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.

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

That's right. What we've termed "present_natural" is extremely difficult. I think the best understanding of any human being barely qualifies as a start to this subject.

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

No, I take freedom of choice as a strong premise, being a self-evident truth, supported by empirical observation of the human condition. Argumentation in support of free will is pointless because anyone who denies what is self-evident will never be convinced by argument. The goal is true understanding.

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

The need for multi-dimensional time is a conclusion drawn from the two basic premises, the truth of free will, and the usefulness of the determinist principles of cause/effect.

"Spacetime" is not an appropriate concept for the quest for truth, because it makes space logically prior to time, instead of time being prior to space. In other words we can conceive of time without space, providing the potential for space, but space without time is absolute nothing, from which nothing can come. That's the point of Aristotle's cosmological argument, actuality (therefore time), is prior to material existence (therefore space). Many people dismiss this argument, but it's actually very strong. So the reason why time (therefore "the present") is so difficult, is because we haven't figured out what type of activity occurs without space.

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. — ucarr

I firmly believe that good ontology is not done with mathematics, although some Platonists think it's nothing but mathematics.. In fact, I think that mathematics distracts from truth, and misleads, being designed and conventionalized for other purposes. Cosmological mathematics has been diverted to serve "spacetime" conceptions, so the majority is useless toward truth.

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

That's right. What we've termed "present_natural" is extremely difficult. I think the best understanding of any human being barely qualifies as a start to this subject. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since you acknowledge your goal is unachieved and its manifestation extremely challenging to comprehension, I return to my previous advice:

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. — ucarr

You need visual aides that will sharpen the clarity of what you're envisioning.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your conceptualization of the present as dimensionally extended and bi-directional entails radical changes to establishment physics’ conventional view of time:

• If the present has duration due to dimensional extension, then I ask if you’re nesting a tripartite past_present_future within the present? This is a big escalation of the complexity of the picture of time.

• If the present is bi-directional,* then I ask if you’re nesting a tripartite past_present_future within the present that includes reversal of entropy. Since establishment physics’ conventional view of entropy is that it, like time, is unidirectional and only moves towards increasing disorder, then your “breadth of the present… would be a qualification to the unidirectionalness,” suggests your belief in a contrarian physics entailing a stupendous increase of complexity of the timeline of time.

*You’re saying that when you drop an egg onto the floor, given your conceptualization of the present as bi-directional, the shattered egg will reassemble itself and fly backwards up and into your hand once again whole. To substantiate your theory, you must show yourself experiencing this reversal of the increase of entropy. Can you do this?

Your stupendously complexified timeline of time figures to be the centerpiece of your theory of time. If you persist in your claim the clarifying visualizations of math graphics is bad procedure for explicating the physics of time, I’ll start leaning heavily towards the conclusion you’re proceeding with a word-salad laden approach thoroughly benighted.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Regarding your three paragraphs above, try to walk a mile in the shoes of one of your readers. You're describing a complex timeline nested within the present. The interweave of the three temporal phases (past, present, future) plus parallel lines featuring particles both massive and massless presents a very complicated concept. Visuals depicting the interactions of the parts is the right way to go.

Having to think your way through the visuals will usefully confront you with perplexities you're unlikely to see from the point of view of a verbal narrative.

The confusion-adjacent complexity of your narrative exemplifies the reason establishment physics employs two languages: verbal, mathematical.

You need visual aides that will sharpen the clarity of what you're envisioning. — ucarr

I actually have produced some visual aids in the past, consisting of horizontal and vertical lines. These simple drawings are not difficult to produce. The difficult aspect is accepting the required premises. The reality of free will requires that some aspects of, or even the entire physical universe, must be created anew at every passing moment of time. This is very difficult to fathom, and most people prefer to just fall back on the determinist representation showing the continuity of a physical universe.

Your conceptualization of the present as dimensionally extended and bi-directional entails radical changes to establishment physics’ conventional view of time:

If the present has duration due to dimensional extension, then I ask if you’re nesting a tripartite past_present_future within the present? This is a big escalation of the complexity of the picture of time.

If the present is bi-directional,* then I ask if you’re nesting a tripartite past_present_future within the present that includes reversal of entropy. Since establishment physics’ conventional view of entropy is that it, like time, is unidirectional and only moves towards increasing disorder, then your “breadth of the present… would be a qualification to the unidirectionalness,” suggests your belief in a contrarian physics entailing a stupendous increase of complexity of the timeline of time. — ucarr

It is not the case that the time proposed is bi-directional. What I propose is that physical things come into existence (are recreated) at each moment of passing time. Once it is created at the present it cannot be changed, but until that moment it is not determined. The second dimension of the present allows that some types of objects move into the past (receive material existence) prior to others, at the present. This means that the present is multidimensional because some types of objects are already in the past (fixed), while other types are just beginning to materialize. Empirical evidence indicates that massive objects are created and move into the past first, that is why they have inertia, obey basic determinist laws, and it is more difficult for freely willed acts to change them. Massless things are created last, having their moment of the present later, and this provides free will the greater capacity to use them for change.

So consider the premise that anything, any state of being, which comes into existence at the present. must be predetermined (principle of sufficient reason) by something. Now imagine a number of parallel horizontal lines, as arrows of time, in the same direction, arrows pointing left. At the top of the page is the most massive type of object, and at the bottom is the least massive type. At the top line, the present is to the right, so that the entire line is in the past. At the bottom line, the present is to the left, so the entire line is in the future. "The present" refers to when each type of object gains its physical existence. Notice that at any moment, massive objects already have physical existence before massless objects do. This allows that a slight change to a massive object, through a freely will act, is capable of producing a large effect on massless objects. This effect we observe as our capacity to change things.

