TIME: Revisiting McTaggart's C Series

Ichthus77 · March 16, 2023, 7:38pm

(Preface: The word “ultimate” below is also said “irreducible” by others in similar contexts.)

This is an excerpt from McTaggart’s “The Unreality of Time” – a source often quoted by those explicating A and B Theory. Link is at the end to read more of it. All of it? Not sure. Question: Can “unreality” in the title be synonymous with (or defer to) ideality or idea?

My next question is - Is this not a dialectic? Is this not a more complete version of Cameron’s (2015) moving (versus stuck) spotlight theory (NOT to be lumped in with A Theory… p.s. … does anyone precede Cameron with the spotlight theory… besides, of course, McTaggart, if I’m correct?) that corrects the today-current conception/presention of both A and B theories? Where did we go wrong? Why did we depart from McTaggart? Note that he uses the word “series” instead of “theory”. He holds neither A nor B, but a dialectical synthesis that discards their problems and keeps where they are right. Why is this the first I’ve heard about it (from myself, by reading McTaggart)? If I am wrong, and he switches things up elsewhere, please point me to it.

“Therefore, besides the C series and the fact of change there must be given–in order to get time–the fact that the change is in one direction and not in the other. We can now see that the A series, together with the C series, is sufficient to give us time. For in order to get change, and change in a given direction, it is sufficient that one position in the C series should be Present, to the exclusion of all others, and that this characteristic of presentness should pass along the series in such a way that all positions on the one side of the Present have been present, and all positions on the other side of it will be present. That which has been present is Past, that which will be present is Future. (This account of the nature of theA series is not valid, for it involves a vicious circle, since it uses “has been” and “will be” to explain Past and Future. But, as I shall endeavour to show later on, this vicious circle is inevitable when we deal with the A series, and forms the ground on which we must reject it.) Thus to our previous conclusion that there can be no time unless the A series is true of reality, we can add the further conclusion that no other elements are required to constitute a time-series except an A series and a C series.

“We may sum up the relations of the three series to time as follows: The A and B series are equally essential to time, which must be distinguished as past, present and future, and must likewise be distinguished as earlier and later. But the two series are not equally fundamental. The distinctions of the A series are ultimate. We cannot explain what is meant by past, present and future. We can, to some extent, describe them, but they cannot be defined. We can only show their meaning by examples. “Your breakfast this morning,” we can say to an inquirer," is past; this conversation is present; your dinner this evening is future." We can do no more.

“The B series, on the other hand, is not ultimate. For, given a C series of permanent relations of terms, which is not in itself temporal, and therefore is not a B series, and given the further fact that the terms of this C series also form an A series and it results that the terms of the C series become a B series, those which are placed first in the direction from past to future, being earlier than those whose places are further in the direction of the future.

“The C series, however is as ultimate as the A series. We cannot get it out of anything else. That the units of time do form a series, the relations of which are permanent is as ultimate as the fact that each of them is present past, or future. And this ultimate fact is essential to time. For it is admitted that it is essential to time that each moment of it shall either be earlier or later than any other moment; and these relations are permanent. And this–the B series– can not be got out of the A series alone. It is only when the A series, which gives change and direction, is combined with the C series, which gives permanence that the B series can arise.

…

“…they really do form a C series, is the more probable.
Should it be true, it will follow that in our perception of these realities as events in time, there will be some truth as well as some error. Through the deceptive form of time, we shall grasp some of their true relation.

…

“If we reduce time and change to appearance, must it not be to an appearance which changes and which is in time, and is not time, then, shown to be real after all? This is doubtless a serious question, but I hope to show hereafter that it can be answered in a satisfactory way.”

QUESTION:
Does anyone know where “hereafter” happened? Can you link me to it?

Is this the complete Unreality of Time, or only a partial excerpt? dif.unige.it/epilog/McTaggart.pdf

Ichthus77 · March 17, 2023, 5:54pm

Summary of my convo with Chat GPT… they concur, but submits that McTaggart makes B series contingent (something arising from A/C series), and something we co-create in partnership with the A/C series with our language and human cognition.

