How to define the future and the past?

Agree   Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:53 pm GMT
How to define the future? Is it "The future is separated from the present, of course, by a period of time." Then how long a period of time from the present is called the future?
Tomorrow? May be, and may be not.
Tonight? May be, and may be not.
Next minute? May be, and may be not.
In fact, no one knows. May I ask how to define the future?
-------------
If past time is "before now", we find that most present actions have started "before now":
Ex: He teaches in school.
He doesn't teach just by the time we use Simple Present to say it. He has started it a long time "before now". Therefore, "before now" is not the definition of the past time. Then how to define the past time?
-------------

Grammar writers throw us many jargons: Habit, Routine, Timeless, Aspect, Current Relevancy, etc., but they don't even explain to us what is the past and what is the future. May I ask how will you define the future, and the past?
Ant_222   Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:10 pm GMT
It seems that you confuse the tenses of English with categories of time.
If to consider 'the past' and 'the future' as the latters, they are 'before now' and 'after now'.

But in speech our purpose is to show our attitude to the action in question. For example, we use Present Perfcet to denote past actions, which have an apparent and important result in the present:

"I have lost my key, and I can't enter the house."

As to Present Simple. "He teaches in school". Yesterday he was there, and tomorrow he'll go there again. So, he is in the middle of this action (consisting of periodical actions) and Present Simple is defined as the tense to denote such actions.

So, to define the Past and the Future in the sense of tenses (grammar times) is of course not the same as to do this in the sense of physical time. We discern three physical times: the Past, the Future and Now, the latter being the edge between the two former, but in English there are 12 grammar times. (In Russian there are only three tenses conciding with the three physical times).
Agree   Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:33 pm GMT
>>As to Present Simple. "He teaches in school". Yesterday he was there, and tomorrow he'll go there again. So, he is in the middle of this action (consisting of periodical actions) and Present Simple is defined as the tense to denote such actions. <<

Then you have proven "before now" and 'after now' are the characteristics of actions AT THE PRESENT.

Furthermore, is one minute "after now" really the future? How about one second "after now"? If yes, according to your standard, is there any "now" left?
Ant_222   Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:50 pm GMT
>Then you have proven "before now" and 'after now' are the
>characteristics of actions AT THE PRESENT

No. What I proved is that they are explressed by means of THE PRESENT SIMPLE TENSE. And we use this tense, by definition, to denote a periodical event if it continues to repeat [now]. (I continue to eat every morning...)

This Present Simple tense in this example (but not in "I see you") doesn't pretend to denote something belonging to the present in the physical sence (= to now), but to denote something that has (at present) a constant property of periodical repeateing. This is made for comfortability. We just define a way to express such events in a comfortable way.

How would you express it without Present Simple?

I am (the present) in the state of repeatadly visiting school... (If to look at it as just at the present in the physical sence).
Ant_222   Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:02 pm GMT
As to our understanding of the time. You may find of interest the following tractate by a famous Soviet writer Daniel Kharms.