Your stupendously complexified timeline of time figures to be the centerpiece of your theory of time. If you persist in your claim the clarifying visualizations of math graphics is bad procedure for explicating the physics of time, I’ll start leaning heavily towards the conclusion you’re proceeding with a word-salad laden approach thoroughly benighted. — ucarr

Again, the key point is conceptualizing and contemplating time in such a way which allows for freedom of choice. This does not require mathematics, it requires accepting a discontinuity at the present, such that the world can "change" at any moment of the present, according to a freely chosen act. This implies that the physical world must be recreated at each moment of passing time. Once this principle is accepted, the dynamics of how this occurs (like the proposal above) can be discussed. Only when some of these basic principles can be ironed out, would diagrams and mathematics be useful.

Regarding your three paragraphs above, try to walk a mile in the shoes of one of your readers. You're describing a complex timeline nested within the present. The interweave of the three temporal phases (past, present, future) plus parallel lines featuring particles both massive and massless presents a very complicated concept. Visuals depicting the interactions of the parts is the right way to go.

Having to think your way through the visuals will usefully confront you with perplexities you're unlikely to see from the point of view of a verbal narrative. — ucarr

I have great respect for the "perplexities", and I've worked out a few, but I know there is far more left. If any mathematician, physicist, or cosmologist, will take the premises seriously, I would guide them through the application of their tools. However, any such effort would be pointless without agreement on fundamental premises, and this cannot be produced through mathematics or diagrams.

The reality of free will requires that some aspects of, or even the entire physical universe, must be created anew at every passing moment of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're saying free choice remakes the universe?

It is not the case that the time proposed is bi-directional. — Metaphysician Undercover

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

qualification | ˌkwäləfəˈkāSH(ə)n |
noun
3 a statement or assertion that makes another less absolute
-- The Apple Dictionary

Since the present must be dimensional, and this dimensional extension does not demand a specific direction, and the true flow of time, as per the subjective point of view of your theory, flows from future to past, whereas the established view has time flowing from past to future, then it seems logical that your theory either: a) makes the flow of time bi-directional, or b) reverses the established flow of time. Is it a) or b), or do you think another possibility exists?

It is not the case that the time proposed is bi-directional. What I propose is that physical things come into existence (are recreated) at each moment of passing time. Once it is created at the present it cannot be changed, but until that moment it is not determined. The second dimension of the present allows that some types of objects move into the past (receive material existence) prior to others, at the present. This means that the present is multidimensional because some types of objects are already in the past (fixed), while other types are just beginning to materialize. Empirical evidence indicates that massive objects are created and move into the past first, that is why they have inertia, obey basic determinist laws, and it is more difficult for freely willed acts to change them. Massless things are created last, having their moment of the present later, and this provides free will the greater capacity to use them for change.

So consider the premise that anything, any state of being, which comes into existence at the present. must be predetermined (principle of sufficient reason) by something. Now imagine a number of parallel horizontal lines, as arrows of time, in the same direction, arrows pointing left. At the top of the page is the most massive type of object, and at the bottom is the least massive type. At the top line, the present is to the right, so that the entire line is in the past. At the bottom line, the present is to the left, so the entire line is in the future. "The present" refers to when each type of object gains its physical existence. Notice that at any moment, massive objects already have physical existence before massless objects do. This allows that a slight change to a massive object, through a freely will act, is capable of producing a large effect on massless objects. This effect we observe as our capacity to change things. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you interacting with a lot of readers who find your two above paragraphs to be a clear, thorough and easy to understand narration of your ontological theory? To provide an example of how unclear the mission of your theory has been to me, let me tell you that until just now, I didn't know your theory is not only a theory of the timeline of time. That's just one component of a broadly inclusive and intricately detailed theory of physics.

Again, the key point is conceptualizing and contemplating time in such a way which allows for freedom of choice. This does not require mathematics, it requires accepting a discontinuity at the present, such that the world can "change" at any moment of the present, according to a freely chosen act. This implies that the physical world must be recreated at each moment of passing time. Once this principle is accepted, the dynamics of how this occurs (like the proposal above) can be discussed. — Metaphysician Undercover

I claim that a good definition of time says it's a method of tracking motion by means of a numerical system of calculation and measurement. In other words, time is mathematics.

Only when some of these basic principles can be ironed out, would diagrams and mathematics be useful. — Metaphysician Undercover

If ironing out the basic principles and making diagrams explained by math isn't your job, then whose job is it?

Aside from slogging around in the verbiage you’ve been presenting, how are we to understand “discontinuity at the present, such that the world can ‘change’ at any moment of the present, according to a freely chosen act.”? Since this is what is already taking place, then how is your theory adding anything to the world? If, on the other hand, you could say “I can calculate when the human individual is present in the present at such time when the scope of freedom of choice is at maximum,” then, if true, your calculation would be adding something to the world.

If any mathematician, physicist, or cosmologist, will take the premises seriously, I would guide them through the application of their tools. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, if taking the premises seriously isn't enough to motivate you to do the job of working out their practical applications mathematically, then whose job is it?

Personal Note -- All of my tough talk applies to me. Our dialogue is helping me correct myself in exactly the same ways I suggest you correct yourself. Since we're alike, I'll share this: Without a firm grounding in the work of science, my philosophy will remain at its present level, unpublished. Have you been published?

