Announcements

1
Announcements

• For Tuesdays class please read Russell Chapters
  1-5, 9-10 we are going to skip 15.
• First Essay is due on Tuesdays class

2
McTaggarts The Unreality of Time

• The A series past/present/future
• Includes the far past, near past, present, near
  future etc.
• The B series the earlier than/ later than
  relation
• Following Mellor we can define this series as the
  series of dates 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
  2006 etc.

3
McTaggarts The Unreality of Time

• The B series relations are transitive and
  asymmetrical
• transitive if A is earlier than B and B is
  earlier than C then A is earlier than C
• asymmetrical it is not the case that if A is
  earlier than B then B is earlier than A that
  would be a symmetrical relation

4
McTaggarts The Unreality of Time

• Since the A series involves tenses past tense,
  present tense, future tense we can call this
  the tensed view of time
• Since the B series doesnt involve such tenses
  only the earlier than/ later than relation
  and/or dates - we can refer to this as the
  tenseless view of time

5
McTaggarts The Unreality of Time

• The tenseless view of time appears more
  fundamental and objective
• Why? Because the tensed view of time seems to
  require a subject and therefore appears to be
  merely subjective past to whom?
  Past/present/future appears relative to us
  whereas dates are permanent and thereby appears
  more objective and real

6
McTaggarts The Unreality of Time

• Characteristic of the B series tenseless view
  of time its relations are permanent
• If A is earlier than B then this is forever so
• May 9, 2005 was earlier than June 9, 2005 period
• By contrast the A series is not characterized
  by its permanency an event occurring now will
  become past, near past, far past. A future event
  will become closer and closer

7
The Fundamental Series

• So is the B series more fundamental and real?
• No - it is actually the A series that is
  fundamental for time
• The argument
• Change is essential for time
• i.e., if nothing ever changes, if nothing ever
  became different, then we would not be able to
  state or understand A became B before C became
  D and after E became F

8
The Fundamental Series

• Without such changes there would be no situations
  in which before and after could be used or
  even understood
• Since change is essential for time our question
  then becomes Is there change in the B series?
• No. This relates to the permanency
  characteristic we mentioned above
• M is earlier than N which is earlier than O MltNltO

9
The Fundamental Series

• Such relations are permanent M,N,O are points
  in time in the B series and such relations are
  static and permanent
• But M changed into N at a certain moment
• Yes, but introducing at a certain moment is
  introducing a now, a present in other words,
  introducing a tense
• Such tenses are not part of the tenseless view of
  time

10
An analogy

• How should we think of this argument?
• Think of the B series as a map without a you are
  here symbol
• (1) without the symbol is the map useful to us?
  No. But that may be just subjective. It is
  after all an objective and complete
  representation of spatial relations

11
An analogy

• BUT when we move from Mississauga Road to Bay
  Street (maybe that is a trip some of you are
  planning to make) is there any travel in the
  map qua map? No, the map is as it is. WE are
  moving our finger along the map and that is the
  travel that is being done but there is no such
  travel in the map itself as an accurate
  representation of spatial relations

12
An analogy

• Map B series
• Travel change
• In keeping with our analogy, in the second part
  of McTaggarts article where he argues that time
  is unreal, one of the basic points of his
  argument or so I shall argue - will be that
  whereas in a map you can give a complete and
  accurate representation of spatial relations
  hence, real and objective there is no such map
  of time

13
An analogy

• Time, in contrast to spatial relations, will
  require a you are here symbol in order to be
  made sense of
• All to come
• Therefore, change requires the A series
• How to think of change with respect to time and
  the A series?
• Event you writing the test on June 9 (McT.s
  example the death of Queen Anne)

14
Time and Change

• Event you writing the test on June 9
• All the characteristics of this test writing are
  stamped in time felt confident/needed more
  time/studied too much/little.
• Event now and forever was on June 9
• Let x represent the test being written

15
Time and Change
16
Time and Change

• Where do we see the change in this table?
• In column B the B series - there is no change
  May 20 is ALWAYS later than May 9 and earlier
  than June 9 by the same constant unchanging
  intervals these dates as points on a line do not
  alter
• In the A column the A series we note change
  in the changing tenses was distant future, near
  future, present, past, etc. -quote from p.13

