Cons-creative, itself, must have a cause, and therefore is not the first cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do I remember correctly you telling me that, according to your understanding, time holds place as the first cause?

I don't know, you'd have to put that into context. Anyway, "time", and "cons-creative" are not at all the same thing, so I don't see how that would be relevant here.

Do I remember correctly you telling me that, according to your understanding, time holds place as the first cause? — ucarr

I don't know, you'd have to put that into context. Anyway, "time", and "cons-creative" are not at all the same thing, so I don't see how that would be relevant here. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, it's a maybe on you thinking time is a first cause.

Time is a universal context, unless you can think of something that exists outside of time. The Big Bang believers are signed on to it being able to happen in the context of no context as in nothing exists; I'm skeptical about the rapid expansion of the Big Bang being possible in such a situation.

The upshot of what I'm saying is that time is relevant to everything, even the supposedly totally self-sufficient first cause. If first cause pre-dates everything else, doesn't that put first cause into a temporal relationship with what follows from it? Even when we consider first cause alone, assuming there can be a time before first cause causes anything other than itself, the existence of first cause alone involves some elapsed time in the process of its self-creation happening; it involves some elapsed time in its possible duration alone before causing anything contingent; it involves some elapsed time in its relative temporal priority to its contingents.

Finally, I'm saying the practice of cons of any type involves elapsing time, so that includes cons_creative.

Time is a universal context, unless you can think of something that exists outside of time. — ucarr

The present, "now" exists outside of time. All existent time consists of past time and future time, whereas the present, now, is a point or moment, which separates the past from the future. So all of time has either gone by (past) or not yet gone by (future), and the present is what it goes past. This means that the present is "outside of time" by being neither past nor future.

The upshot of what I'm saying is that time is relevant to everything, even the supposedly totally self-sufficient first cause. If first cause pre-dates everything else, doesn't that put first cause into a temporal relationship with what follows from it? — ucarr

It doesn't make sense to speak of that which is outside of time, as pre-dating everything, because that is to give it a temporal context, prior in time to everything else. So "first cause" is not a good term to use here. This is why it is better to think of the present as that which is outside of time, rather than a first cause as being outside of time. The latter becomes self-contradicting.

This provides a perspective from which the passing of time is observed and measured, "now" or the present. Then also, the cause which is outside of time, the free will act, is understood as derived from the present. But, you should be able to see why it is incorrect to call this cause a "first cause", or a cause which "pre-dates everything else". It is better known as a final cause.

Finally, I'm saying the practice of cons of any type involves elapsing time, so that includes cons_creative. — ucarr

I agree, the practices of con-creative, i.e. its actions, necessarily involve elapsing time. However, the cause of those actions, the free will act itself, may occur at the moment of the present, and this need not involve any elapsing time; the moment of the present being outside of time as described above.

The present, "now" exists outside of time. All existent time consists of past time and future time, whereas the present, now, is a point or moment, which separates the past from the future. So all of time has either gone by (past) or not yet gone by (future), and the present is what it goes past. This means that the present is "outside of time" by being neither past nor future. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm mulling over the idea that time as you describe it above doesn't exist at any time: the present exists outside of time; the past, once the non-existent present, continues to be non-existent as time gone by; the future derived from the non-existent present, does not yet exist until it becomes the non-existent present and then continues its non-existence as the past.

It doesn't make sense to speak of that which is outside of time, as pre-dating everything, because that is to give it a temporal context, prior in time to everything else. So "first cause" is not a good term to use here. This is why it is better to think of the present as that which is outside of time, rather than a first cause as being outside of time. The latter becomes self-contradicting. — Metaphysician Undercover

I glean from the above you think a first cause exists outside of time. I understand your desire to steer clear of a first cause because of some problems it introduces. I will observe that it's strange to think of a first cause outside of time because causation seems by definition to entail a sequence of time such that one thing precedes another.

This provides a perspective from which the passing of time is observed and measured, "now" or the present. Then also, the cause which is outside of time, the free will act, is understood as derived from the present. But, you should be able to see why it is incorrect to call this cause a "first cause", or a cause which "pre-dates everything else". It is better known as a final cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Does time pass within the present? This is an issue because if it doesn't, the question arises: How does the present become the future?; coming at this same issue from the opposite direction: If time doesn't pass within the present, how does the present become the past?

...the cause of those actions, the free will act itself, may occur at the moment of the present, and this need not involve any elapsing time; the moment of the present being outside of time as described above. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a description of causation outside of time? Consider: The accumulation of falling snow on the roof caused it to cave in. Is this an example of timeless causation?

I'm mulling over the idea that time as you describe it above doesn't exist at any time: the present exists outside of time; the past, once the non-existent present, continues to be non-existent as time gone by; the future derived from the non-existent present, does not yet exist until it becomes the non-existent present and then continues its non-existence as the past. — ucarr

The question of whether time exists or not is not relevant here, it's just a distraction. What is relevant is that all of time is either in the past or in the future, and the moment of "the present" separates these two and contains no time itself. This make the present outside of time.