I have great respect for the "perplexities", and I've worked out a few — Metaphysician Undercover

If you've got diagrams that explain visually some perplexities you've worked out, then share them here.

Hello @ucarr and @Metaphysician Undercover, how are you? Mind if I jump in at this point? I'll just go for it, since I seem to be having the same problem that you two are having. Let me see if I can look at this from a different angle:

qualification | ˌkwäləfəˈkāSH(ə)n |
noun
3 a statement or assertion that makes another less absolute
-- The Apple Dictionary — ucarr

Let's take the dictionary's word for that. And let's read that literally, as in, it is not open to interpretation. That being the case, if a qualification is literally a statement or assertion that makes another (statement or assertion) less absolute, then, by definition, it makes them (the statement or assertion in question) more relative. In general, to be less absolute is to be more relative, and to be less relative is to be more absolute. That, from a purely technical, formal standpoint.

I didn't know your theory is not only a theory of the timeline of time. That's just one component of a broadly inclusive and intricately detailed theory of physics. — ucarr

I agree with this. A broadly inclusive, intricately detailed theory of physics, would include a theory of the timeline of time. But the former cannot be reduced to the latter, and this is also presumably by definition.

I claim that a good definition of time says it's a method of tracking motion by means of a numerical system of calculation and measurement. — ucarr

Hmmm... do I agree with this? I'll tell you what I think. I accept Mario Bunge's definition of space and time. He says the following:

So much for our outline of a relational theory of spacetime. Such a theory is not only relational but also compatible with relativistic physics, in that (a) it assumes the structure of spacetime to depend upon its furniture, and (b) it does not postulate a global structure. However, the theory is not relativistic: it does not include any of the special laws characterizing the various relativistic theories, such as for example the frame independence of the velocity of light, or the equations of the gravitational field. The relational theory of spacetime sketched above is just a component of the background of any general-relativistic theory- if one cares to add such an ontological background. Physicists usually don't: they are in the habit of postulating the four-manifold without inquiring into its roots in events. — (Bunge, 1977: 308)

You're saying free choice remakes the universe? — ucarr

No, I am saying that in order for human beings to be able to act freely to change the universe at will, at any passing moment, these parts of the universe must be made anew at each passing moment. It does not makes sense to think that only some specific parts of the universe are created anew at each passing moment, so we need to assume that the entire universe is.

Consider "X exists". As time passes, at each moment, X continues to exist. Consider now, that at any moment of the present, as time passes, a free will act could annihilate X. Since it is possible to annihilate X at any moment of the present, then X cannot have any necessary existence prior to the present, i.e. in the future. If, at any moment of passing time, the existence of X at the next moment is necessary, then the free will act could not act to annihilate X at that moment. So X's existence in the future is not necessary. And since the free will could act at any moment, then there can be no existence of X in the future at any moment of the present. Therefore we must conclude that X must be recreated at each moment of passing time.

dimensional extension does not demand a specific direction, — ucarr

A specific direction is demanded. As I explained making the future prior to the past does not involve reversing the flow of time, it just involves recognizing that the future is prior to the past. For example, Jan 5 is in the future before it is in the past. The flow of time has that portion of time named as Jan 5, in the future prior to it being in the past. This requires a sort of reifying of time, such that the day which we know as Jan 5 (that portion of time), can have a proper place "in time".

Are you interacting with a lot of readers who find your two above paragraphs to be a clear, thorough and easy to understand narration of your ontological theory? — ucarr

As far as I know you are the only one who read those paragraphs. And, I know from the fact that I have to repeat for you, that you have difficulty understanding me.

I claim that a good definition of time says it's a method of tracking motion by means of a numerical system of calculation and measurement. In other words, time is mathematics. — ucarr

What you are talking about is "time" as a measurement, mathematics. Aristotle, in his physics, thousands of years ago, explain how there is two distinct senses of "time". One sense is what you say here, "time" as measurement, but also there is a sense of "time" as what is measured. This is the distinction I made with present_artificial, and present_natural.

Consider for example, the existence of a clock. The clock is a device which is measuring the passing of time. So there is something real, independent from the mathematics, which the clock is measuring, the passing of time. This is "time" in the sense of what is measured, what we know as the passing of time, and this real passing of time is what grounds the so-called "arrow of time" as necessary.

On the other hand, we can also take the clock, and use it as you propose, to measure motion. This is a distinct sense of "time", because here "time" refers to principles for comparing motions using a conceptual structure. So if I time myself with a clock, and determine that it took me ten minutes to walk to the store, then what I am doing is comparing the temporal extension of that activity, to the temporal extension of whatever activity the clock is doing, calibrated by some principles, mathematics applied, and the conclusion, "ten minutes" is derived.

Notice, that in the second sense of "time", the one you describe, the real activity of time, the passing of time, is not even a required aspect for the measurement. It is implied that there is such a real passing of time, in the concept of "temporal extension", but it is not at all a required part of the measurement. The measurement is simply a product of comparing two different motions, through the application of principles.

Aside from slogging around in the verbiage you’ve been presenting, how are we to understand “discontinuity at the present, such that the world can ‘change’ at any moment of the present, according to a freely chosen act.”? Since this is what is already taking place, then how is your theory adding anything to the world? If, on the other hand, you could say “I can calculate when the human individual is present in the present at such time when the scope of freedom of choice is at maximum,” then, if true, your calculation would be adding something to the world. — ucarr

Sorry, I can't understand this.