17
Time and Change

• Or to continue with our map analogy you are the
  you are here symbol, the temporal frame of
  reference, in the test being written while the
  dates remain fixed and unchanged
• As you travel, come closer to the event change
  occurs
• However, the key point is that it is only in the
  A series with such a reference point whereby
  past/present/future can be articulated, within
  the river of time itself can change occur

18
Time and Change

• Change is the changing tense of things and events
  moving from the past to the present to the future
• Points on a line as we find in the B series do
  not change such points are just located at
  different parts of the B series i.e., a poker
  analogy
• Such ever changing tenses define the earlier
  than/later than relation itself
• Therefore, the B series is derived from the A
  series

19
Some Conclusions

• Therefore, no A series --- no change
• Therefore, B series is not sufficient to
  constitute time given that change is essential to
  time
• Therefore, B series as a temporal series is
  dependent upon the A series
• Therefore, if the A series is incoherent then
  time is incoherent and unreal

20
Three Objections

• (1) Russell
• Past/present/future belongs only to the subject
• Makes sense in the analogy above I have stated
  that you are the you are here symbol
• Past/present/ future are token reflexive
• Defn terms such as I, here, now whose
  essential occurrence in a sentence renders that
  sentence capable of bearing different truth
  values according to the circumstances of utterance

21
Three Objections continued

• Examples Today is sunny, I am at UTM, I am
  at UTS etc.
• Russell such token reflexives does not belong
  to time
• No subjects/ human beings events could still be
  earlier than/ later than each other
• Implicit also if we wish to give an objective
  complete description of reality we cannot
  tolerate constant fluctuating truth values
  i.e., the map

22
Three Objections continued

• Russells idea to think of change as difference
  in truth values
• The test is being written as asserted on May 9
  False
• The test is being written as asserted on June 9
  True
• Note change in truth values therefore, change
• A relation between a proposition, date (B series)
  and truth value

23
Three Objections Continued

• Note in such a relation no seeming mention of
  the A series, tenses just the proposition, date
  (B series) and truth value
• McTaggarts response his poker example or in
  our example such truth values whether T or
  F are eternally true or false they are thus
  fixed and unchanging
• The test is being written as asserted on May 9
  False and always, eternally false

24
Three Objections Continued

• The test is being written as asserted on June 9
  True and always, eternally, true
• Therefore, whence the change? These facts in (1)
  and (2) never, and will never, change
• But the change is in the in-between (1) and (2)
  when I assert it on May 9 as opposed to when I
  assert it on June 9
• Quite right but now notice the return of the
  subject, the I, the you are here point!

25
Three Objections Continued

• The change is captured in the as asserted and
  now we are back in the A series
• The as asserted the proposition as sometimes
  T sometimes F is where change happens
• Yet in such a listing of dates with these fixed
  truth values we are not going to get a sometimes
  T, sometimes F phenomena
• Russell doesnt want any such ambiguity always
  true/ always false therefore, as always no
  change

26
Three Objections Continued

• Second Objection Non-existent time series the
  adventures of Don Quixote
• Don Quixote as fictional cannot be said by us
  to be past/present/future
• But as we read the book we grasp without this the
  earlier than/later than relation as temporal
• Therefore, B-series is all we need

27
Three Objections Continued

• McTaggarts Response (1) why are we talking
  about anon-existent time series to prove the
  existence of time? No sense
• weak hypothetical thought experiments
  including fiction elicits truth? It is precisely
  the role of the imaginary to bring real things
  to light. If in our reading of fiction we can
  grasp temporal relations without the A series,
  then the A series is not fundamental, essential
  or necessary for time regardless of the fact that
  it is fiction.

