3 ms·

P1. Any given moment must be designated past, present, or future. P2. The designations "past", "present", and "future" are a true trichotomy, such that it is i

P1. Any given moment must be designated past, present, or future. P2. The designations "past", "present", and "future" are a true trichotomy, such that it is impossible for any moment to not have any of these designations. P3. The designations "past", "present", and "future" are mutually exclusive; it is impossible for a moment to be in the past and the future, the future and the present, etc. P4. According to the A-Series model of time, every moment is at some point designated future, present, and past. C. From (P3) and (P4), via reductio ad absurdum, an A-Series interpretation of time produces a contradiction. I don't buy it because (P3) is more accurately phrased "it is impossible for a moment to be in the past and the future, the future and the present, etc. simultaneously" and (P4) is better phrased "every moment is at some point designated future, present, and past, but never simultaneously", so (C) breaks down.

danbruc 11y ago
The designations "past", "present", and "future" are a true trichotomy [...] This is at least in some sense wrong - past, present and future are no absolute things but only defined relative to the moment in time one calls present and therefore there are many pasts, presents and futures. The designations "past", "present", and "future" are mutually exclusive [...] This in turn is only true if one is referring to the past, present and future defined relative to the same present. Today is in the future of yesterday and in the past of tomorrow. All in all past, present and future are binary relations, not unary ones. Mystery solved.
- kenbellows 11y ago
  > past, present and future are no absolute things but only defined relative to the moment in time one calls present and therefore there are many pasts, presents and futures. That's basically what I meant when I said "(P3) is more accurately phrased 'it is impossible for a moment to be in the past and the future, the future and the present, etc. simultaneously'". > only true if one is referring to the past, present and future defined relative to the same present. Today is in the future of yesterday and in the past of tomorrow. That's basically what I meant when I said "(P4) is better phrased 'every moment is at some point designated future, present, and past, but never simultaneously'". So yeah, I think we're on the same page :)

danbruc 11y ago

The designations "past", "present", and "future" are a true trichotomy [...] This is at least in some sense wrong - past, present and future are no absolute things but only defined relative to the moment in time one calls present and therefore there are many pasts, presents and futures. The designations "past", "present", and "future" are mutually exclusive [...] This in turn is only true if one is referring to the past, present and future defined relative to the same present. Today is in the future of yesterday and in the past of tomorrow. All in all past, present and future are binary relations, not unary ones. Mystery solved.

kenbellows 11y ago
> past, present and future are no absolute things but only defined relative to the moment in time one calls present and therefore there are many pasts, presents and futures. That's basically what I meant when I said "(P3) is more accurately phrased 'it is impossible for a moment to be in the past and the future, the future and the present, etc. simultaneously'". > only true if one is referring to the past, present and future defined relative to the same present. Today is in the future of yesterday and in the past of tomorrow. That's basically what I meant when I said "(P4) is better phrased 'every moment is at some point designated future, present, and past, but never simultaneously'". So yeah, I think we're on the same page :)