On Time, Space and Existence

1. A world which is not can not be called existing, because it is not.
2. A world consisting of something unified, homogeneous and continuous can not be called existing, because in such a world there are no parts and, once there are no parts, there is no whole.
3. An existing world must be heterogeneous and have parts.
4. Every two parts are different, because one part will always be thus one and the other that one.
5. If only this one exists, then that one cannot exist, because, as we have said, only this exists. But such a this cannot exist, because if this exists it must be heterogeneous and have parts. And if it has parts that means it consists of this and that.
6. If this and that exist, this means that not this and not that exist, because if not this and not that did not exist, then this and that would be unified, homogeneous and continuous and consequently would also not exist.
7. We shall call the first part this and the second part that and the transition from one to the other we shall call neither this nor that.
8. We shall call neither this nor that 'the impediment'.
9. Thus: the basis of existence comprises three elements: this, the impediment and that.
10. We shall express non-existence as zero or a unity. Therefore we shall have to express existence by the number three.
11. Thus: dividing a unitary void into two parts, we get the trinity of existence.
12. Or: a unitary void, experiencing a certain impediment, splits into parts, which make up the trinity of existence.
13. The impediment is that creator which creates 'something' out of 'nothing'.
14. If this one, on its own, is 'nothing' or a non-existent 'something', then the 'impediment' is also 'nothing' or a non-existent 'something'.
15. By this reckoning there must be two 'nothings' or nonexistent 'somethings'.
16. If there are two 'nothings' or non-existent 'somethings', then one of them is the 'impediment' to the other, breaking it down into parts and becoming itself a part of the other.
17. In the same way the other, being the impediment to the first, splits it into parts and itself becomes a part of the first.
18. In this way are created, of their own accord, non-existent parts.
19. Three, of their own accord, non-existent parts create the three basic elements of existence.
20. The three, of their own accord, non-existent basic elements of existence, all three together, make up a certain existence.
21. If one of the three basic elements of existence should disappear, then the whole would disappear. So: should the 'impediment' disappear, then this one and that one would become unitary and continuous and would cease to exist.
22. The existence of our universe generates three 'nothings' or separately, on their own account, three non-existent 'somethings': space, time and something else which is neither time nor space.
23. Time, of its essence, is unitary, homogeneous and continuous and thereby does not exist.
24. Space, of its essence, is unitary, homogeneous and continuous and thereby does not exist.
25. But as soon as space and time enter into a certain mutual relationship they become the impediment, the one of the other, and begin to exist.
26. As they begin to exist, space and time become mutually parts, one of the other.
27. Time, experiencing the impediment of space, breaks down into parts, generating the trinity of existence.
28. A split down and existing, consists of the three basic elements of existence: the past, the present and the future .
29. The past, the present and the future, as basic elements of existence, always stood in inevitable dependence, each on the other. There cannot be a past without a present and a future, or a present without a past and a future, or a future without a past and a present.
30. Examining these three elements separately, we see that there is no past because it has already gone and here is no future because it has not yet come. That means that there remains only one thing -- the 'present'. But what is the 'present'?
31. When we are pronouncing this word, the letters of this word which have been pronounced become past and the unpronounced letters still lie in the future. This means that only that sound which is being pronounced now is 'present'.
32. But of course the process of pronouncing this sound possesses a certain length. Consequently, a certain part of this process is 'present', just as the other parts are either past or future. But the same thing too may be said of this part of the process which had seemed to us to be 'the present'.
33. Reflecting in this manner, we see that there is no 'present'.
34. The present is only the 'impediment' in the transition from past to future and past and future appear to us as the this and that of the existence of time.
35. Thus: the present is the 'impediment' in the existence of time and, as we said earlier, space serves as the impediment in the existence of time.
36. By this means: the 'present' of time is space.
37. There is no space in the past and the future, it being contained entirely in the 'present'. And the present is space.
38. And since there is no present, neither is there any space.
39. We have explained the existence of time but space, of its own accord, does not yet exist.
40. In order to explain the existence of space, we must take that incidence when time performs as the impediment of space.
41. Experiencing the impediment of time, space splits into parts, generating the trinity of existence.
42. Broken down, existing space consists of three elements: there, here and there.
43. In the transition from one there to the other there, it is necessary to overcome the impediment here, because if it were not for the impediment here, then the one there and the other there would be unitary.
44. Here is the 'impediment' of existing space. And, as we said above, the impediment of existing space is time.
45. Therefore: the here of space is time.
46. The here of space and the 'present' of time are the points of intersection between time and space.
47. Examining space and time as basic elements in the existence of the universe, we would say: the universe expresses space, time and something else which is neither time nor space.
48. That 'something' which is neither time nor space is the 'impediment', which generates the existence of the universe.
49. This 'something' expresses the impediment between time and space.
50. Therefore this 'something' lies at the point of intersection of time and space.
51. Consequently this 'something' is to be found in time at the point of the 'present' and in space at the point of the 'here'.
52. This 'something' which is to be found at the point of intersection of space and time generates a certain 'impediment', separating the 'here' from the 'present'.
53. This 'something', generating the impediment and separating the 'here' from the 'present', creates a certain existence which we call matter or energy. (Henceforth we shall provisionally call this simply matter.)
54. Thus: the existence of the universe, as organised by space, time and their impediment, is expressed as matter.
55. Matter testifies to us of time.
56. Matter testifies to us of space.
57. By this means: the three basic elements of the existence of the universe are perceived by us as time, space and matter.
58. Time, space and matter, intersecting one with another at definite points and being basic elements in the existence of the universe, generate a certain node.
59. We shall call this node -- the Node of the Universe.
60. When I say of myself: 'I am', I am placing myself within the Node of the Universe.
Agree   Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:16 pm GMT
Dear Ant_222,

I ask about the future and the past, and you post me this? Are you implying before we learn tenses, we have to know these fundamentals? Are you implying that "before now" and 'after now' are wrong, and we had better take these ideas?
Ant_222   Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:32 pm GMT
First of all, read my post preceding to this tractate.