28
Three Objections Continued

• Second Response better our grasp of these
  adventures can only be in the A-series as if
  they really happened (15) here I may be
  strengthening McTaggart a little beyond what he
  literally says but only a little
• All that is real i.e., Cervantes mind when he
  invented the story is in the A - series

29
Three Objections Continued

• Several Real and independent time series
• The argument p.15
• Present is a marker only on each line, within
  each line
• Yet our ability to distinguish such presents is
  not as successive yet, we can still distinguish
  them
• But the present can only be real if it is
  successive

30
Three Objections Continued

• The different time series are real
• Therefore, these different time series must exist
  independently of past/present/future
• McTaggarts response in our overview of such
  time lines, there is no present since the present
  can only be successive
• But what is time without the present therefore,
  there is no time from such an overview

31
Three Objections Continued

• Our mistake was to derive certain characteristics
  of the overview itself and impute them on each of
  the members - which is the real time series
• The way McTaggart responds does strike one as
  simply begging the question what is being
  challenged is precisely whether we can grasp the
  present non-successively as this objection
  states
• However, one fruitful manner of understanding
  this response maybe strengthening it.

32
Three Objections Continued

• In some informal logic textbooks there is a
  fallacy called division where one aspect of
  this fallacy is to argue fallaciously from the
  attributes of a collection of elements to the
  attributes of the elements themselves

33
Three Objections Continued

• For example, university students collectively
  study medicine, law, engineering, philosophy,
  dentistry etc. therefore, each student
  individually studies medicine, law, engineering,
  philosophy etc.
• It doesnt follow.
• With this objection we see a similar structure
  (albeit not quite identical) collectively the
  present of these time series which we
  understand and are real can be understood
  non-successively and yet the present can only be
  the present successively

34
Three Objections Continued

• Therefore, we can understand individually each of
  these time series without the distinction between
  past, present, and future
• Here we see double division (I) the alleged
  incompatibility between the collective present
  non-successive- and the individual present
  successive an incompatibility only b/c we have
  fallaciously juxtaposed the characteristics of
  the collection and the individual elements

35
Three Objections Continued

• And (II) the inference that since collectively we
  can understand the present as not the present we
  can understand individually each time series
  without the present
• Is it any surprise that McTaggart returns the
  discussion to what must be true of the individual
  case

36
Concluding Remarks of First Part

• After answering such objections
• We conclude, then, that the distinctions of the
  past, present, and future are essential to time,
  and that, if the distinctions are never true of
  reality, then no reality is in time (16)
• Now McTaggart has to show that the A series
  involves a contradiction and therefore, time is
  unreal
• Stay Tuned - Cheers

37
(No Transcript)
38
Outside the Time Series

• p. 16
• Changing relations of the A-series must be in
  relation to something outside the time series
• Why? Relations between members of the time
  series do not change so if there is going to be
  changing relations from the past to the present
  to the future such change cannot be captured via
  time

39
Whats going on?

• Havent we defined the A-series which we were
  told is a temporal series, as ever-changing
  tenses from past to present to future havent
  we concluded that past, present and future are
  essential to time(16)?
• Furthermore, doesnt McTaggarts argument that
  Two events are exactly in the same places in the
  time series relatively to one another sound an
  awfully lot like the B-series of time?

40
Whats Going On?

• But the A-series is supposed to be different?
• So whats going on? Dont we have a right to be
  upset?
• The support (1) Accentuate the exclusively in
  the paragraph
• Change is the changing tense of things and events
  moving from future to past
• Change is first of all the successive presence of
  earlier and later things and events

41
The support

• But time itself doesnt change i.e., borrowing
  an argument from J.J.C. Smart (1949) it makes
  sense to say How fast are you driving? 60km/hr.
  It doesnt make sense to ask How fast is time?
  How fast did time flow? I am advancing
  through time at how many seconds per - ? What do
  we fill in the blank with? What sort of units?
  How fast is a second? A second is a secondgt

42
Support

• Of course McTaggart and Smart are wrong here
  excusable for McTaggart. The special theory of
  relativity teaches us that time is relative to
  motion and with the speed of light as constant we
  have the interesting result that we can indeed
  ask how fast is time moving relative to an
  observer who acts as a fixed reference point,
  interchangeably so with other observers (constant
  velocity)

43
Support

• And with the general theory of relativity (no
  longer with constant velocity but with
  accelerated motion and gravity which is
  conceptualized in terms of such motion and
  ultimately in terms of the warping of space and
  time) due to gravitational forces we likewise
  can ask how fast is time moving though now
  there is no interchangeability of observers
  time slows down period with greater gravitational
  force for all concerned i.e, the Twins Paradox
  only a paradox if you.

