how the calendar numbers the days, we really cannot count them until after they have occurred.

An order in time that exists in the future will persist through the present and into the past i.e. given two events x and y, if x is before y in the future, x will be before y in the present and x has to be before y in the past also. — TheMadFool

I can't see how you can say that an order of time exists in the future. There can be no order of events, unless the events have actually occurred. Otherwise you are just talking about an imaginary ordering of imaginary events. And, since the past consists of actual events which have an actual order, we cannot make an order through future into past, or vise versa, because one consists of real events and the other of imaginary events.

I checked, and 1 mile means the first mile spatially - the 1 means the first length that's 1 mile long and mile 2 is the second length that's again 1 mile long, again spatially. — TheMadFool

If you have two spatial lengths of one mile, there is no spatial principle which makes one of them the first, and the other the second. To say that one is closer to you is not a spatial principle, it is a subjective principle. It is a principle which gives you priority, the right to determine first and second from your personal perspective. But then such determinations are not objective and therefore cannot be any part of an objective concept of space. That is why it is not a spatial principle by which you designate first and second, but a subjective principle.

While I can't confirm your claim, I'll admit that I sympathize with it. I suppose that makes me a time absolutist like Newton but then we have this mountain of evidence gathered from relativity experiments that contradict your position and my intuitions on the matter for what they're worth. FYI, even if time is objective in the sense that there's, what you call a NOW, the alleged real beginning, it doesn't matter to X's conceptualization of time for however much time has passed since that beginning, the change in the condition of the apple occurs in a duration that he actually experiences in those days by the tree. — TheMadFool

As you see, I totally agree with your description of X conceptualizing time through the use of the concept of order, first and second. What I don't agree with is that one could make a conception of order through space alone. Take the Fibonacci spiral for example. This is the spatial representation of a numerical sequence. This appears like a totally spatial order, but it really is not, because it requires a very specific beginning. And the beginning, being 0; cannot be represented spatially.

If you have two spatial lengths of one mile, there is no spatial principle which makes one of them the first, and the other the second. — Metaphysician Undercover

A distance of 2 miles is counted from a point which is designated as 0. This 0 is followed by a 1 mile mark and then a 2 mile mark. When you start walking from 0 along this distance, mile 1 is the first mile and mile 2 is the second mile.

To say that one is closer to you is not a spatial principle, it is a subjective principle — Metaphysician Undercover

I wouldn't say subjective because it seems to give the wrong impression that one is wrong because there's no objectivity in it. The correct word, in my opinion, is "relative". What's closer or farther is matter of one's location in space but that doesn't mean close and far aren't spatial concepts. Their definitions, as you already know, are in terms of how short/long the distance between you and things are.

But then such determinations are not objective and therefore cannot be any part of an objective concept of space. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here you're conflating the absolute/relative with subjectivity/objectivity. X's position and his spatial relations are relative in the sense they depend on his location in space and not subjective in the sense it's just a matter of opinion no matter where X is. The concept of space that X forms in his mind is objective in the sense that it exists for everyone and everything though it's true that the spatial relations within space are relative.

What I don't agree with is that one could make a conception of order through space alone. Take the Fibonacci spiral for example. This is the spatial representation of a numerical sequence. This appears like a totally spatial order, but it really is not, because it requires a very specific beginning. And the beginning, being 0; cannot be represented spatially. — Metaphysician Undercover

Read above.

Dependability does not give you a countable thing. For example, I might know that the bus will be there in the morning, for me to step on. This is very dependable. But I cannot count the stepping on to the bus, as an instance of stepping on to the bus, until after it occurs. Likewise, regardless of how the calendar numbers the days, we really cannot count them until after they have occurred. — Metaphysician Undercover

By dependable I mean to emphasize the regularity, the essence of an objectively measurable length of time which then becomes the basis of a unit of time which in turn becomes the basis of sequencing time itself in regular intervals. The rotation of the earth takes approximately 24 hours and this is the basis for the unit of time we all know as a day. The future can be sequenced in terms of days. There's no necessity for the future to be real to sequence/count it. We simply decide, based on the unit of time that seems relevant to the events that we're expecting, to sequence it numerically.

I can't see how you can say that an order of time exists in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Imagine this. Suppose there are two events that are part of our future: both events are chemical reactions and event 1 is a chemical reaction that takes 1 minute to complete at which point a certain container of chemicals will change color to red, and event 2 is another chemical reaction that takes 2 minutes to complete and when that's done, a container of chemicals will change color to green. You take a stopwatch and at 0 you start both chemical reactions. Obviously the colors red and green in the container of chemicals are in the future at time 0 but you can sequence them as the first color you'll see is red and then only, second, you'll see green. The future that had yet to happen (one at 1 minute and the other at 2 minutes from time 0) was sequenced at time 0.

A distance of 2 miles is counted from a point which is designated as 0. This 0 is followed by a 1 mile mark and then a 2 mile mark. When you start walking from 0 along this distance, mile 1 is the first mile and mile 2 is the second mile. — TheMadFool

Sure, but that's completely arbitrary. Someone else could switch the 0 marker and the 2 marker, to reverse this, or place the 0 in any random place and start measurement there. There is nothing within the concept of "space" which can give you a principle of priority by which to designate one area of space as first, and the other as second. You do this solely through a personal preference.