As to this work, it deals with the questions: "Does 'now' exist?" and "What is now?". I mean, that now is different from the past and the future. While the latter two are (by every moment of time) vast periods of time (ifinite?), 'now' is just a moment, or less than a moment, and can not be considered to be part of the clasifacation 'tha past'/'the future'. Every action is either in the past or in the future. Or it is divided into two parts: one in the past, and one in future. So what is the present time?

And I told: "You MAY find it of interest", not "You must read it".
Ant_222   Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:00 pm GMT
>And I told: "You MAY find it of interest", not "You must read it".

I'm sorry for the mistake. I should have written:

And I said: "You MAY find it of interest", not "You must read it".
Agree   Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:02 pm GMT
>>Every action is either in the past or in the future. Or it is divided into two parts: one in the past, and one in future. So what is the present time? <<

Please tell me more. I find it interesting. It is a new concept to me.

The concept isn't without loopholes. For example, if we say "we are dancing", how can we put it into the concept you have introduced? We cannot say, we are actually dancing in the future (or in the past?).

Thanks in advance.
Ant_222   Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:17 am GMT
>The concept isn't without loopholes. For example, if we say "we are
>dancing", how can we put it into the concept you have introduced? We
>cannot say, we are actually dancing in the future (or in the past?).

By the moment of speech, the action of dancing lies partly is the past (between the moments they began dancing and 'now') and partly in the future (between 'now' and the the moment they would stop dancing).
Agree   Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:03 am GMT
I don't think they will stop dancing becasue of speaking.
Agree   Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:18 am GMT
I believe in your concept -- I mean it. But can we say we have no present tenses at all, but only the past tenses and the future tenses? Of course not. What is your idea?
Ant_222   Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:40 pm GMT
>I don't think they will stop dancing becasue of speaking.

Speaking is not the reason of their ceasing to dance (sometime in the future), it is just a description of the action, containing the information about the place (on the time axis) of this action relative to 'now'. E. g., is fully located in the future side, fully in the past side, or the past/future border divides it into two parts. In the latter case we say the action is in the present and use the Present Progressive tense.

>I believe in your concept -- I mean it. But can we say we have no >present tenses at all, but only the past tenses and the future tenses? >Of course not. What is your idea?

See the previous paragraph.

>But can we say we have no present tenses at all
Of course, not. Since we have them in English... And I have written about their purpose right above.

You wrote that you believe in my concept, but, judging by the rest of your text, it doesn't seem so ;)

In Russian we have only three tenses. But the role of Simple/Progressive/Perfect/[Perfect Progressive] division is playd by the division into the perfective and imperfective aspects, context, ...

How would you propose to compensate the loss of this division of tenses in English?

The English System of Tenses is based upon the fact that we describe the status of an action [status={'Simple', 'Progressive' /.../'...'}] in a certain time [time={'Past', 'Present', 'Future'}].

"I will be playing Nether Earth at 5:00 tomorrow."

This is Future Progressive. It if Future because I speak about a future status of an action (a status the action will have in the future: tomorrow, 5:00). It is Progressive, because at this certain moment in the future the action of my playing that game will have the status: 'now'. E. g. tomorrow at 5:00 I would say about myself in Present (status by the current moment: time='now') Progressive(status='now').

"Yesterday I had finished my homework by 15:00. " Here we are interested in a past status, namely, in the status of my doing the homework at 15:00 (in the past) and the status is 'finished', so the tense is Past Perfect.

e. t. c.

So, all English tenses are called by two words: [Time (Past,...,) ] [Status (Simple, Perfect,...)]