44
Support

• have an absolute conception of time.
• Even though everyone has their own time clock,
  the order of causally related events doesnt
  change
• And though some events are past for one observer
  and future for another there is no time travel to
  the past though it is theoretically possible to
  travel into the future.
• We do not need to delve into these matters for
  our purposes though McTaggart is incorrect on
  this point, it doesnt mean that he can be
  written off

45
Support

• Logical Problems still remain
• (2) The Objective View
• The problem again with token reflexives.
• Later McTaggart will say that the A-series must
  be objective (20) and thereby real. What is
  his model of reality here? What does he mean by
  objective?
• A complete description and representation

46
Support

• Thus, time doesnt change though the tenses of
  things and events do
• Thus, if there is to be such changing tenses it
  must be relative to something outside of time
• But why accept this model of reality?
  Objectivity?

47
The Regress/Contradiction Argument

• (1) No event can be simultaneously past, present
  and future
• (2) But in specifying/defining the tenses all
  three determinations apply to every event
• (3) Thus, the A series leads us into a
  contradiction

48
The Argument

• You wrote your test on June 9 its past.
• During your writing of it its present
• On May 27 its future
• Therefore, the event of your test writing is
  past, present and future to this event all
  three time determinations apply
• Yet no event can be simultaneously past, present
  and future these are incompatible predicates
• Thus the A-series involves us in a contradiction

49
Rebuttal

• Such Silliness the event does not have the
  simple predicates past, present and future
  but rather we say if we are writing the test now
  that it will be past, is present and was
  future So where is the problem
• That now has clarified the meaning of our tenses
  that can be grasped. But..

50
McTaggarts Formulation

• X has been Y X to be Y at a moment of past
  time
• X will be Y X to be Y at a moment of future
  time
• X is Y X to be Y at a moment of present
  time
• These are the meanings of these terms. Note in
  clarifying such meanings and equivalences we are
  committed to a moment of past time, a moment
  of future time, a moment of the present

51
McTaggarts Formulation

• We are now back to our original problem moments
  like events cannot be past, present and future
  if a moment is present there is NO moment of past
  time at which it is past

52
Another way of saying the same thing

• We have specified the present as will be past,
  is present, was (or has been) future
• How do we specify the future with such
  predicates will be present, is future, will be
  future
• How do we specify the past with such predicates
  was past, was present, is past
• Since our new specification of the present
  includes past, present and future and with
  our new specification we have generated these
  predicates..

53
Another way of saying the same thing

• we have given the corresponding specifications
  of future and past what we observe is
• (1) Instead of the three predicates of
  past/present/future we now have nine
• (2) Each one of these predicates applies to
  every event why? We have specified/defined that
  what the present really means is will be past
  is present and was future these predicates
  are supposed to clarify the meaning of the
  present.

54
Another way of saying the same thing

• They are our new and improved temporal
  predicates. But then they are to clarify the
  meanings of the future and the past as well and
  once we have such clarified meanings we insert
  them back into our original hence, nine
  predicates applying to the same event. Also, we
  can add that because of the way tense always
  changes any event that has one of these nine
  tenses has them all.

55
Another way of saying the same thing

• (3) Some of these predicates are incompatible
  i.e., was past and will be future yet they
  apply to the same event therefore, once again a
  contradiction
• Rebuttal to introduce succession once again
  into our terms I didnt say or mean was past
  in my original specification I meant is going
  to have been past . I didnt say or mean will
  be future rather was going to be future

56
Another way of saying the same thing

• Or in the terms of our example I said will be
  past so if you are going to insert the past
  specifications/definitions in the right place it
  becomes instead will be was past, will be was
  present will be was future and so on
• We now have a nine predicate specification/definit
  ion of what is meant by the present this then
  generates 27 new temporal predicates and so on .