I glean from the above you think a first cause exists outside of time. — ucarr

No, I think "first cause", without serious explanation and manipulation, is an incoherent notion. However, "final cause" is not incoherent, and can be conceived of as outside of time in the way I described.

Does time pass within the present? This is an issue because if it doesn't, the question arises: How does the present become the future?; coming at this same issue from the opposite direction: If time doesn't pass within the present, how does the present become the past? — ucarr

In the model I described, the present does not become the future, nor does the present become the past. The present is outside of time, and time consists of future and past. The future becomes the past, as time passes, and the present is a perspective from which this is observed. Also final cause acts from this perspective, as a cause from outside of time, which intervenes in the events which are occurring as time passes.

This is a description of causation outside of time? Consider: The accumulation of falling snow on the roof caused it to cave in. Is this an example of timeless causation? — ucarr

No, causation outside of time would be the freely made choice (free will act) which causes a shovel to be picked up and the roof to be shoveled, which would be an intervening in the "accumulation of falling snow on the roof", preventing the roof from collapsing. The being with free will, observing from the perspective of "the present" which is outside of time, makes a choice which causes the event of the roof being shoveled, and this would prevent the roof from collapsing. The cause of this event, shoveling the roof, is outside of time.

The question of whether time exists or not is not relevant here, it's just a distraction. What is relevant is that all of time is either in the past or in the future, and the moment of "the present" separates these two and contains no time itself. This make the present outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, time -- if it exists, and it may not -- can only approach the present from the past, or from the future, without arriving. You say the present is outside of time. According to my understanding, I exist in the present and not in either the past or the future. By this understanding, the past and the future are abstract concepts that occupy my mindscape as relativistic things; I know mentally, but not existentially, both the past and the future in relation to my existential presence within the present.

If the present contains no time elapsed, then must I conclude my perception of time elapsing occurs in response to my existential presence in either the past or in the future?

What does it mean to say we live in the past or in the future only? It suggests we aren't present anywhere. The pun is intended because presence denotes the present, but I don't immediately see how there can be presence of a thing in the past as the past, or in the future as future. Is it not so that wherever we are, we are there in the present? Where are you now? How can you be present in your own past?

What kind of existence does the present have in total separation from elapsing time?

If the present is timeless, how does it maintain the separation of past/future? Maintaining the separation implies an indefinite duration of time for the maintenance of the separation. Also, separation implies both a spatial and temporal duration keeping past/future apart, but spatial and temporal durations are not timeless, are they?

How does a material thing sustain its dimensional expansion, a physical phenomenon, outside of time? Consider a twelve-inch ruler. Its twelve inches of extension continuously consume time. Relativity tells us the physical dimensions of a material thing change with acceleration of velocity accompanied by time dilation, so we know from this that physical dimensions consume time.

So, time -- if it exists, and it may not -- can only approach the present from the past, or from the future, without arriving. You say the present is outside of time. — ucarr

Being outside of time, the present would be categorically distinct from the future and past which are the components of time. So neither can be said to "approach the present". "The present" refers to a perspective from which time is observed. Think of right and left as an analogy, where "here" is similar to "the present". Right and left are determined relative to the perspective which is "here".

According to my understanding, I exist in the present and not in either the past or the future. By this understanding, the past and the future are abstract concepts that occupy my mindscape as relativistic things; I know mentally, but not existentially, both the past and the future in relation to my existential presence within the present. — ucarr

The first sentence here is good. You, as the observer, and the free willing agent, exist in the present. But the next part appears to be confused. "The present" is an abstract concept, we use it to substantiate our existence. But so is "future and past" an abstract concept. The future and past are what we attribute to the external world, what is independent from us. But since it is the way we understand the world, it is still conceptual.

And since the future and past are time, this is what makes us outside of time. But we are "outside" time in a strange way, because we understand time as external to us, and this makes us "outside time" to the inside. Our position at "the present", from which we observe and act with free will, is beyond the internal boundary, This makes us outside of time to the inside, beyond the internal boundary.

If the present contains no time elapsed, then must I conclude my perception of time elapsing occurs in response to my existential presence in either the past or in the future? — ucarr

Imagine your perspective, at the present, to be a static point, and everything is moving around you. It is this movement around you which provides the perception of time passing. But your point is not necessarily completely static in an absolute way, because you can act, by free will. This act comes from outside of time, to the inside.

What does it mean to say we live in the past or in the future only? It suggests we aren't present anywhere. The pun is intended because presence denotes the present, but I don't immediately see how there can be presence of a thing in the past as the past, or in the future as future. Is it not so that wherever we are, we are there in the present? Where are you now? How can you be present in your own past? — ucarr

I'm not saying we live in the past and future. I am saying the opposite, that we are at the present. This is our perspective. But this puts us outside of time (to the inside). It has to be this way in order that we can measure time passing. If our perspective was not outside time, then any measurement of time passing would be tainted because there would be time passing within us, just like judging colour through a tinted lens.

