Time is a fundamental part of our lives and is an integral part of our reality. We experience time passing, and we experience the effects of time – aging, for instance. Time is a fundamental concept in physics used to measure events’ passing. All of this points to the fact that time is indeed real. There is something transcendent about time that goes beyond our physical reality. Time is an ever-present element of our experience, a constant force always there, even when other things may change. It is something we cannot control, yet it shapes our lives. This is evidence that something mysterious and profound about time goes beyond what we can observe or measure.
Arguments
According to philosopher McTaggart, the primary defense of the concept of time is that it is an illusion and, ultimately, unreal. He claimed that the A and B series are the only two that makeup time. The A-Series is composed of events that are ordered sequentially. The B-Series is composed of events regarding their relationship, such as earlier and later. McTaggart argues that the A-Series is an illusion because it is based on the subjective perception of time and is not accurate. He argues that the B-Series is real but contains no temporal properties (McTaggart, 1908). The B series comprises earlier and later, while the A series comprises the past, present, and future. According to McTaggart, without the A series, there would be no time because, without the A series, there could be no change. Additionally, he contended that because earlier and later are merely temporal distinctions, the B series could not have existed without the A series.
The premise of McTaggart’s argument is that change is necessary for time and can only occur with the A series. He contends that because an event always has a place in the B series, it can never start or stop being an event, and it can never stop being itself. The C series, which is the chronological order of the events, do not, he continues, determine the direction; therefore, something else must (McTaggart, 1908). Because the A series establishes the direction, McTaggart contends that the A series is crucial to time at this point. There would only be a change of time with the A series.
The contention made by McTaggart that time is an illusion is contentious, and many individuals disagree with him. Some believe that the A series is optional for change since things shift with time and because time is a genuine concept. They argue that the A series is unnecessary for change since events may change without ceasing to be events even after the change takes place (McTaggart, 1908). In addition, he contends that time cannot be considered an event since it is not a physical occurrence that takes place in the physical world. Instead, he contends that time is an abstraction and a mental construct that we employ to make sense of the physical world. He says this to support his argument that space is also an abstraction.
Alternative Answer
The philosopher P.T. Geach’s argument concerning time has been widely debated since its conception in the mid-20th century. His argument revolves around the idea of the temporal passage and whether or not it is a metaphysical reality. Geach argues that temporal passage is not a metaphysical reality and only a subjective experience derived from the human perception of change (Geach, 1966). He further states that if the temporal passage is not a metaphysical reality, it follows that time itself is not a metaphysical reality. Geach’s argument is based on the premise that temporal passage is not a metaphysical reality. He argues that temporal passage is a subjective experience derived from the human perception of change.
Geach’s argument is preferable because the temporal passage can only be observed from an observer’s subjective point of view. This means that temporal passage is only real for the observer and not for the observed object (Geach, 1966). This means that temporal passage is not a metaphysical reality, as it cannot be observed from an external, objective point of view. Furthermore, if the temporal passage is not a metaphysical reality, then it follows that time itself is not a metaphysical reality.
This is explained by pointing out that temporal passage is only a subjective experience and only natural for the observer. This means that time is only a subjective experience and cannot be experimental from a peripheral, detached idea of observation. The logic of time is that there is no such thing as temporal logic since temporal concepts are not logically significant. He argues that temporal concepts, such as past and future, refer to a state change in the world and cannot be used to form valid logical arguments. Geach believes that temporal concepts are nothing more than labels for the various stages of a process and so cannot be used to form valid logical inferences. He believes that temporal logic does not exist, and any attempt to use temporal concepts to form logical arguments is doomed to failure. If time is not a metaphysical reality, then the concept of past, present, and future is not a metaphysical reality and is only a personal understanding and cannot be observed from an outside, impartial point of assessment.
