{"id":3178,"date":"2020-04-22T06:54:52","date_gmt":"2020-04-22T06:54:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2020\/04\/22\/suppose-that-1-x-ceases-to-be-temporally-present-by-becoming-wholly-past-does-is-follow-that-2-x-ceases-to-exist\/"},"modified":"2020-04-22T06:54:52","modified_gmt":"2020-04-22T06:54:52","slug":"suppose-that-1-x-ceases-to-be-temporally-present-by-becoming-wholly-past-does-is-follow-that-2-x-ceases-to-exist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2020\/04\/22\/suppose-that-1-x-ceases-to-be-temporally-present-by-becoming-wholly-past-does-is-follow-that-2-x-ceases-to-exist\/","title":{"rendered":"A Time Puzzle for a Couple of Londinistas in Lockdown"},"content":{"rendered":"

I don't expect ever to change the minds of Messrs. Brightly and Buckner on any of the philosophical questions we discuss, but it may be possible to isolate the sources of disagreement. That would count as progress of a sort.<\/span><\/p>\n

Suppose that<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

1) X ceases to be temporally present by becoming wholly past.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Does it follow that<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

2) X ceases to exist?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

YES<\/strong>: For an item in time to exist is for it to be temporally present. So when an item in time become wholly past it literally passes away and ceases to exist.<\/span><\/p>\n

NO<\/strong>: What ceases to exist becomes nothing. Boston's Scollay Square, which is wholly past, is not nothing.  One can refer to it; there are true statements about it; some have veridical memories of it; there are videos of interviews of people who frequented it; it is an object of ongoing historical research. To dilate a bit on the fifth point:<\/span><\/p>\n

One cannot learn more and more about what is no longer (temporally) present if it is nothing at all. Only what exists can be studied and its properties ascertained.  But we do learn more and more about Scollay Square. So it must be some definite item.  But, pace<\/em> Meinong, there are no nonexistent items. Therefore, Scollay Square exists non-presently.  Therefore, what ceases to be present, does not cease to exist. It exists despite being past. It exists tenselessly at times earlier than the present time.  The mere passage of time did not annihilate Scollay Square.<\/span><\/p>\n

I incline toward the negative answer. But it rests on certain assumptions. Suppose we list them.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

A1. There are no modes of existence. In formal mode, 'exist(s)' is univocal in sense across all contexts.  So we cannot say that what ceases to be present exists, but  in the mode of pastness.<\/span><\/p>\n

A2. There are no degrees of existence.  So we cannot say that what ceases to be present exists, but to a lesser degree than what presently exists.<\/span><\/p>\n

A3. There are no Meinong-type nonexistent items. So we cannot say that what ceases to be present becomes nothing: it is a definite item but a nonexisting one.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I suspect that my London sparring partners will accept all three assumptions. <\/span><\/p>\n

Perhaps the Londoners will reject both answers and with them, the question. Maybe one or both of them will give this little speech:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Look, you are just making trouble for yourself. You speak English and you understand how its tenses work. Why not just use them?  Scollay Square no longer exists. You know what that means. It means that it existed but does not exist now. Just leave it at that. If you stick to ordinary language you will avoid entangling yourself in pseudo-problems.
<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I don't expect ever to change the minds of Messrs. Brightly and Buckner on any of the philosophical questions we discuss, but it may be possible to isolate the sources of disagreement. That would count as progress of a sort. Suppose that 1) X ceases to be temporally present by becoming wholly past. Does it … Continue reading “A Time Puzzle for a Couple of Londinistas in Lockdown”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[204],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-time-and-change"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}