Let's take the dictionary's word for that. And let's read that literally, as in, it is not open to interpretation. That being the case, if a qualification is literally a statement or assertion that makes another (statement or assertion) less absolute, then, by definition, it makes them (the statement or assertion in question) more relative. In general, to be less absolute is to be more relative, and to be less relative is to be more absolute. That, from a purely technical, formal standpoint. — Arcane Sandwich

Ucarr asked me if my temporal theory involves a unidirectional flow of time. I said yes, but since the present has dimensional breadth, the unidirectional aspect is somewhat qualified. The bread of the present allows that some types of objects move into the past prior to other types moving into the past, so that relatively speaking, if something were able to extend itself across the present (similar to acceleration in relativity theory), this thing could move from the past into the future, instead of the natural flow of time which has the future moving into the past. But this is a relative movement, which allows backward motion, across time, so time stays unidirectional in the true sense.

.

Welcome to our conversation. Thanks for joining. I appreciate your input.

I claim that a good definition of time says it's a method of tracking motion by means of a numerical system of calculation and measurement. — ucarr

Hmmm... do I agree with this? I'll tell you what I think. I accept Mario Bunge's definition of space and time. — Arcane Sandwich

So much for our outline of a relational theory of spacetime. Such a theory is not only relational but also compatible with relativistic physics... — (Bunge, 1977: 308)

So, relational theory and relativistic theory are compatible but non-identical. Moreover, the former is non-essential wallpaper within the context of the latter.

Do you characterize my definition of time as a relational theory?

...it (relational theory) does not include any of the special laws characterizing the various relativistic theories, such as for example the frame independence of the velocity of light, or the equations of the gravitational field. — (Bunge, 1977: 308)

You're implying a properly current definition of time must include the above properties? If so, no argument. My general premise herein is that time is mathematical.

It does not makes sense to think that only some specific parts of the universe are created anew at each passing moment, so we need to assume that the entire universe is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you speak to the deep interconnection of existing things, as in the context of the butterfly effect?

Since it is possible to annihilate X at any moment of the present, then X cannot have any necessary existence prior to the present, i.e. in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're committing your temporal theory to a uni-directional arrow of time featuring a future that progresses to the present, and then a present that progresses to the past?

...X must be recreated at each moment of passing time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Does this process of continuous recreation entail an oscillation between construction/deconstruction of every existing thing? If so, why is the universe unstable in this way?

Since the process of continuous recreation necessitates the elapse of a positive interval of time, how does this time consuming cyclical structure of construction/deconstruction formally integrate into the structure of your tripartite temporal timeline: future_present_past?

dimensional extension does not demand a specific direction, — ucarr

A specific direction is demanded. As I explained making the future prior to the past does not involve reversing the flow of time, it just involves recognizing that the future is prior to the past. For example, Jan 5 is in the future before it is in the past. The flow of time has that portion of time named as Jan 5, in the future prior to it being in the past. This requires a sort of reifying of time, such that the day which we know as Jan 5 (that portion of time), can have a proper place "in time" — Metaphysician Undercover

How are: a) Object A moves toward its future and b) the future moves toward Object A, its past, decidable given that time moves in both directions, albeit in two different senses (one relative and one true)?

Notice, that in the second sense of "time", the one you describe, the real activity of time, the passing of time, is not even a required aspect for the measurement. It is implied that there is such a real passing of time, in the concept of "temporal extension", but it is not at all a required part of the measurement. The measurement is simply a product of comparing two different motions, through the application of principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

Give me an example of a duration without math and without observation of a material object changing its position in space.

Again, the key point is conceptualizing and contemplating time in such a way which allows for freedom of choice. This does not require mathematics, it requires accepting a discontinuity at the present, such that the world can "change" at any moment of the present, according to a freely chosen act. — Metaphysician Undercover

When I pick up my pen and write in my notebook, is that an example of a discontinuity freely chosen at a moment in the present in such a way that the world changes? If it is then, as we all know, multitudes of humans all over the planet are doing this every day. Therefore, with this in mind,

...conceptualizing and contemplating time in such a way which allows for freedom of choice... such that the world can "change" at any moment of the present, according to a freely chosen act. — Metaphysician Undercover

seems to be nothing more than a description of what's already taking place.

If this is what is already taking place, then how is your theory adding anything to the world? Suppose you could say “Through manipulation of the timeline of time, I can calculate when the human individual can access freedom of choice at its maximum." That would be an example of you adding something useful to the world.

The bread [sic] of the present allows that some types of objects move into the past prior to other types moving into the past... — Metaphysician Undercover

If the present is dimensionally extended, and if two different things are both in this dimensionally extended present, with one of the things overlapping this present with the past, and the other thing simply being in the present, then: a) what is the physics of the thing simultaneously in the present and the past; b) how are these two things related to each other within the present?

...so that relatively speaking, if something were able to extend itself across the present (similar to acceleration in relativity theory), this thing could move from the past into the future... — Metaphysician Undercover

Explain "acceleration in relativity theory" in your context here.

....instead of the natural flow of time which has the future moving into the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

In your context here, is movement from the past into the future a reversal of movement from the future into the past?

But this is a relative movement, which allows backward motion, across time, so time stays unidirectional in the true sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you give an example of a non-relative movement?

Is backward motion across time exemplified by the broken egg reassembling itself into a whole egg?

Does backward motion across time cause reverse entropy, i.e. a functional system in isolation experiences diminishing disorder?