That is my idea
Agree   Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:32 pm GMT
>> Speaking is not the reason of their ceasing to dance (sometime in the future), it is just a description of the action, containing the information about the place (on the time axis) of this action relative to 'now'. E. g., is fully located in the future side, fully in the past side, or the past/future border divides it into two parts. IN THE LATTER CASE we say the action is in the present and use the Present Progressive tense.<<
According to your past-future divisions, IN THE LATTER CASE we say the action is in the future, rather than in the present, because you have suggested we don't have the present and I have agreed. But if you now agree there is the present time, then why don't we put the whole dancing in the present?

>>In Russian we have only three tenses. But.....<<
As I don't know about your language, I am afraid you had better stay longer in "the three tenses", so I may an impression of the them. Without impression, I am afraid I cannot give any opinions.

>> "I will be playing Nether Earth at 5:00 tomorrow."
This is Future Progressive. It if Future because I speak about a future status of an action (a status the action will have in the future: tomorrow, 5:00). It is Progressive, because at this certain moment in the future the action of my playing that game will have the status: 'now'. E. g. tomorrow at 5:00 I would say about myself in Present (status by the current moment: time='now') Progressive(status='now').<<
I think you have complicated the matter. If we talk about the future, it is at the present we talk about the future. <Will + Progressive> will mean a progression in the future. We don't need to link to the status of 'now' tomorrow.

I am afraid you have neglected an important element in the future tense: it will be cancelled. Take your example of playing game for example, it can be cancelled. Then how do you put your status 'now' on the future tense? This is the point. If the game "I will be playing Nether Earth at 5:00 tomorrow" is cancelled, what is the status of the action? It doesn't even exist and it is nothing. Then how can we put any analysis into nothing? The element that the future action will be cancelled is not to complicate the matter. Rather, it solves the problem of the future tense, as is suggested in the following.

>>You wrote that you believe in my concept, but, judging by the rest of your text, it doesn't seem so ;) <<
I want to see more of your argument! I respect your visions, right or wrong. Mine may be a mistake. My humble opinion is this: time is running faster than light -- so that it can measure light. Time can be one millisecond. I also agree that anything behind the present is the future. But if the present is a so short a moment, how can we prove there is the present time? How can we even experience it at all? Therefore I agree to you: there is no present time. But this is the problem of using tense. As a rule, we human beings are aware of the present time. Therefore, English allocates a part of future as the present time -- we regarded the time we sure of as the present time, and regard the time we are not sure of as the future time.
-- Therefore, the dancing is at the present time, because we are sure of the action. Present Progressive tense "are dancing" means the progression is at the present.
-- Therefore, we put Will into "I will be playing Nether Earth at 5:00 tomorrow", because we are not sure of the action. If we are sure of it, we may dispense with Will:
Ex: "I am playing Nether Earth at 5:00 tomorrow"
-- Therefore, I am correct in my claim in believing in your concept :-}
Ant_222   Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:37 pm GMT
In the following post I don't quote myself, but only text by Agree concerning my previous post.

"According to your past-future divisions, IN THE LATTER CASE we say the action is in the future, rather than in the present, because you have suggested we don't have the present and I have agreed. But if you now agree there is the present time, then why don't we put the whole dancing in the present?"

I was not precise saying: "the action is in the present". I meant it belongs to the type of action, which is intersected by the past/future edge. And by saying "in the present" I implied that this edge (=the present in MY understanding) lies somewhere within the period of time, occupied by the action in question. But of course, as to the location of the action itself, it is not in the future, as you said, but in the past too:

_[__d____a____n___c___i___n___g__][r_e_s_t_i_n_g]_ >> [time axis]
=====past=====|++++++future+++++

I didn't suggest we don't have the present, I just said that the present is not a period of time like the past and the future, but something different - the border between the past and the future. And the border, is resembling a plane of section that is moving in a 3d space. Its motion denotes the flow of time, everything behind the plane denotes the past and the space [half-space in our interpretation] in front of it denotes the future.

On the picture I have shown it on the time axis, on which all the actions are located. It must be looking weird because ascii graphics should be created and viewed in a fixed-with font...

"I think you have complicated the matter. If we talk about the future, it is at the present we talk about the future. <Will + Progressive> will mean a progression in the future. We don't need to link to the status of 'now' tomorrow."

<will+Progressive>
'will' denotes that this tense belongs to the group of Future tenses, time='the future', and more precisely, <time>=[tomorrow, 5:00]
Progressive (just how I have said) is the value of the action status, <status>='now'.