57
The Problem

• The regress is viscous because one is left at a
  contradiction at every stage the contradiction
  is removed at each stage by introducing once
  again succession
• But having now introduced the required succession
  we wish to consider that the job has been done
  and we have defined our tensed terms in a
  tenseless dictionary fashion, an objective
  account. But at each stage we have generated new
  just as valid and contradictory temporal
  predicates

58
The Problem

• The problem trying to specify in tensed terms
  the meaning of tense we are trying to specify
  THE meaning of now in such a way that its grasp
  can be fixed with a permanent and eternal truth
  value and given in a dictionary type definition
  with no appearance of token reflexive terms
  itself. We wish to capture the successive
  character of time itself WITHOUT an index or a
  you are here point And that we cannot do.
  Such an indexical character is essential to time.

59
The Problem

• It seems clear that if time is real and not
  purely subjective then it must be objective
• And this suggests being able to give a complete
  description a Gods eye view
• Think back to our map analogy the map can give
  a complete description of spatial relations
• What about for time? No.
• A description of events as taking place in time
  is impossible unless temporally token-reflexive
  expressions enter into it.

60
The Problem

• That is, unless the description is given by
  someone who is herself in that time
• If we are going to describe a sequence of events
  as a sequence it must ALWAYS be possible to say
  and now the now point is needed
• But suppose we have a model, a map, of the whole
  course of events to be observed at once and at
  will
• A four dimensional model three spatial and a
  time axis

61
The Problem

• It is now clear however that what she observes in
  such a model can only be a model of the sequence
  of events in our three dimensional space and NOT
  the sequence of events themselves
• (To borrow an analogy from Dummett here) The
  fourth dimension can no more be identified with
  time than a road down which someone travels can
  be identified with the time that passes as she
  travels it

62
The Problem

• Just observe the four dimensional model static
• But if he observes our passage through time what
  he is observing is no longer static and he will
  again need token-reflexive expressions to report
  what he observes
• Therefore, what is in time cannot be fully
  described without token reflexive expressions
  the now
• Therefore, no map of time
• But our definition of reality and objectivity

63
The Problem

• .is just such a map
• Therefore, time must be unreal and not objective
• You cannot give an overview of time time has
  to be indexed if it is to be understood and such
  indexing is only within a particular point of
  view
• Note the difference can give a complete
  description of an object that abstracts from, or
  no longer requires a point of view since as a
  complete description it incorporates all such
  points of view Not possible for time

64
Startling Conclusion

• P.17
• The A-series is unreal
• But is this self-refuting?
• Also, we do perceive things as if they were in
  time
• Why dont we possess an immediate certainty in
  our experience that can guarantee the existence
  of time?
• Problem the specious present

65
The Specious Present

• The problem our immediate certainty and
  perception can be wrong
• Presently you are listening to this lecture
  1110 100 pm.
• We say to people stop living in the past and
  get with the times (present) by which we mean
  the fashion/trends of the last few years
• By present we could mean the 21st century
• Different people in different situations and
  contexts appear to mean different things by the
  present

66
The Specious Present

• Such relativity and fluctuation makes the
  present specious
• Or it may be that we wish to give an objective
  account here
• It would seem that the present objectively
  could only be a point in time
• But now this is NOT our experience of the
  present as involving some sort of duration

67
The Specious Present

• Therefore, the supposed certainty, our immediate
  certainty of time, that we wished to appeal to as
  a guarantor of times reality in our experience
  runs into difficulties even if time is real it
  would not be as we experience it and therefore we
  cannot appeal to our experience to access the
  reality of time

68
C-Series

• We are experiencing something in the illusion
  makes sense all illusions must have some
  reality behind them. Even in a hallucination it
  is the hallucination that is real and can be
  explained
• We are experiencing a series a C-series just
  not a temporal series
• This accounts for why we believe in temporal
  series we mistakenly attribute some of the
  characteristics of this C-series to be a temporal
  one. Does this explain anything to you?

69
C-Series

• Once again, self-refuting?
• We first experience the C-series and THEN the A
  series from which we derive NEXT the B series?
• Strictly logical relations not temporal
  priorities.
• Even so must we not state I WAS under the
  illusion of time but AFTER understanding the
  reality of the C-series if it could be
  understood this is NO LONGER the case?

70
C-Series

• No help to say we are mistaken about what we
  think we see the fact would remain that we
  still make such different mistakes at different
  times!
• Therefore, is any attempt to state that time is
  unreal self-refuting.
• Does the C-series do any work for us here?