If time can move backwards in the relative sense, and yet time stays unidirectional in the true sense, are you implying time in the relative sense is something other than true?

Do you speak to the deep interconnection of existing things, as in the context of the butterfly effect? — ucarr

No, I mean that if we have to conceive of the relation between space and time in such a way as to allow that some specific objects are recreated at each moment of passing time, it wouldn't make sense to also use another conception of that relation to represent the existence of other objects. We'd have two distinct and incompatible conceptions of the relations between space and time. Imagine if someone wanted to model the earth as orbiting the sun but have the other planets and stars modeled the geocentric way. It would not work.

You're committing your temporal theory to a uni-directional arrow of time featuring a future that progresses to the present, and then a present that progresses to the past? — ucarr

Not really. Time is unidirectional, future to past. This is an activity of the world, what we know as the future becoming the past, The day named as "tomorrow" becomes the day named as "yesterday" through this activity, this process of the future becoming the past. And, this activity is what is known as "the present". The real activity of this, in the assumed independent world, is what we termed "present-natural". However, "the present" also refers to how we represent this activity, for the sake of temporal measurement. That is "present-artificial". And these two constitute the two senses of "time", "time" as the thing measured being the former, and "time" as a measurement being the latter.

Does this process of continuous recreation entail an oscillation between construction/deconstruction of every existing thing? If so, why is the universe unstable in this way? — ucarr

There is no need for deconstruction. The existing things as constructed simply move into the past. Imagine a "flipbook", except each page is created at the moment of the present, instead of preexisting. The page then moves into the past. Remember what I described, the force of time is from future to past.

How are: a) Object A moves toward its future and b) the future moves toward Object A, its past decidable given that time moves in both directions, albeit in two different senses (one relative and one true)? — ucarr

As explained above. These two are incompatible. It's like the difference between relative time and absolute time, or geocentric/heliocentric. We can model the world either way, but we cannot use both because there will be incompatibility where the two overlap. So we cannot, in one inclusive model, represent object A in both ways.

Give me an example of a duration without math and without observation of a material object changing its position in space. — ucarr

Simply imagine what it means for time to pass, then imagine this happening without anything in the world changing. Here's another way. Imagine that there is a shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world, a Planck time duration. Now imagine half a Planck time. That is a duration of time during which an object changing its place in space is impossible.

If this is what is already taking place, then how is your theory adding anything to the world? — ucarr

The free will activity is taking place, that is what you acknowledge. An accurate temporal representation of it does not exist because our representations are determinist. That's the problem.

Suppose you could say “Through manipulation of the timeline of time, I can calculate when the human individual can access freedom of choice at its maximum." That would be an example of you adding something useful to the world. — ucarr

This is exactly the misconception that I am trying to avoid. You are saying, instead of representing time and space in a way which allows that free will is real, let's just assume that someone, some day, will provide a way to show that determinism is true, and free will is not real. This is simply denial of the self-evident truth, which I referred to earlier, the truth of free will.

If the present is dimensionally extended, and if two different things are both in this dimensionally extended present, with one of the things overlapping this present with the past, and the other thing simply being in the present, then: a) what is the physics of the thing simultaneously in the present and the past; b) how are these two things related to each other within the present? — ucarr

I don't understand this at all.

n your context here, is movement from the past into the future a reversal of movement from the future into the past? — ucarr

It's just a different representation of the very same thing, like geocentric/heliocentric. In this case it is the determinist representation as compared to the free willist representation. One can represent either way.
But the two are incompatible so we cannot have one model which uses both, one to represent some aspects of reality, and the other to represent other aspects of reality, because things which interact between the two will be unrepresentable.

If time can move backwards in the relative sense, and yet time stays unidirectional in the true sense, are you implying time in the relative sense is something other than true? — ucarr

What I described is not "time moving backward". That is impossible. What I described is a hypothetical "thing", which could not be a natural thing, moving from the past to the future (reverse direction of time) by crossing the relational spectrum of "the present of different types of objects", essentially by moving faster against the flow of time, than the speed of the flow of time.

No, I mean that if we have to conceive of the relation between space and time in such a way as to allow that some specific objects are recreated at each moment of passing time, it wouldn't make sense to also use another conception of that relation to represent the existence of other objects. We'd have two distinct and incompatible conceptions of the relations between space and time. Imagine if someone wanted to model the earth as orbiting the sun but have the other planets and stars modeled the geocentric way. It would not work. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are there two basic premises here: a) Material existence is a continuous recreation, moment-to-moment; b) Material creation, moment-to-moment, is global, not local.

You're committing your temporal theory to a uni-directional arrow of time featuring a future that progresses to the present, and then a present that progresses to the past? — ucarr

Not really. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're hedging against a commitment to a uni-directional flow of time from the future to a dimensionally extended present?

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

Tomorrow becomes yesterday through the uni-directional arrow of time, future-to-past?

And, this activity is what is known as "the present". The real activity of this, in the assumed independent world, is what we termed "present-natural". — Metaphysician Undercover

Tomorrow becomes yesterday through the uni-directional arrow of time as the present?

What temporal structure supports the two above “Tomorrow” premises as consistent statements?

The real activity of this, in the assumed independent world, is what we termed "present-natural". — Metaphysician Undercover

Present_natural supports the uni-directional arrow of time as future-to-past, and it also supports the uni-directional arrow of time as dimensionally-extending-present?

Present_natural supports these two activities simultaneously?

