Mctaggart's Argument Against The Existence Of Time
Time behaves in very odd ways and is hard to observe since it is not visible as objects are.
McTaggart argues against the existence of time :
1. Time necessarily involves change and consists of events in an order
2. An event is the contents of a particular moment in time
3. Order is the only thing that could change about events
4. Events cannot change in order, an event that is earlier than another will always be earlier
5. Events cannot change
6. Time does not exist
(1) is a common claim about what time should include commonsensically. (2) is a definition of event. (3) is the result of the nature of what an event is because an event is a moment of time, it cannot change in the same way objects do, only through relational changes. (4) is …show more content…
In fact, it seems a little like the relationship between color and shape , when you imagine a color you imagine a shape and when you imagine shape it has to have a color. Objects seem to depend on time to exist and time depends on objects to exist. This seems to be a natural extension of (2) and (3) from Smart’s argument.
My own objection to McTaggart is (6). He states that events exist and seems to assume they do not all exist in the same place, just like a bent candle and straight candle cannot exist in the same space. This leads me to think that because of the differences between the events one can conclude that they must exist in some sort of medium, just like the two different candles must have something (space) between them.
Finally, there seems to be a worry about the intransitivity of time. Again, pertaining to things, there is the right-hand rule which is how the electrical and magnetic fields interact. When electrons move in a certain way, the magnetic field always functions in a certain way as well. Perhaps events and object could have a similar relationship. I believe that all the worries presented about time are not unique to time, and I think they should apply to space as
McTaggart argues against the existence of time :
1. Time necessarily involves change and consists of events in an order
2. An event is the contents of a particular moment in time
3. Order is the only thing that could change about events
4. Events cannot change in order, an event that is earlier than another will always be earlier
5. Events cannot change
6. Time does not exist
(1) is a common claim about what time should include commonsensically. (2) is a definition of event. (3) is the result of the nature of what an event is because an event is a moment of time, it cannot change in the same way objects do, only through relational changes. (4) is …show more content…
In fact, it seems a little like the relationship between color and shape , when you imagine a color you imagine a shape and when you imagine shape it has to have a color. Objects seem to depend on time to exist and time depends on objects to exist. This seems to be a natural extension of (2) and (3) from Smart’s argument.
My own objection to McTaggart is (6). He states that events exist and seems to assume they do not all exist in the same place, just like a bent candle and straight candle cannot exist in the same space. This leads me to think that because of the differences between the events one can conclude that they must exist in some sort of medium, just like the two different candles must have something (space) between them.
Finally, there seems to be a worry about the intransitivity of time. Again, pertaining to things, there is the right-hand rule which is how the electrical and magnetic fields interact. When electrons move in a certain way, the magnetic field always functions in a certain way as well. Perhaps events and object could have a similar relationship. I believe that all the worries presented about time are not unique to time, and I think they should apply to space as