If the present is timeless, how does it maintain the separation of past/future? Maintaining the separation implies an indefinite duration of time for the maintenance of the separation. Also, separation implies both a spatial and temporal duration keeping past/future apart, but spatial and temporal durations are not timeless, are they? — ucarr

There must be no duration of time in the point of separation. If there was we couldn't have an accurate measurement of time. Imagine if the duration was a day, then our measurements would be accurate to within a day. If it was an hour, our measurements would be accurate to within an hour. If the duration was a minute, our measurements would be accurate within a minute. And so on. If there is any time within the moment of the present, this would affect the accuracy of our measurements by the amount within the moment, because there would be a corresponding vagueness in the start and end point of the measurement.

How does a material thing sustain its dimensional expansion, a physical phenomenon, outside of time? Consider a twelve-inch ruler. Its twelve inches of extension continuously consume time. Relativity tells us the physical dimensions of a material thing change with acceleration of velocity accompanied by time dilation, so we know from this that physical dimensions consume time. — ucarr

It is the immaterial (nondimensional) aspect, deep within us, what is responsible for free will and intellection, that is outside of time, not our physical bodies.

So, time -- if it exists, and it may not -- can only approach the present from the past, or from the future, without arriving. You say the present is outside of time. — ucarr

Being outside of time, the present would be categorically distinct from the future and past which are the components of time. So neither can be said to "approach the present". "The present" refers to a perspective from which time is observed. Think of right and left as an analogy, where "here" is similar to "the present". Right and left are determined relative to the perspective which is "here". — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm trying to picture what it means for temporal experience to be distinct from a world timeless. If the present is outside of time, how can observations, which take time to be made, be carried out from its perspective? Do I misread you? Are you saying, indirectly, that the present is a void? Is it like the abstract concept of a point on the number line? Does the present, like the point, "occupy" a zero dimensional "space?" If this is the case, does that mean you're saying the present exists only as a non-physical, abstract concept of the mind?

Since neither past nor future can approach the present, how does past become present, and how does present become future? It seems common sense to think the past and the future somehow connect with the present. Is this not the case?

The first sentence here is good. You, as the observer, and the free willing agent, exist in the present. But the next part appears to be confused. "The present" is an abstract concept, we use it to substantiate our existence. But so is "future and past" an abstract concept. The future and past are what we attribute to the external world, what is independent from us. But since it is the way we understand the world, it is still conceptual. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do I exist in the past_present_future, abstract concepts, outside of time? If past_present_future all exist as abstract concepts, where does my physical life occur?

And since the future and past are time, this is what makes us outside of time. But we are "outside" time in a strange way, because we understand time as external to us, and this makes us "outside time" to the inside. Our position at "the present", from which we observe and act with free will, is beyond the internal boundary, This makes us outside of time to the inside, beyond the internal boundary. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're saying we observe and act with free will within a timeless realm called "the present?"

If the present contains no time elapsed, then must I conclude my perception of time elapsing occurs in response to my existential presence in either the past or in the future? — ucarr

Imagine your perspective, at the present, to be a static point, and everything is moving around you. It is this movement around you which provides the perception of time passing. But your point is not necessarily completely static in an absolute way, because you can act, by free will. This act comes from outside of time, to the inside. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're saying that when I act with free will, I'm doing things outside of time, but somehow my actions crossover from the outside of time to the inside of time?

I am saying... that we are at the present. This is our perspective. But this puts us outside of time (to the inside). — Metaphysician Undercover

Explain "...outside of time (to the inside)."

f the present is timeless, how does it maintain the separation of past/future? Maintaining the separation implies an indefinite duration of time for the maintenance of the separation. Also, separation implies both a spatial and temporal duration keeping past/future apart, but spatial and temporal durations are not timeless, are they? — ucarr

There must be no duration of time in the point of separation. — Metaphysician Undercover

By what means is a point of separation established and maintained?

How does a material thing sustain its dimensional expansion, a physical phenomenon, outside of time? — ucarr

It is the immaterial (nondimensional) aspect, deep within us, what is responsible for free will and intellection, that is outside of time, not our physical bodies. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since the immaterial aspect is non-dimensional, how do you go about ascertaining its position "deep within us"?

Does our free will and intellection connect to our brain? Are you talking about our everyday thoughts and decisions?

I'm trying to picture what it means for temporal experience to be distinct from a world timeless. If the present is outside of time, how can observations, which take time to be made, be carried out from its perspective? — ucarr

Imagine standing still, and watching something pass you from right to left. You, in your perspective, or point of view, are "outside" that motion, being not a part of it. You can, however, choose to act with your body, and interfere with that motion. Or, you can simply observe.