However, "the present" also refers to how we represent this activity, for the sake of temporal measurement. That is "present-artificial". — Metaphysician Undercover

Present_artificial, another component of "the present," supports temporal measurement?

And these two constitute the two senses of "time", "time" as the thing measured being the former [present_natural], and "time" as a measurement being the latter [present_artificial]. — Metaphysician Undercover

Present_natural supports time as a thing-in-itself, with a uni-directional arrow of time both future-to-past and dimensionally extended present?

Present_artificial supports time as a measurement distinct from time as a thing-in-itself?

There is no need for deconstruction. The existing things as constructed simply move into the past. Imagine a "flipbook", except each page is created at the moment of the present, instead of preexisting. The page then moves into the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the "flip book," each page is created at the moment of the present, and since the present is dimensionally extended as a sequence of moments, each page created at the moment of the present is recreated across the sequence of moments?

Recreation across a sequence of moments is the same thing as persistent existence across a sequence of moments?

Existing things created at the moment of the dimensionally extended present can also move into the past as existing things created in the dimensionally extended present? The result is a past populated with existing things created in the dimensionally extended present?

As explained above. These two are incompatible. — Metaphysician Undercover

How are: a) Object A moves toward its future and b) the future moves toward Object A, its past, decidable given that time moves in both directions, albeit in two different senses (one relative and one true)? — ucarr

As explained above. These two are incompatible. It's like the difference between relative time and absolute time, or geocentric/heliocentric. We can model the world either way, but we cannot use both because there will be incompatibility where the two overlap. So we cannot, in one inclusive model, represent object A in both ways. — Metaphysician Undercover

In saying we can (correctly) model the world either way, you're basing your faith in the correctness of absolute time on New Age Physics? Since absolute time encompasses the entire world, then relative time, being incompatible, cannot coexist with it. So you must be proposing a multiverse containing two incompatible universes. Isn't such a multiverse a contradiction? Please click on the link below.

New Age Physics

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

If your above quote tells us, in effect (although not explicitly), that the future approaches the present, then it tells us that simultaneously the present approaches the future because the position of the two things, relative to each other, changes. Since a dimensionally extended present supports such a relativistic approach bi-directional (whereas a theoretical point of zero dimensions present doesn't), doesn't that stalemate your future-to-past arrow of time into undecidability?

It's like the difference between relative time and absolute time, or geocentric/heliocentric. We can model the world either way, but we cannot use both because there will be incompatibility where the two overlap. So we cannot, in one inclusive model, represent object A in both ways. — Metaphysician Undercover

If the present is dimensionally extended, and if two different things are both in this dimensionally extended present, with one of the things overlapping this present with the past, and the other thing simply being in the present, then: a) what is the physics of the thing simultaneously in the present and the past; b) how are these two things related to each other within the present? — ucarr

I don't understand this at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you don't at all understand what I'm asking above, then this might be evidence you, no less than I, have a fundamental problem with the rolling out of your theory in the fullness of its detail. You, like I, appear to be struggling to achieve a clear and full comprehension of some possibly important ramifications of the details of your theory. Take another look at what you posted earlier:

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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... — Metaphysician Undercover

I think a dimensionally extended present - it contains a future_present_past timeline - entails nesting a second temporal timeline within a larger structure that also has a future_present_past timeline. This larger structure is the temporal timeline: future_present_past, including in its present, the second, nested future_present_past timeline. This multi-tiered complexity implies physical relationships whose questions about which you don't understand at all.

Give me an example of a duration without math and without observation of a material object changing its position in space. — ucarr

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

If the Planck time is the shortest possible time duration, then half of that duration doesn't exist, so it can't be an example of time independent of a material object changing its position in space. Moreover, by this same argument, the Planck time duration limit cements the existing bond between a material object changing its position in space and its math measurement. Again, by this same argument, your claim time exists independent of material objects and their math measurement renders it immaterial.

What I described is not "time moving backward". That is impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

For example, Jan 5 is in the future before it is in the past. The flow of time has that portion of time named as Jan 5, in the future prior to it being in the past. This requires a sort of reifying of time, such that the day which we know as Jan 5 (that portion of time), can have a proper place "in time". — Metaphysician Undercover

All of your language above implies an arrow of time moving backwards from the future towards the present (since it's dimensional) and then to the past. If the language is figurative, then it only refers to an abstract idea of time, and not to a physically real time.

In saying we can (correctly) model the world either way, you're basing your faith in the correctness of absolute time on New Age Physics? Since absolute time encompasses the entire world, then relative time, being incompatible, cannot coexist with it. So you must be proposing a multiverse containing two incompatible universes. Isn't such a multiverse a contradiction? Please click on the link below. — ucarr

As I said, I'm basing my faith in what I believe to be a self- evident truth, free will. I don't see how this relates to multiverses.

Please click on the link below.

New Age Physics — ucarr

This theory is actually very different from mine. There is a sort of starting premise which is similar to one of mine, what I said about the passing of time being a force, the future forces itself upon us. Here's the similar statement from the New Age Physics article:

One crucial component of my ‘Theory of Universal Absolutivity’, is that the flow of Time is the source of all kinetic energy because it enables all movement. This becomes very apparent when not ‘at rest’, i.e. when subject to a force other than just the forward progression of Time. Owing to the curvature of space created by the Earth’s mass, all human beings experience the ‘force’ of gravity, that being the Earth’s resistance to our continual forward momentum through space-time towards the centre of the Earth. We still progress through the universe at exactly the same speed of Absolute-Time – (there is no other option!) – but we are in resistance to this speed because we are not in an inertial frame of reference. So, for example, when we walk up stairs, or sharply change direction in a car, the additional pressure we experience is our increased resistance to vectors of Absolute-Time.

