Yea Zeth, I know how a clock works, and I know that the business world goes by its number of revolutions per day. Implying that I did not understand this was obviously some sort of attempt at an insult to my intelligence, but I'm not so easily offended.
I'm not talking down to you. I'm pointing out the obvious so that you may realize how absurd the things you are saying are.
I understand how things can be interpreted negatively on here, but please try not to assume some kind of belittling tone. It's definitely not present (haha, present) here. What I'm saying is sincere, and I honestly think people use "philosophizing" to mask and make more complicated simple issues.
And he's right; that distinction hasn't been correct since Einstein's relativity theories were published and tested.
You've yet to explain how the theory of relativity supersedes or is contrary to the popular understanding of time (that is, past, present, and future). Sorry, I just can't find anything within the link you posted which isn't compatible with what I've said.
The fact is, we only perceive events that have already occurred.
We perceive things when they occur, and that moment is the present. We can reflect on the things that occur, after they occur, and that is a reflection of the past. We can also predict things which will occur, and that is a forecasting of the future. Moreover, like I said, it is nonsensical to speak of the past or future and at the same time deny that the present exists; refer to my "number three" analogy.
If we can't agree on anything about the present, then, as I've already said, it's merely a subjective, abstract notion like God
"Country" is also an abstract object
(I assume this is what you're referring to). But we know that something being a country is not subjective. I can't just say, "Hey, guys, this plot of land in my backyard is a new country!". We have
agreed on those conditions which make a body of land a country, and we can distinguish between countries and non-countries. We also have agreed on what the present is, what the future is, and what the past is.
So, I don't understand why you think that since something is abstract, we can't have a definitive understanding of said thing. We very often do.
Oh, and that analogy with Poland is entirely erroneous.
Well, I think it demonstrates two things:
1.) We do not need an exacting or all-inclusive definition of a thing to understand what a thing is. Another example is "game". In other words, though I can't give you an absolutely mathematical precise time that something happened, or provide you an exacting definition which describes "present", I can still give you a time, and you can still understand what moment it is that I'm referring to.
2.) A thing can still exist (like the country Poland), even though we may not perceive it. The country Poland would exist no matter if I knew about or not, or if I had perceived anything in Poland or not. Similarly, moments exist no matter if I know about them or not, or if I perceive them or not. (This is relevant because you keep focusing on us perceiving being the problem)