This is what I mean about your point of view at "the present". You can watch from that perspective, as the entire world around you, passes you, proceeding from future to past, while you maintain your perspective at the present. You might choose to move your body, and interfere in that temporal world, or you might just choose to observe the temporal world as it go past. The meditative position is to do neither, observe nor interfere.

Since neither past nor future can approach the present, how does past become present, and how does present become future? It seems common sense to think the past and the future somehow connect with the present. Is this not the case? — ucarr

As I said, "present" is distinct as referring to that position from which the passage of time may be observed and interfered with. The only connection is through observation and interference. These two, observation and interference, are intertwined in experimentation, and this forms the base of "the connection". That is how the past and future "connect with the present". The meditative position, mentioned above disconnects the present, so that the future simply becomes the past, all around the meditating subject, and the subject has removed the connection by neither observing nor interfering.

Do I exist in the past_present_future, abstract concepts, outside of time? If past_present_future all exist as abstract concepts, where does my physical life occur? — ucarr

Your "physical life" remains the unknown. All that is known, is known through the means of abstract ideas.

You're saying we observe and act with free will within a timeless realm called "the present?" — ucarr

Yes.

You're saying that when I act with free will, I'm doing things outside of time, but somehow my actions crossover from the outside of time to the inside of time? — ucarr

Yes.

Explain "...outside of time (to the inside)." — ucarr

I thought I did explain this. Time is the world of change, which we experience as external to our mind or consciousness. The immaterial, nonchanging perspective of the mind, as "the present" is deep within us, as internal. This perspective, being the nonchanging "present", is outside of time (timeless). But since this timeless perspective is internal, and time is external, then it is "outside time to the inside".

Consider the existence of a physical object for an explanatory analogy. We may posit an external boundary to that object, and this serves us as a means of judging that object's activities relative to other objects, it's relative motion. We might model the object as a bounded area of space, or we might model it as a center of gravity, a point, but no matter which way, its external relations determine its changing position, and this provides for what we know as its temporal existence, its position relative to other things. Now the present, as I described, is derived from our experience of an internal principle. The internal principle provides the perspective of "the present" which is demonstrated as necessarily outside of time, but to the inside of the subject. So this produces the need for an internal boundary to separate the temporal (external) from the nontemporal internal. If the material body is modeled as a point which marks the center of gravity, then the boundary which provides for the non-temporal must be internal to the point.

By what means is a point of separation established and maintained? — ucarr

This separation, as any theory, may be established and maintained, through expression of the principle, and validation through experimentation. In other words, the principle "there must be no time within the point of separation between past and future, in order for temporal measurement to be accurate", is expressed as a principle (theory), and then it may be verified by experimentation. The success of relativity theory helps to verify that principle.

Since the immaterial aspect is non-dimensional, how do you go about ascertaining its position "deep within us"? — ucarr

This is verified by experience. But it doesn't really matter if it is inside or outside, as we could turn the whole thing around, and argue that everything we experience as external is really internal. Then, what we experience as internal, our perspective of "the present", is really external, flipping the whole thing around. This turn around assumes s true, the skeptic\s claim that the external world is entirely an illusion. It is all internal. Everything, the entire physical world, is within, and there is nothing outside us whatsoever, as we ourselves form the outside boundary, as the static, unchanging "present". Then all physical existence is internal to us, and also inside time, while the immaterial, that which is outside time, is properly external to this. Therefore the skeptic's claim that the external is an illusion might actually provide a better representation of reality, as it allows for what is outside time, to be properly external.

Does our free will and intellection connect to our brain? Are you talking about our everyday thoughts and decisions? — ucarr

The free will and intellection, being immaterial aspects of the immaterial "soul' (for lack of a better word), which has the timeless perspective of "the present", are connected to "the brain", as a temporal, physical aspect. This way of connection is described above. There are two aspects of the connection, observational, and active. The meditative mode moves to disconnect both.

Imagine standing still, and watching something pass you from right to left. You, in your perspective, or point of view, are "outside" that motion, being not a part of it. You can, however, choose to act with your body, and interfere with that motion. Or, you can simply observe. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's some difficulty of communication of your theory because verbal language, being about actions and actors and thus being rooted in animation, does a poor job of representing non-temporal phenomena, which are, by definition, devoid of animation.

In our everyday context of interpretation, standing still and watching something pass from right to left is a phenomenon no less animated - and no less temporal - than the object passing from right to left.

I think I understand, however, that in the context of your theory, the observer is "outside" the motion of the passing object in the sense that the present is an abstract concept of the mind. In the abstract context of this thought experiment, the mind can imaginatively stipulate "no motion or time."

If this is a mis-reading of your theory, then I'm still fundamentally unclear about the structure and logic of the continuum of past_present_future within your theoretical context.