I wouldn't say subjective because it seems to give the wrong impression that one is wrong because there's no objectivity in it. The correct word, in my opinion, is "relative". What's closer or farther is matter of one's location in space but that doesn't mean close and far aren't spatial concepts. Their definitions, as you already know, are in terms of how short/long the distance between you and things are. — TheMadFool

That's your opinion. My opinion is that it is wrong to assign "first" and "second" in a completely arbitrary and subjective manner when time gives us the principles for an objective designation of first and second. This would be like if you were claiming that stealing is "good", because it's good from your perspective. You might argue that ethical principles are "relative" and so you are completely justified in saying that stealing is good, but I think that there are accepted ethical principles which make it wrong for you to use "good" in that way. Likewise, I think it is wrong for you to use "first" and "second" according to your own spatial perspective, when there are accepted temporal principles which make it wrong for you to use them in that way.

Why would you think it's acceptable for you to label two things as first and second, when it's very obvious that if someone else applied the very same principle they would be labeled in the exact opposite? This is the issue with terms like "right" and "left". We have to clarify by saying on my right, or on your left, etc.. But we do not have that problem with first and second, because these are terms of temporal priority, so first and second are the same for both of us. Why are you inclined to remove the clarity from these terms of priority, and assign to them ambiguity? I think that is wrong

Here you're conflating the absolute/relative with subjectivity/objectivity. X's position and his spatial relations are relative in the sense they depend on his location in space and not subjective in the sense it's just a matter of opinion no matter where X is. The concept of space that X forms in his mind is objective in the sense that it exists for everyone and everything though it's true that the spatial relations within space are relative. — TheMadFool

No, it really is just a matter of opinion. That one thing is closer to you than another does not provide the priority required to call the thing "first". There is no reason why the further thing ought not be designated "first". It is simply your opinion, that because the thing is closer to you, it has some sort of priority over the further thing, so you want to call it "first". But in reality, that the closer thing has priority over the further thing, which is what is required to justify your opinion, is just a matter of personal preference. There is no spatial principle which dictates that a closer thing is prior to a further thing. Therefore you are just claiming this as a personal opinion.

By dependable I mean to emphasize the regularity, the essence of an objectively measurable length of time which then becomes the basis of a unit of time which in turn becomes the basis of sequencing time itself in regular intervals. The rotation of the earth takes approximately 24 hours and this is the basis for the unit of time we all know as a day. The future can be sequenced in terms of days. There's no necessity for the future to be real to sequence/count it. We simply decide, based on the unit of time that seems relevant to the events that we're expecting, to sequence it numerically. — TheMadFool

The problem here is that time can only be measured as it passes. That's what a clock does, it measures time as it passes. I do not deny that you can project into the future, and talk about an hour of time, or a day, in the future, but I stress to you, that these are imaginary durations of time, and they cannot actually be measured because they're in the future. A period of time in the past, has already been measured. Do you see the difference?

So if you want to make a sequence of imaginary periods of time in the future, that's fine, but how are you proposing to relate these periods of imaginary time which cannot actually be measured because they're in the future, to the real, measured periods of time in the past? Notice that you cannot measure these imaginary (future) periods so anything you do with them is completely speculative unless you can establish some sort of relationship between the real measured time of the past, and the imaginary speculative time of the future.

Imagine this. Suppose there are two events that are part of our future: both events are chemical reactions and event 1 is a chemical reaction that takes 1 minute to complete at which point a certain container of chemicals will change color to red, and event 2 is another chemical reaction that takes 2 minutes to complete and when that's done, a container of chemicals will change color to green. — TheMadFool

I do not accept this talk about events in the future. All events occur at the present, so it makes no sense to talk about events which are in the future. Whatever it is which is in the future, which causes events at the present, cannot be called "events" because events do not exist in the future.

Obviously the colors red and green in the container of chemicals are in the future at time 0 but you can sequence them as the first color you'll see is red and then only, second, you'll see green. — TheMadFool

No, I don't think so. The chemicals are not red and green in the future. They will be red and green after the respective events take place, but it is wrong to say that they are red and green in the future. Do you understand the difference between "will be", and "are". The fact that something will predictably be red in the future, does not justify the grammatically incorrect proposition "it is red in the future".

As I've explained, this sequencing you are talking about, of future things, is a sequencing of imaginary things, which have no existence. And, when you say "the first color you'll see is red and then only, second, you'll see green", you are talking about what the person will see as it occurs at the present. You are not talking about how things exist in the future, but how things will be at the present, in a future time. So you're really not sequencing future things at all. You are talking about a sequence of things which will occur at the present, not a sequence of things which exist in the future.

Time is real, its passage can be measured using clocks and other devices. These are measurements of change, a concept that also relates to entropy, from which we can delineate an 'arrow of time'. Time is observable in the orbits of the planets, changes of the seasons, constant motion and change, the flow of rivers. Of course, these are all observable and, also by intuition, we develop a sense of time.

On a larger scale the expansion of the Universe, thought by scientists to be accelerative, could be the driving force of time's movements. The Big Bang would be its initiation. From that point onward we have this continuous flow of events, a sequence as the Universe cooled and expanded from its very hot and dense early stages. Here we are still embedded in physics and the natural sciences to understand time.

Time is what links all events, even though it is not a prime-mover or cause, somehow time is what connects all events that take place in the Universe. Every event that happens can be, as close as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows, pin-pointed to a point in time. This suggests that there is a Universal time as time, although Relativity might suggest otherwise, with motion close to that of light.