Fricken more conscious than most conscious people.

Ichthus77 · March 17, 2023, 6:00pm

A conversation is something we build together.

Man. Man oh man.

Ben_JS · March 17, 2023, 9:20pm

(Here’s a disjointed, rambling response - all my opinion)

Time is a dimension that we impose on reality, as we impose other dimensions.
Dimension (wiki) - the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within space or an object [existence, if so inclined]

From the absolute surface (mis)understanding I have of McTaggart’s critique…
Past - Present - Future could be compared to left - middle - right:
A relative direction with respect to our current position.

As our sense of moving along a dimension unfolds, the arrangement of objects also moves relative to us.

[Time is a dimension we do not have a sense of capacity to move freely around.]

It is us that has the sense of change, but we exist in multiple locations - with slight deviations.
You exist in 2022, as you exist in 2023, but not identically.

Many things could be said to exist in multiple locations,
but a ‘thing’ itself is a description by us -
a line we draw in the sand that may brush over intricacies in the name of convenience.
Does a chair truly exist in multiple locations? Or is it only our impression of a chair that persists?
(We say, ‘Yep, looks about right. That’s the chair.’, even though it isn’t the same thing)

Three objects (1,2,3) are located side by side. 2’s between 1 & 3. 2 is left of something, right of something, and neither to itself - simultaneously.
Directions are relative to a point of reference. This also applies to time.

‘Things’ exist over the span of dimensions. They have multiple points in space - an area.
There is an area of time which things exist, with each point able to compare to other points.
I think this is where the perceived issue lies.

We have shared series of memories currently, that corroborate each other.
From this we infer, that those memories are [semi-]accurate representations of our experience.
Those representations do not directly match our current experience of world - there are discrepancies.
We call these discrepancies ‘change’.
There are patterns we’ve recognized regarding how things change.
This gives us an impression of consistency and the capacity to predict anticipated changes.

We have memories regarding a series of corresponding events.
In each instance of memory, we also have memories nested within.
‘I remember remembering.’
The direction of our memories, relative to us, are always only one way.

From our the nested memories,
[and also our comparison of discrepancy],
we can order our memories.
We refer to these events as referencing ‘the past’.

We have many mechanisms by which
we can test / verify the accuracy,
of our representation of the past.
Which we do.

I think anything that ‘will’ exist, does exist already.
That these words we use, are very useful descriptions -
they hold utility, even if they do not accurately present reality as it is.

Time is a description of how we experience space - through deviation in comparison to memory.
How do we describe something has changed, if not by referencing a previous state?

Appearances and one’s feelings can mislead.

Ichthus77 · March 17, 2023, 10:28pm

Those are pretty keen thoughts. I like your mention of time area. I like to consider space latitude/longitude like time ana/kata, due to the orbitals.

Here’s some notes I took, to be considered alongside OP & my replies.

A Thesis: Now is real. Past/future is subjective.

B Thesis: Each moment is real. Now is subjective.

involves intervals of time

remove the spotlight of A, time drops out to:
C Series: Without both the subjective experience of A & B, you will have C as any other quantifiable continuity (as opposed to a discreet series). BUT: you ONLY have B if you add A to C.

If all three are ultimate/irreducible, …well. We’ll rest here for now.

Anyway.

Appearances/feelings do mislead us to fail to ascribe personhood/subjectivity. Historically. In time.

Ichthus77 · March 20, 2023, 3:04pm

The below is found in reply to this: m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ … tid=qC1gEa

Dr. Craig, since God maintains infiniteness after creating/sustaining/subsuming finiteness, can’t we say he maintains transcendence (transtemporality) after creating/sustaining/subsuming temporality; and can’t we also say he only extrinsically changes to omnitemporal/finite while remaining intrinsically transtemporal/infinite? This would mesh well with distinct transcendent omnipresence (versus open or process theology). Perfect will subsuming permissive will.

Isn’t dualistic panentheism different from pantheism? The universe is not God’s mind like our (including Jesus’) brain/body is not our (or Jesus’) mind. But in him we live, move, and have our being. Necessary subsuming contingent.