The big difference though, is that the New Age theory does not take the very important premise of free will. It is the premise of free will which makes the future to past flow of time evident, as we seek the means to avoid being swept into the past (the means to survival), by the force of the future becoming the past. The other thing which the New Age theory doesn't provide, which is necessitated by free will, is the multi-dimensional present.

The issue of free will is what makes time relevant to the op.

If you don't at all understand what I'm asking above, then this might be evidence you, no less than I, have a fundamental problem with the rolling out of your theory in the fullness of its detail. You, like I, appear to be struggling to achieve a clear and full comprehension of some possibly important ramifications of the details of your theory. Take another look at what you posted earlier: — ucarr

Yeah sure, I agree with this. As I said, time is a very difficult subject which no one has a good understanding of. And of course, that includes me.

I think a dimensionally extended present - it contains a future_present_past timeline - entails nesting a second temporal timeline within a larger structure that also has a future_present_past timeline. — ucarr

You are not understanding the breadth of time at all. Start with this. How long is the present? That depends on context. The present might be 2025, a full year, it might be this week, today, this hour, this second, etc.. This way of determining the length of the present is completely dependent on one's purpose, so we can say it's arbitrary. Another way, to simply stipulate that the present is a dimensionless point between past and future, is demonstrably unreal, as we've discussed.

So, I propose that there is a true, non-arbitrary breadth of the present. So, not only do we have an arrow of time, the flow of time, but that arrow is not one-dimensional, it has a second dimension, breadth, the arrow has thickness. This is necessary to avoid the falsity of "the point of the present", and the arbitrariness of a duration of "the present".

This larger structure is the temporal timeline: future_present_past, including in its present, the second, nested future_present_past timeline. This multi-tiered complexity implies physical relationships whose questions about which you don't understand at all. — ucarr

So this is irrelevant being based in that misunderstanding.

If the Planck time is the shortest possible time duration, then half of that duration doesn't exist, so it can't be an example of time independent of a material object changing its position in space. — ucarr

The Planck length is not the shortest possible time duration, nor did I say that it is. I said its the "shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world". Notice the difference. The limit here is imposed by the restrictions to empirical observation. However, it is not a logical restriction. A shorter time period is still logically possible. Just because we do not currently have the capacity to observe it, does not mean that we ought to rule it out as a logical possibility.

Give me an example of a duration without math and without observation of a material object changing its position in space. — ucarr

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

If the Planck time is the shortest possible time duration, then half of that duration doesn't exist, so it can't be an example of time independent of a material object changing its position in space. Moreover, by this same argument, the Planck time duration limit cements the existing bond between a material object changing its position in space and its math measurement. Again, by this same argument, your claim time exists independent of material objects and their math measurement renders it immaterial. — ucarr

The Planck length is not the shortest possible time duration, nor did I say that it is. I said its the "shortest period of time which provides for observation of the physical world". Notice the difference. The limit here is imposed by the restrictions to empirical observation. However, it is not a logical restriction. A shorter time period is still logically possible. Just because we do not currently have the capacity to observe it, does not mean that we ought to rule it out as a logical possibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Firstly, I asked you to give me an example of a duration without math and without observation of a material object changing its position in space. Instead, you ask me to imagine (along with you) half a Planck time. A conjecture, which has a measure of scientific and logical formalism, falls short of an example, which is evidence from the real world. The act of imagination you invite me join as proof of time's independence from measurement doesn't even have the nascent persuasiveness of a conjecture.

Secondly, even if we grant the existence of half a Planck time, such a reality of Planck time means material objects occupying that space, so how does that show time's independence from measurement via math tracking the change of position of a material object in space? It doesn't.

Your two closing lines indicate you are making your argument for time's independence by knowingly imagining something unreal and thus devoid of material objects. Of course, this argument also doesn't work, because, as I've said, unreal things don't count as evidence.

Thirdly, if we assume future technology will empower observation of material reality below the Planck scale, then continuing on this path, which you argue for logically, we make an ever more close approach to the present moment as a theoretical vanishing point with zero dimensions. I think this is the third time that your attempt to argue for your theory has you instead arguing for its refutation.

You're committing your temporal theory to a uni-directional arrow of time featuring a future that progresses to the present, and then a present that progresses to the past? — ucarr

Not really. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time is unidirectional, future to past. This is an activity of the world, what we know as the future becoming the past, The day named as "tomorrow" becomes the day named as "yesterday" through this activity, this process of the future becoming the past. And, this activity is what is known as "the present". The real activity of this, in the assumed independent world, is what we termed "present-natural" — Metaphysician Undercover

You're hedging against a firm commitment to a uni-directional flow of time from the future to a dimensionally extended present. This is evidence components of your theory are inconsistent and contrary. Therefore, as you face a variety of refutations, you waffle between different positions according whatever you think the best defense in the moment. — ucarr

Your attempt to spin away from the present as zero dimensional doesn't work because your uni-directional time, future to past is just a word game. It has no effect whatsoever upon physical spacetime. We all know this because we all know that all we ever experience in reality is our asymptotically close approach to the present moment of time, and that's the very near past chasing the very near present. When you declare that tomorrow is prior to today in time, you always make this declaration in the nearly present moment. Our thoughts are not prior to our position in time, regardless of the word games we play. Even if it's true our minds make decisions before our conscious awareness of them, the neuronal activity at the subconscious level is still the near past chasing the near present. The arrow of time for the real, physical time is the near past chasing the near present.