The claim is that the only way to experience a temporal event is through a clock and that the clock is merely a device used to measure the passing of time. Therefore, temporal events are not accurate in themselves. They are simply a means of measuring something else. Having established his basic argument, one can consider the implications of his argument that if time is not a fundamental entity, then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful sense (Geach, 1966). Also, if we cannot experience it in any way, it does not exist. In other words, time is nothing more than an abstraction and has no actual existence. On addresses the issue of causality. The argument is that there can be no causal relation between events if time does not exist. Suppose causation is to be a meaningful concept. In that case, it must involve objectively related events; thus, if time does not exist, then causation is impossible.
Support
I firmly support Geach’s argument that temporal passage is not a metaphysical reality and is only a subjective experience derived from the human perception of change. His argument is preferable because it takes into account the implications of his argument, such as the fact that if time is not a fundamental entity, then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful sense and that if we cannot experience it in any way, it does not exist (Meyer, 2022). Furthermore, Geach’s argument is based on the fact that temporal passage can only be observed from an observer’s subjective point of view, which is much more compelling than McTaggart’s argument that time is an illusion.
McTaggart’s argument is based on the premise that change is necessary for time and can only occur with the A series. While I understand the points he raises, this argument is less convincing than Geach’s, as his argument needs to consider that temporal passage can only be experienced subjectively (Meyer, 2022). In addition, McTaggart’s argument needs to account for the fact that change is not the only factor in the temporal passage. For example, the temporal passage is also affected by the flow of energy and matter and the passage of time itself.
Geach’s argument is further supported by the fact that temporal passage is experienced differently depending on the observer’s frame of reference. For example, time appears to pass quicker for someone in a speeding car than it does for someone standing still. This difference in experience further reinforces the idea that temporal passage is a subjective experience, not a metaphysical reality (Meyer, 2022). Finally, Geach’s argument is further supported by the fact that temporal passage is affected by the observer’s state of mind. For example, someone experiencing a traumatic event may feel that time is passing more slowly than it is, while someone having a pleasant experience may feel that time is passing more quickly. This difference in experience demonstrates that temporal passage is affected by the observer’s perception and is subjective.
Objection
One potential objection to time being authentic is that it is an abstract concept and thus cannot be proven to exist in any tangible way. To respond to this criticism, it is essential to note that the scientific community has accepted time as a natural phenomenon for centuries. For example, theories of relativity demonstrate that time is not only accurate but also an integral part of our universe (Brenner et al., 2021). Additionally, experiments such as the atomic clock have been used to measure the passage of time with extreme accuracy. These experiments prove that time is real and can also be quantified. Another potential objection to time being authentic is that it is subjective. This criticism states that our perception of time is based on our individual experiences and thus cannot be said to be objectively real.
To address this objection, it is necessary to point out that time exists independently of our perception. For example, the Earth’s rotation and the seasons’ progression are independent of any individual’s experience and thus can be objectively natural phenomena. Additionally, the laws of physics demonstrate that time is a fundamental part of the universe and is not merely a construct of the human mind. Overall, the evidence supports the notion that time is a natural phenomenon. Despite some criticisms, the scientific community has accepted the concept of time for centuries. It has even been able to quantify it using experiments such as the atomic clock. Additionally, the laws of physics demonstrate that time is an integral part of our universe and is not merely a construct of the human mind. Thus, time can be accurate.
Conclusion
In general, the scientific world has long recognized that the notion of time is a natural phenomenon. Time is an illusion, according to philosopher McTaggart, yet many individuals disagree with him. Many contend that events do change and that time is accurate even without the A series required for this change, even though his thesis is founded on the A series, which specifies the direction of change. In addition, P.T. Geach’s claim that time is not a metaphysical reality and that only the observer may perceive it as accurate is preferable since time is merely a subjective experience. Studies like the atomic clock show that time is accurate and can be precisely measured. Finally, time is shown by the rules of physics to be an essential component of the cosmos and not just a mental construct. As a result, the data is consistent with the idea that time is accurate and objective.
References
Brenner, J. E., & Igamberdiev, A. (2021). Philosophy in Reality. A New Book of Changes: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-62757-7.pdf
Geach, P. T. (1966). Some problems with time.
McTaggart, J. E. (1908). The Unreality of Time. Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association
Meyer, U. (2022). The Future of the Present. Erkenntnis, 1-16. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-022-00540-y
write