So, 'now' and 'tomorrow' are the values of diferent variables in my conception, everything is ok here. I don't complicate anything. The status of 'now' I assign not to 'tomorrow', as you wrote, but to the action in order to express that, by the moment indicated by <time>, the present [= the past/future edge] will be somewhere within the period occupied by the action of playing the game.

"I am afraid you have neglected an important element in the future tense: it will be cancelled. Take your example of playing game for example, it can be cancelled. Then how do you put your status 'now' on the future tense? This is the point. If the game "I will be playing Nether Earth at 5:00 tomorrow" is cancelled, what is the status of the action? It doesn't even exist and it is nothing. Then how can we put any analysis into nothing? The element that the future action will be cancelled is not to complicate the matter. Rather, it solves the problem of the future tense, as is suggested in the following."

Are you trying to confuse me by using Passive voice? Furthermore, that is another tense, Future Simple, not Future Progressive. The status of 'now', how I interpret it, relates to the latter tense, but not to the former!

So, lets proceed from the beginning. The tense is Future Simple.
About why it is 'Future' I have already mentioned. Now, what is indicated by 'Simple'. Draw your attention the fact that it means something different from 'now' (as a value of <status>). About the meaning of 'now' I'll not be repeated. As to 'Simple', in Future and Past tenses it denotes that the action fully lies in the appropriate period, and concerning the Past Simple a wrote before.

So, "It will be canceled". You are not right in the following. All you have written on it, implies that this sentence is concerning the action of playing, while actually it deals with the action of cancelling the game (as long as we consider this sentence).

Now I'll describe how I would interpret this sentence. According to what I have written about the Future Simple, the meaning is the following. The action ('cancelling') fully lies in the future. And that's all:

_______________[c_a_n_c_e_l_l_i_n_g]_________>> [time axis]
===past===|++++++future+++++


"I want to see more of your argument! I respect your visions, right or wrong. Mine may be a mistake. My humble opinion is this: time is running faster than light -- so that it can measure light. Time can be one millisecond. I also agree that anything behind the present is the future. But if the present is a so short a moment, how can we prove there is the present time? How can we even experience it at all? Therefore I agree to you: there is no present time. But this is the problem of using tense. As a rule, we human beings are aware of the present time. Therefore, English allocates a part of future as the present time -- we regarded the time we sure of as the present time, and regard the time we are not sure of as the future time.
-- Therefore, the dancing is at the present time, because we are sure of the action. Present Progressive tense "are dancing" means the progression is at the present.
-- Therefore, we put Will into "I will be playing Nether Earth at 5:00 tomorrow", because we are not sure of the action. If we are sure of it, we may dispense with Will:
Ex: "I am playing Nether Earth at 5:00 tomorrow"
-- Therefore, I am correct in my claim in believing in your concept :-}"

As to the speed of the time. To be able to judge about the speed of the tome, we must be somewhere beyond the time, we must look at the world from the outside.

"...anything behind the present is the future"
What about the Past? Maybe everything in front (=after) of the present is the future?

"Therefore, English allocates ['allocates' - are you a C programmer? ;) - Ant_222] a part of future as the present time -- we regarded the time we sure of as the present time, and regard the time we are not sure of as the future time".

As I understood you, by "the time we ['are' probably omitted - Ant_222] sure of as the present time" mean the moment, in which our 'consciousness' is located. And, according to my conception, that is just on that moving plane from the example above, in 'now' (in my interpretation).
And again, what about the past?

But anyway, in the first post of the topic you challenge this statement, don't you. Can you cite an example of allocating "a part of future as the present time".

I really can't imagine how this hypothesis with the allocaton of a variable-length period of time (a dynamic structure in C ;) works and I need an example.

" Therefore, the dancing is at the present time, because we are sure of the action. Present Progressive tense "are dancing" means the progression is at the present"

Should I read "... in the present tense". To be clear we should distinct grammar times from physical ones and call them differently.

And "we are sure" due to the fact that our conciousness is within this action.

Resting on the aforsaid, I think that my conception is better, and yours looks too artificial (to me).

"Therefore, I am correct in my claim in believing in your concept :-}"

And last: Good luck in your hard efforts to believe in my concept! :-)