So, I propose that there is a true, non-arbitrary breadth of the present. So, not only do we have an arrow of time, the flow of time, but that arrow is not one-dimensional, it has a second dimension, breadth, the arrow has thickness. This is necessary to avoid the falsity of "the point of the present", and the arbitrariness of a duration of "the present". — Metaphysician Undercover

If the arrow of time has breadth, then it is an area and not a line. How does this change time's operations within the context of relativity, which shows us some of its operations in three dimensions? You also say time has thickness; that means the arrow of time has three dimensions. Does your arrow of time merge into relativity?

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

You're reaching towards a logical structure for design, which is the intentions of the self organized logically, and thus configured as an executable plan towards realization of goals. Design calls for illuminating visuals including charts, graphs, tables, etc.

Teleodynamics. Please click the link.

The other thing which the New Age theory doesn't provide, which is necessitated by free will, is the multi-dimensional present. — Metaphysician Undercover

This larger structure is the temporal timeline: future_present_past, including in its present, the second, nested future_present_past timeline. This multi-tiered complexity implies physical relationships whose questions about which you don't understand at all. — ucarr

You are not understanding the breadth of time at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

So this [ucarr quote immediately above] is irrelevant being based in that misunderstanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your desire to expand the present tense (of the timeline) positions you to explain how your reversal of the arrow of time doesn't also reverse the direction of entropy. Sticking with future_present_past weds you to: the cracked egg reassembles itself. This is a tall - but, no. It's not a tall order because you have no desire to reverse the direction of entropy. This is evidence either you know your reversal of the arrow of time is a word game that doesn't touch physical time, or you're inadvertently flipping-flopping between two glaring inconsistencies: a) time moves toward the past; b) increasing disorder, acting in time, moves toward the future. When you have these two arrows going in opposite directions, you end up saying complex nature moves towards simplicity, whereas increasing disorder moves toward complexity. The arrows of time and entropy must agree, otherwise your world is mishegoss.

Complex time, with nested higher-orders of the timeline, might be something both possible and desirable. Putting it across to the reader won't likely happen without visual aids, and those entail a lot of hard work with the unfudgeable precision of math.

Firstly, I asked you to give me an example of a duration without math and without observation of a material object changing its position in space. Instead, you ask me to imagine (along with you) half a Planck time. A conjecture, which has a measure of scientific and logical formalism, falls short of an example, which is evidence from the real world. The act of imagination you invite me join as proof of time's independence from measurement doesn't even have the nascent persuasiveness of a conjecture.

Secondly, even if we grant the existence of half a Planck time, such a reality of Planck time means material objects occupying that space, so how does that show time's independence from measurement via math tracking the change of position of a material object in space? It doesn't.

Your two closing lines indicate you are making your argument for time's independence by knowingly imagining something unreal and thus devoid of material objects. Of course, this argument also doesn't work, because, as I've said, unreal things don't count as evidence.

Thirdly, if we assume future technology will empower observation of material reality below the Planck scale, then continuing on this path, which you argue for logically, we make an ever more close approach to the present moment as a theoretical vanishing point with zero dimensions. I think this is the third time that your attempt to argue for your theory has you instead arguing for its refutation. — ucarr

To be clear. My example was time passing without any change occurring. I said "imagine what it means for time to pass, then imagine this happening without anything in the world changing". I then referred to Planck time to demonstrate that my example is logically possible. The example is not "unreal" as the Planck time demonstration shows. Therefore all of this criticism is misguided and not at all relevant.

our attempt to spin away from the present as zero dimensional doesn't work because your uni-directional time, future to past is just a word game. It has no effect whatsoever upon physical spacetime. We all know this because we all know that all we ever experience in reality is our asymptotically close approach to the present moment of time, and that's the very near past chasing the very near present. When you declare that tomorrow is prior to today in time, you always make this declaration in the nearly present moment. Our thoughts are not prior to our position in time, regardless of the word games we play. Even if it's true our minds make decisions before our conscious awareness of them, the neuronal activity at the subconscious level is still the near past chasing the near present. The arrow of time for the real, physical time is the near past chasing the near present. — ucarr

There is no such thing as "physical spacetime". Spacetime is conceptual. And none of this makes any sense. Your reference to "near past", and "near present" are incoherent. What could you be referring to with this other than "future"? But that would mean that you are saying that all we ever experience is the future. But that's my proposal, that we experience the future as near to the past, and you want to be arguing against my proposal. So this argument makes no sense at all.

If the arrow of time has breadth, then it is an area and not a line. How does this change time's operations within the context of relativity, which shows us some of its operations in three dimensions? You also say time has thickness; that means the arrow of time has three dimensions. Does your arrow of time merge into relativity? — ucarr

Relativity theory is not applicable, being an incompatible theory as I explained last post.

Your desire to expand the present tense (of the timeline) positions you to explain how your reversal of the arrow of time doesn't also reverse the direction of entropy. — ucarr

The arrow of time is not reversed! It's simply a different model. I've told you this numerous times now, but you just don't get it. Switching from the geocentric to the heliocentric model of the solar system does not change the direction that the planets move, it models the very same movement in a different way. My model does not change the arrow of time, it models it in a different way.

So your criticism about entropy is misguided and irrelevant, as is the rest of your criticism in this post.

Did you check out the teleodynamics link?