Firstly, it's a mental challenge to wrap my head around the introduction of a timeless present into the continuity. Timeless present introduces a discontinuity into the continuity. I now think understanding in detail the ramifications of this inserted discontinuity holds the key to understanding your theory in general.

I'm now inclined to think your theory can be rendered with greater clarity through mathematical language. For example, by interposing a timeless present between a temporal past and future, it makes sense to think of a timeless present as a theoretical point of zero dimensions.

The present is then a vanishing point of reference for the unidirectional arrow of time to move forward, with both future and past existing as relativistic constructions of the mind. From here I can see the measurement of time in terms of Schrödinger's partial differential equation that governs the wave function of a QM system.

Conceptually, the Schrödinger equation is the quantum counterpart of Newton's second law in classical mechanics. Given a set of known initial conditions, Newton's second law makes a mathematical prediction as to what path a given physical system will take over time. The Schrödinger equation gives the evolution over time of the wave function, the quantum-mechanical characterization of an isolated physical system. Schrödinger Equation

Your theory, when viewed through the lens of Schrödinger, suggests all physical systems, at whatever scale, express probable not certain outcomes.

If this is a mis-reading of your theory, then I'm still fundamentally unclear about the structure and logic of the continuum of past_present_future within your theoretical context. — ucarr

What I keep saying, is that there is no such past_present_future continuum. The continuum would be future-past, and the present is distinct, outside time. This is the discrete/continuous incompatibility. If there actually is a present within the continuum, it would break the continuum into discrete sections, annihilating the continuum.

I'm now inclined to think your theory can be rendered with greater clarity through mathematical language. For example, by interposing a timeless present between a temporal past and future, it makes sense to think of a timeless present as a theoretical point of zero dimensions. — ucarr

This rendering sort of works, so long as you adhere to the point you made, that this is a "theoretical present". In this particular model, there is no "natural present". This "present", the zero dimension point of the model, is artificial, a theoretical point and the "interposing" you refer to must be understood as a theoretical act of inserting the the theoretical point into the future-past continuum in various places, for the purpose of temporal measurements, discrete temporal units.

However, we must still respect the reality of "the present", the true, "natural present" which serves as the perspective of the living subject. This natural present is what the human subject has tried to represent with the artificial, conceptual "zero dimension point" which serves as the means for measurement. The natural present is much more difficult to understand.

There's some difficulty of communication of your theory because verbal language, being about actions and actors and thus being rooted in animation, does a poor job of representing non-temporal phenomena, which are, by definition, devoid of animation. — ucarr

Now we approach the key point. The "theoretical present", in its traditional form, as a zero dimension point served us well for hundreds, even thousands of years, in its service of measuring temporal duration. However, though it is useful, it is not acceptable as an accurate representation of the "natural present". The "natural present" is the perspective of the human mind, the human being, in relation to the future-past continuum. This is the natural perspective, how we actually exist, observe and act, at the present in time, rather than the model which makes the present a point in time.

The traditional representation of the theoretical present puts the human soul as "outside of time", as discussed, and this, as you say, renders it "by definition, devoid of animation". This is a representation of the classical "interaction problem" of dualism. The properties of the immaterial soul, ideas etc., being eternal, and outside of time (because they exist at the zero dimension present), have not the capacity to interact with the future-past continuum.

What this indicates is that the conceptualization of time employed, with a zero dimension point that can be inserted as the present, for the purpose of measurement, is faulty. It's not a true representation of the "natural present". To understand the natura present, we need to review the human perspective. What I glean from such a review, is that the natural present consists of both, the past, as sensory perception (what is perceived is in the past by the time it is perceived), and the future, as what is anticipated. Therefore to provide a true modal of time we need an overlap of past and future at the present, instead of a zero dimension point which separates the two.

This implies that future-past is improperly modeled, if modeled as a continuum. We need overlap of future and past, at the present, to allow for the real interaction of the living subject. This implies a dimensional present.

...the zero dimension point of the model, is artificial, a theoretical point and the "interposing" you refer to must be understood as a theoretical act of inserting the the theoretical point into the future-past continuum in various places, for the purpose of temporal measurements, discrete temporal units. — Metaphysician Undercover

The present_theoretical is a math tactic, but its scope of influence needs to be contained lest it distort clear perception of the present_natural.

However, we must still respect the reality of "the present", the true, "natural present" which serves as the perspective of the living subject. — Metaphysician Undercover

The main premise of the theory says: a) the truth resides within the present_natural; b) the present_natural supplies the true picture of reality to the observer.

The "theoretical present", in its traditional form, as a zero dimension point served us well for hundreds, even thousands of years, in its service of measuring temporal duration. However, though it is useful, it is not acceptable as an accurate representation of the "natural present". — Metaphysician Undercover

The distortion of the present_theoretical is what MU's theory seeks to expose and correct.