Even if the timeline is set, doesn’t it include (elect from beyond the beginning) our co-creative choices in conversation with God concurring (permitting, subsuming)?

Ichthus77 · March 20, 2023, 5:39pm

First rough sketch of C Theory. Compare to all previous Venns. They overlap. Co-creative effort between Trinity’s & all other minds, with subsumed minds involving learning.

Thanks to Meno_’s nudges.

Yes there is a paper behind it that has some finishing touches needed.

Yes it refers to all the people mentioned in the harmonic triads thread & elsewhere.

Yes I am indebted to my professors who fought me tooth & nail

Ichthus77 · March 20, 2023, 6:17pm

another word for sorting in autism research is discriminating. On the updating/recognizing side is also generalizing. Or is it in the anticipating/staying (attending)?

You see problems with all three in autism (to varying degrees) because you NEED all three… so if there is a problem in one (or two), it will effect the other two (or one).

discriminating (blue), attending (red), generalizing (yellow)

Ichthus77 · March 20, 2023, 6:20pm

observe

Ben_JS · March 20, 2023, 10:18pm

That flows both ways, and many others. Such is that nature of our ignorance. ( For example, children assigning consciousness to images on a screen )

=

Puzzle pieces to represent autism is widely considered to be an ableist symbol, as it presents people on the autism spectrum as missing something - represented by a jigsaw piece. Where the preferred description, is that those with ASD are neuro-atypical, meaning different, but not less than the neuro-typical community. See how our ignorance is presented? Looks lovely, and has lovely sentiment, but may be in error.

I forgive you.

Ichthus77 · March 20, 2023, 11:07pm

Thank you and I agree. I was talking about it with my mom. If we knew how to “fix” autism—would we even WANT to? Maybe extreme cases that are low functioning and the benefits do not outweigh the costs according to the individual and their caregivers? We both agreed that we would only ever want to fix any disorder if the disorder creates actual problems that make it TOO hard to function in daily life, and outweigh the benefits. Some hard is good. Challenges build diamonds.

Like with malaria resistance being a benefit of carrying one allele of sickle cell gene defect. Malaria resistance is a bonus you don’t really want to fix.

But… if you could fix sickle cell disease without messing up malaria resistance… double bonus, right?

Same idea with how a lot of artists are prone to mental illness, and how INFJs like myself are also prone to wonkiness, and so on & so forth. If we are functioning & the benefits outweigh the costs… what needs fixing? Nuthin. Quirks are good!

Ichthus77 · March 20, 2023, 11:10pm

By the way, I think we all fit together like puzzle pieces. Tripartite soul/cosmos is mirrored in the community for a reason

(Another example like sickle/anemia resistance is lacking in one of the senses often heightens another or the other senses. Some may want to keep it that way.)

Ichthus77 · April 21, 2023, 4:08am

Mishmash is getting there.

Ichthus77 · August 10, 2023, 5:07pm

differentiation (not to be mistaken with concretion)
generalization (not to be mistaken with abstraction)
gestaltification [mutually productive/destructive differents which function together in same whole]

“hypothetical” does not necessarily mean strictly theoretical - it could obtain either because you discover it in reality (ground) or you make it happen (figural) because it is possible (by something discoverable in ground reality)

strictly theoretical stuff, while it may or may not be logically contradictory, is practically (actually) impossible to obtain/instantiate

imagination that cannot obtain is imagination that does not create in alignment with the eternal/ground

This is the way Einstein conceived of the gestalt of spacetime (primary object of God’s mind). See this paper on primary object & don’t throw up:

docs.google.com/document/d/1bjP … IhUbA/edit

Ichthus77 · August 25, 2023, 7:05am

You’ve got the over(lap) thing that encompasses everything (smack dab in the middle: idea, concept, intuition); everything being 1), subjective experience of persistence (red, imagination/intuition), 2) now(s) that is real even if we’re not experiencing it (“they” are) (blue, idea) 3) the entire timeline began whole and is cocreated with the Author & subauthors (yellow, concept).

From earlier in the thread:

Ichthus77 · December 29, 2023, 6:53pm

relevant: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 2#p2923992