The definition of the word is agreed upon, and people use the term "present" quite frequently. If you don't believe me, you ought to look the word up.

This is clearly false. Of course people can agree on events and their timings. You and I can both look at a watch and agree that X person was at Y location at Z time.

There is of course the concept of "present" which exists, but then there is also the exact moment that the person who uses the word is referring to (which is not the concept). Just as I can have a concept of an elephant, but the elephant is not my concept.

I think you understand how the phrase "the exact moment" is used in language. You'll ask proof of what exactly? That I perceived a certain moment? I could come up with loads of evidence that I perceived something at some time, just as you can. It's obviously situational.

To be consistent, you must not believe countries, states, government or really any abstract notion exists. If I tell you Poland exists, and you responded consistent with what you were just alluding to, you would say, "Well, since there is no "exact location" which is Poland, it does not exist. Where does Poland start and end; you can provide me coordinates, but that's not enough!".

I know what Poland is, just as you do. I know what governments are, just as you do (just examples; there are plenty). And if someone says "now" or "the present", I believe you understand what they mean. More importantly, you probably could even understand what moment in time they were speaking about.

But these problems do not prevent us from knowing Poland as a whole exists. -Just fuzzy on some of the details.

So, we cannot look at our watches and agree on a "Z time", because even if our watches were 100% synchronized at one point, they will not remain so. If you think we can agree on a "Z time", it's because our watches are not precise enough to show that they are now out of sync.

I believe this to be the same for the present or any other moment in time, is what I'm saying.

Just because we don't know exactly when that moment in time is, does not mean the present or any other moment in time does not exist. If someone says, "It just happened", or "It happened now", or things like "The present day", we can understand what they mean. Just as we can understand what people mean when they say things like, "I'm going to Poland next year".

Zetherin, you're dumbing this discussion down to the colloquial, when the topic demands the admission of relativistic theory. You apparently have no knowledge of this, so as to your claim about the relativity of simultaneity being "clearly false", I will direct you here:

Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing about the theory of relativity discredits, or is even contrary, to what I've stated. If you believe this to be not true, please explain how.

According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

With measuring the present, there is only one criteria relevant to this disagreement, that being when it is. There is only one detail, and we have no way of knowing what it is.

Please see below:


Two people checking their watches do not occupy the same space.

I'm talking about a single detail in regards to Poland - its spatial detail. I'm also talking about a single detail in regards to the present - its temporal detail. For us to understand either, mathematics is irrelevant.

I can explain to you the present, just as I can explain to you where Poland is. And I'm more than sure you would understand what I mean.

Suppose a professor says, "Hand in your tests now". What on earth would you think he/she meant? Would you consider that the professor wants you to hand in your paper next Tuesday, or wanted you to hand in your paper last Tuesday? Of course not - you'd know quite well what the professor meant.

Perhaps you should read my posts. I've noted more than one time that us not knowing when something takes place "in an absolute sense", is irrelevant. I've also explained why. (in fact, I think I said almost exactly this).

This is one of those times that philosophers try to make complicated what is not complicated. Some people think that if something has a simple answer, or is not profound enough, it is not true or philosophical. But this is of course false.

Nothing about the theory of relativity discredits, or is even contrary, to what I've stated. If you believe this to be not true, please explain how.

This is clearly false. Of course people can agree on events and their timings. You and I can both look at a watch and agree that X person was at Y location at Z time.

The professor would be referring to a time shortly in the future. For however long I am handing him the test, I am experiencing an event partially in the past and partially in the future.

Because the future is a duration of length 0, it might as well not exist at all.

Nothing about the theory of relativity discredits, or is even contrary, to what I've stated. If you believe this to be not true, please explain how.

If you had read the article, you would know that it discredits that statement.

I thought you just conceded a moment ago that the past and future do not exist? Stop talking about the past and future existing if you don't think the present doesn't exist. That makes no sense. The past and future are comparatives, as I noted earlier; you need a starting point before saying it happened before or after.



Not sure where you're going with this.

My friend, you're confusing yourself. This is not a complicated matter. Please don't do this to yourself.

Once again, that we cannot know with absolute mathematical precision time X, does not mean either A.) Time X does not exist, or B.) That we cannot understand when time X is. Time X of course exists, and we can understand what time one is referring to.

For instance, if I tell you to be at a meeting at X time, don't you understand what I mean? You really don't believe people can plan out their schedules and arrange meetings with other people at specific times? You're really serious about this?

If you're being sincere with me, I'm astonished. And I do mean that honestly. It is a wonder to me how you function everyday, or how on earth you could even hold a job. I can imagine your manager saying "Be in tomorrow at 9am", and you sitting there with a bewildered look on your face.

I feel that the past and future exist, but for lack of a present they might as well be the same thing.

Please, we're all adults here, I'd appreciate it if you don't talk down to me.

I revoke your license to play dumb online, but then use reason in everyday life.

A present need exist for there to be a past and future. Like I said, what you are stating is akin to someone saying the number three doesn't exist, but yet there are numbers greater and less than three. In saying that the past and future exist, you are implying that the present exists!

When did I talk down to you? There was no harsh tone; I truly believe you are confusing yourself and over-complicating this matter. That is not an insult. It's not even a judgment of your intelligence. It is criticism that you should consider.

If you're being sincere with me, I'm astonished. And I do mean that honestly. It is a wonder to me how you function everyday, or how on earth you could even hold a job. I can imagine your manager saying "Be in tomorrow at 9am", and you sitting there with a bewildered look on your face.

I revoke your license to play dumb online, but then use reason in everyday life.

DaMunky,

It looks like you won't be finding any philosophy on the nature of time here, unfortunately. Just preaching. But you might be interested in the following essay by McTaggart around a century ago called "The Unreality of Time". It doesn't exactly work with relativity, but it's an interesting argument:

The Unreality of Time

Time (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I'm stating that because they are not separated, they are the same thing. Time. But you can apply labels to time, and the labels I choose to use are either 'past' or 'future' depending on my perceptions. By doing this I imply that the concept of the present exists, but I do not imply that the present itself exists.

Things like this, for example, are wholly unnecessary, and come across as personal attacks:

It looks like you won't be finding any philosophy on the nature of time here, unfortunately. Just preaching.

I'm stating that because they are not separated, they are the same thing. Time. But you can apply labels to time, and the labels I choose to use are either 'past' or 'future' depending on my perceptions. By doing this I imply that the concept of the present exists, but I do not imply that the present itself exists.

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion".

There's nothing wrong with that. Stop being so sensitive. It really would astonish me if he had no understanding of time arrangements. I'm sure it would astonish you too. The fact of the matter the both of you understand what past, present, and future mean. And you even schedule things in your daily lives.

If you're referring to me, what am I preaching? That people are able to follow schedules and acknowledge that there are moments of time? I guess I'm just fanatical, don't mind me!

So, if the present is "a span of time zero seconds long", it effectively doesn't exist. Additional consequence: without the present to separate the past and the future, they become one distinguishable interval, which I choose to refer to simply as 'time'. My conclusion is that all moments in time are equally real.