The "natural present" is the perspective of the human mind, the human being, in relation to the future-past continuum. This is the natural perspective, how we actually exist, observe and act, at the present in time, rather than the model which makes the present a point in time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Question - Does the future_past continuum of this theory assert a unidirectional arrow of time from future to past? This is a reversal of the conventional conception of the unidirectional arrow of time from present_theoretical to future. Moreover, the flow of time from future to past feels strange and counter-intuitive. In terms of human history, this reversal suggests human progress is going backwards from sophisticated to primitive. What would be reason for that?

The traditional representation of the theoretical present puts the human soul as "outside of time", as discussed, and this, as you say, renders it "by definition, devoid of animation". This is a representation of the classical "interaction problem" of dualism. The properties of the immaterial soul, ideas etc., being eternal, and outside of time (because they exist at the zero dimension present), have not the capacity to interact with the future-past continuum. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is the problem - the distortion of the truth - MU's theory intends to solve.

What this indicates is that the conceptualization of time employed, with a zero dimension point that can be inserted as the present, for the purpose of measurement, is faulty. It's not a true representation of the "natural present". — Metaphysician Undercover

This is the problem stated more specifically. What's needed is a representation more faithful to the existential reality of the present_natural.

To understand the natura present, we need to review the human perspective. What I glean from such a review, is that the natural present consists of both, the past, as sensory perception (what is perceived is in the past by the time it is perceived), and the future, as what is anticipated. — Metaphysician Undercover

The statement in bold is MU's definition of the present_natural.

Question - If what is perceived is in the past at the time of its perception, then there's only perception of the past. So there's only perception of the past (as if the present) in MU's description of present_natural.

Question - Is there not a difference between the actual future and the anticipation of the future, a mere speculation about what the future might be? If so, then we see the present is just whatever is happening presently, including speculations about the future. So, again, there's only perception of the past (as if the present) in MU's description of present_natural.

The two above questions point to the possibility MU's language, in both instances, circles back around to a theoretical point both dimensionless and timeless as the representation of the present.

Therefore to provide a true modal of time we need an overlap of past and future at the present, instead of a zero dimension point which separates the two. — Metaphysician Undercover

The statement in bold is MU's call for what s/he believes is required for correction of the problem.

This implies that future-past is improperly modeled, if modeled as a continuum. We need overlap of future and past, at the present, to allow for the real interaction of the living subject. This implies a dimensional present. — Metaphysician Undercover

MU's conception of the correct representation of present_natural entails a confluence of past/present/future into one unified whole. As an example, consider: the combination of red, green and blue to form gray.

Now we're confronted with wrapping our minds around a temporal amalgam simultaneously past/present/future. What the heck might that be like? I contemplate with horror a temporal complex of undecidability, e.g. an inhabitant of such a realm could not know where s/he was in time.

On the other hand, is temporal undecidability just another way of saying "timeless." Does MU's theory circle back around to the inanimate, immortal soul it seeks to rebel against?

On the other hand yet again, might a temporal complex of undecidability be a jumping off point into... uh, maybe time travel?

If my previous two points example my sci-fi imagination run amok, then they're evidence MU needs to elaborate details of a multi-dimensional present_natural easily relatable to the normal person.

Thanks for your patience ucarr, sticking with me, and your encouragement to help me through this process. I think you will find that this post will elucidate a lot, and thorough reading of it should give you a much better understanding of my perspective on this.

The main premise of the theory says: a) the truth resides within the present_natural; b) the present_natural supplies the true picture of reality to the observer. — ucarr

I'd clarify this by saying that an understanding of the present_natural would supply a true picture of reality, but we do not have that required understanding.

Question - Does the future_past continuum of this theory assert a unidirectional arrow of time from future to past? — ucarr

Since it is the case, as I described, that the present must be dimensional, then this dimension (which I call the breadth of the present) would be a qualification to the unidirectionalness.

Try looking at it this way. We understand "the flow of time" from our observations of motions. And, we observe motions as relative. The relativity of our perception of motion is the important feature of reality revealed when the heliocentric model of the solar system replaced the geocentric model. We now know, from the application of relativity theory, that "the flow of time" must also be understood as being perceived as relative, and this forces unintuitive conclusions about "the natural present", produced from our perceptions which make time relative. This is demonstrated by the principle called the relativity of simultaneity.

What I believe is demonstrated, is that if we model a single dimensional line, "an arrow of time", the present cannot be adequately positioned on that line, because the different types of objects moving relative to each other (massive vs massless), would require a different position on the line. We could simply make the area called "the present" wider, but the way that relativity theory deals with massless objects would require that the whole line would need to be "the present" at one boundary, and the other boundary would assumingly be a point. This allows for an infinitely wide present.

Clearly this is not an acceptable representation. So, if instead, we model a number of parallel lines, each representing a different type of object, from the most massive to the most massless, then each could have its own point of "the present" which would distinguish that type of objects future from its past. Then the multitude of lines, marking the flow of time for each different type of object, would be placed in relation to each other, revealing how "the past" for some types of objects is still the future for other types, in relation to the overall flow of time. This allows for the breadth of the present, the second dimension of time, where the past and the future actually overlap because of the multitude of different types of object in the vast field of reality, each having a specific "present" at a different time, making the general "present" wide..

This is a reversal of the conventional conception of the unidirectional arrow of time from present_theoretical to future. Moreover, the flow of time from future to past feels strange and counter-intuitive. In terms of human history, this reversal suggests human progress is going backwards from sophisticated to primitive. What would be reason for that? — ucarr

Modeling the flow of time as from future to past is actually much more intuitive than modeling it as past to future. The past to future model is a learned (acquired) way, derived from empirical observation, and the concept of "causation", which is entrenched by our scientific/deterministic world view. This is the model derived from the perspective of having the present as independent from (outside) of time. When we observe the passage of time from outside of time, at a point of "the present", we observe an order of the occurrence of events. One event is seen as prior to another, meaning it goes into the past first. This inclines us to position furthest past events as first (prior) and later events as posterior.

In reality, I believe, we must actually learn to suppress our truly intuitive way of looking at time, to construct that perspective which puts the observer outside of time. This is done at a very young age with the learning of moral principles, and even earlier, derived from the act/reward process. Certain types of acts result in rewards or punishments, and this is conducive to us learning the cause/effect, determinist flow of time.

But that type of moral training suppresses our true perspective, which is a more selfish perspective, placing priority on future events, what is wanted, desired. This more natural perspective assigns priority to intentions, representing the individual as a person active in the world, attempting to do things, and get what one wants. We really have very little, if any "representation" of this, because it is inherently not a representation. it is an understanding of one's own actual role in the world, as agent.

Now, when the person understands oneself to be an actual individual within the world, the eternal present, outside of time, is gone. The person is inundated with duties, responsibilities, obligations, and simple needs, things which must be done. The future then, is a source of stress and anxiety, and the passing of time is a force of immense pressure on the person, so that the individual is inclined by instinct to rush around like a squirrel collecting nuts before winter sets in.

So from this perspective, the flow of time is an oppressive future, attempting to force all that is at the present, into the past. For us this is death, and for inanimate objects, this is their breakdown and annihilation. This is why it is ultimately more intuitive to place the future as prior to the past. The coming event, the anticipated, predicted, "future event", is in the future before it is in the past. And, there is a critical condition which must be fulfilled before it can even get into the past, it must actually occur, therefore we have anxiety and stress. So the event is in the future first, as potential. The critical condition of occurrence (with its lack of necessity, which forms the concept of "contingency") is second, the present, and the event being in the past is third, posterior to the occurrence, which is posterior to the potential..

Notice that the difference may be exemplified by the way that we understand freedom of choice. The determinist way places priority in the past, making all future events caused by the past. The free choice way recognizes a lack of necessity in the occurrence of events at the present, and this invalidates the determinist model. That produces the need for a model which includes as real, the contingency of being. This model needs to include the freely willed choice, and that puts priority in the future, because the choice is the will toward a future state.

Question - If what is perceived is in the past at the time of its perception, then there's only perception of the past. So there's only perception of the past (as if the present) in MU's description of present_natural. — ucarr

Well yes, this has to be a key point, which comes from our modern understanding of light, electrical energy, and the nervous system in general. There is always a medium between the thing perceived, and the mind which perceives. You see an object a metre away, a hundred metres away, whatever, you do not see the light in between which acts as the medium. The required activity of this medium ensures that the thing seen is in the past by the time it's seen. And the same thing occurs within the nervous system itself, with the sense of touch for instance, there is a time delay, reflex time.

Question - Is there not a difference between the actual future and the anticipation of the future, a mere speculation about what the future might be? If so, then we see the present is just whatever is happening presently, including speculations about the future. So, again, there's only perception of the past (as if the present) in MU's description of present_natural. — ucarr

Talking about "the future" is when words fail us. This is due to the representative nature of the most common words. We watch, and talk about what we have experienced, and when we turn around to face the future, we get absorbed into our own minds, where our own goals and intentions take priority. Since we are always looking out for ourselves, we must fend against deception when talking about the future. So, we learn the moral principles of cause/effect, described above, and this allows us to talk about the future objectively, in the sense of predictions which are grounded in good scientific principles. However, this suppresses the individual's true view toward the future, the subjective perspective, and replaces it with the false determinist perspective. This false perspective being the one imposed by educational institutions facilitates talk about the future, but in an untrue way.

So, I think it is important to note, that "the true future" is the anticipation of the future. This is the truest view of the future that we have, just like observation and memory is the truest view of the past. The other view, where we use determinist principles of causation, to project in "objective predictions" is not a true view. It's not true because it produces a view of the future which does not respect the contingency of the present, by making the cause/effect relation necessary.

The failing of words inclines us to say things like "the actual future". Because activity occurs at the present, and anticipated events of the future have not yet reached the present, they cannot be "actual" in thi sense. "Actual" here means having activity. But there is another sense of "actual" and the difference between the two was well described by Aristotle in his Metaphysics. The second sense of "actual" means real, substantial, "having actual existence" rather than imaginary or theoretical. This sense applies only to the past. What has actually occurred at the present, is now in the past, and this is real, substantial. Future events are not substantial in that way, and have no actual existence in that sense. However, under the determinist principles of cause/effect, and objective prediction, we may extend this form of "actuality" to talk about "the actual future", to say things like "the sun actually will rise tomorrow". But this way of using "actual", to refer to things which are essentially possible, having not yet crossed the boundary of contingency, the present, is really very misleading. The determinist perspective then denies the real (substantial) difference between past and future, by referring to both with "actual"..

The two above questions point to the possibility MU's language, in both instances, circles back around to a theoretical point both dimensionless and timeless as the representation of the present. — ucarr

The theoretical "present" has some truth in its representation, as a divisor between future and past. It's principal fault is the "dimensionless point" representation, which facilitates the illusion of accurate temporal measurements. That it puts the separation between future and past outside of time, causing the interaction problem of idealism, is evidence that it is faulty. So we do not need to throw away the entire conception of "present", just what is required to bring consistency between the theoretical present and the natural present.

MU's conception of the correct representation of present_natural entails a confluence of past/present/future into one unified whole. As an example, consider: the combination of red, green and blue to form gray. — ucarr

Not quite. It's not a unified whole in the sense of your example, where the distinct colours combine to make one colour. That is more like what some people think now, future, present, and past are commonly combined and presented as a unified whole, "time". But this always involves inconsistencies. So the need is somewhat opposite, to see the distinct elements, future, and past, as completely distinct, because the present exists between these two, inserting contingency. The determinist way is to ignore contingency, represent a unified past and future, and dismissed the "the present" as unreal eternalist ideal, which is problematic. But this provides no base for understanding of the natural present, and what we call the passing of time.

So instead of "unified whole", it is an attempt to establish compatibility, consistency, commensurability between distinct features which appear to be incompatible. That is, if we deny the determinist unification because of the faults that it shows, as not a true representation, we need to come up with something else. The principles which invalidate the determinist representation, essentially the contingency factor, leave the past and future as completely distinct, with a mere appearance of incompatibility. That produces a very difficult problem.

I contemplate with horror a temporal complex of undecidability, e.g. an inhabitant of such a realm could not know where s/he was in time. — ucarr

The "undecidability" you refer to is due to the breadth of time, and the fact that we do not know our position on that spectrum. This is because our understanding of concepts like mass and energy is very primitive. It's comparable to the geocentric model of astronomy. We didn't know where we were in space. Now "the universe" is a temporal concept, having been detached from the idea of an eternal background, and we use it to provide us with a position in time, X number of years past the big bang. But in reality, we really don't know where we are in time because we do not apprehend the breadth of the present, so our way of relating small objects to huge masses like galaxies, is very faulty. .

The main premise of the theory says: a) the truth resides within the present_natural; b) the present_natural supplies the true picture of reality to the observer. — ucarr

I'd clarify this by saying that an understanding of the present_natural would supply a true picture of reality, but we do not have that required understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're still in the hunt for an understanding of the present_natural not yet supplied by your theory.

The principles which invalidate the determinist representation, essentially the contingency factor, leave the past and future as completely distinct, with a mere appearance of incompatibility. That produces a very difficult problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

It looks like a major goal of your theory is to promote freedom of choice over and above determinism.

...we really don't know where we are in time because we do not apprehend the breadth of the present, — Metaphysician Undercover

It looks like another major goal of your theory is to develop a concept of the present that includes dimensional extensions of spacetime.

Furthermore, you want to knit together a coherent timeline of past_present_future that properly constrains determinism whilst protecting freedom of choice.

In overview I see you're working to revise the cosmic timeline with structural changes to the present at the center of your focus.

If you've ever read a murder mystery, then you know the timeline of events lies at the center of the analysis made by the homicide detective. You also know, from watching the work of a detective who's a competent logician, that oftentimes the timeline of events, upon close inspection, balloons into a circuitous continuity of complicated, multi-tiered perspectives. In the courtroom, a clever defendant articulates a counter-narrative that is a word salad able to confuse all but the most clear-headed and focused thinkers. The scalpel that cuts the fat and exposes the meat is math and the precision of its logic.

I see clearly your need to develop your math literacy. It will facilitate the clarity and precision of the complicated details of your theory. It will empower you to provide diagrams, charts and tables that effectively communicate your ideas, analyses and conclusions.

As it stands now, your verbal narrative shows deep thought and thoroughness. However, making theory clear to the reader requires lucid prose and, in your case, mathematical precision as a bolster. Too often your statements make a close pass to the border of obscurity.