It goes both ways.

Sometimes I just think, What?

All this stuff, Yeah, it's really easy, really straightforward.

It just makes perfectly, perfectly clear conceptual sense on that.

And other times I catch myself and find myself almost unable to make sense of what it is that's going on.

It often depends on what I'm doing at the time.

So if I'm playing with my daughter has been sometimes this stuff just makes no sense.

Guess the best way to try and explain the way that philosophers might think about this sort of thing would be to sketch the two broad ways in which the categories of theory of time tend to be sketched.

So the first of the theory that you tend to get eyes the a theory of time following on from sin terms given to us by tackle John Ellis McTaggart in 1908 On According to McTaggart, the A series is the series of events running from future to present to past.

So we might say that the Battle of Hastings, what's future?

But it became president.

Then it became past on course, whether something is future present or past changes constantly overtime.

So you get this inbuilt dynamism to turn time and temple passage that seems very intuitive.

The other theory of time that philosophers like toe Up For is a B theory of time on, according to be theorists event, since I'm simply earlier than or later than one another.

Now, obviously, that if you think about time to things, events in time just being early then or later than one another, you don't get the same kind of change from future to present to past that you would hey bought into the A serious.

The view that I spent a lot of my research looking at is an a theoretic view.

It's not to say that I think this particular theoretic view is right, but it is the view that's caught my attention quite a lot on this is a present ist view, according to which only present objects exist.

So if you can imagine a timeline historical timeline, with all of the events in time spread out along it that you might think is akin to treating time a bit like a dimension, it's a structured thing, spread out, filling some kind of volume.

Well, according to the presence ist that's not quite right.

The right way to think about time.

What you should think about is rather than a timeline, you should think of time as a single point tracing through those distinct events on Once that point passes those events or once events have happened, those events ceased to exist.

S o a crude way of describing.

I think if you got the dimensional view, time is just a dimension.

It's a bit like a lie.

On the other view, the present is view times like adult tracing through those different events.

There are particular versions of present is, um that will say that events in time are always there and you have this moving spotlight that passes through things tends to actually get called a moving spotlight view for obvious reasons.

But for the present ist passing future simply no part of reality.

So when I wave my hands, I destroy what's just what used to exist.

I make some new things come into existence.

The passage of time is a continual, uh is continually destroying and creating new state of affairs, as has been described s so far in the literature by presence is the great strength of present ists.

The present is view is that it's it preserves all of our common sense judgments about reality.

For instance, it seems pretty obvious.

So says the present is that dinosaurs don't exist.

Nothing could be more obvious to the man on the street, they say.

Well, look, if you were non present is you do think that the dinosaurs exist, they just exist in a particular temporal direction, if you will, and that's not very intuitive.

That doesn't preserve our intuitions about the way that time is.

So the presences says, Look, real strength of my view of dinosaurs don't exist.

Mars outpost in 30 21 don't exist, right?

They will and the dinosaurs have existed.

But that's not the same thing.

The great weakness of present is, um, Andi.

It's a biggie is that it seems to be incompatible with special theory of relativity.

So, according to the present is, there is a single set of objects that exists at any one moment.

Every object that exists exists presently.

Now, according to the special theory of relativity, or at least the way that it typically gets interpreted What you perceive as being simultaneous with you will depend on how fast you're traveling to different inertial frames of reference on def.

I'm travelling at great speed.

With respects to you at the loss of respect to you, I might see an explosion.

Two explosions in your frame of reference appear simultaneous.

I might appear one of might appear to me that one of those occurs before on one of the others on.

So the natural interpretation of the special theory of relativity is to say, Look, simpleton 80 isn't absolute.

You don't just get that single slice of events.

Um, and of course, present is, um, says that you do on that.

That's a That's what you might describe as a sizable weakness.

Yeah, it is.

On.

This is this is that this is the reason that I say I'm not a present ist I'm very interested in presences and minutes of you that I've I've looked to defend from other objections and to think about one of the things that I've got that interests me particularly about this debate between the presences on Dhe.

Think of the Orthodox scientific view is if on how a philosophical argument might overturn a particular scientific theory so that the not the default setting is to say the special theory of relativity contradicts, present is and therefore present is, um is false.

I've got no problem with that as a starting point, but then the question is will.

Okay, suppose we start there.

Um, why can't the present ist modifying the special theory of relativity?

Why can't they dispute the interpretation of the special theory of relativity?

Now, maybe there were good reasons that they can't do that, but that that strikes that question strikes me is a really interesting one.

And that's one of the reasons I get interested in this part of debate.

There are kind of hybrid views or mixed views on that get kicked about on one of these is the growing bloc theory of time again growing bloc being a bit of a metaphor for what goes on.

It sometimes gets described as being a version of the A theory, but but not always so.

I'm a little cautious about describing in that way.

But the basic idea of the growing bloc theory is to say that whereas the beef theorist tends to say that past present future, all equally riel thing growing bloc theorist says.

Well, the past existence in Israel and the present is I think of it like a block on overtime.

This brought block is steadily growing and being added to I think the big question in the philosophy of time at the moment released it has been quite recently is how the present ist deals with particular problem.

So suppose you think that only present objects exists.

Will will assume present ism for the time being.

Um, okay, there's another philosophical hypothesis that gets people quite excited.

This is the truth.

Make a principle and the truth make principal very briefly says that for every true claim that you want to make about reality, something must exist.

That makes it true.

So if I want to say to you, I'm wearing a shirt that's true.

I have to tell you what the truth maker is on this case really easy.

It's just my shirt, but now be a present is and say only present objects exist.

You want to say it's true that there were dinosaurs.

We want to say that that's true.

Well, what makes it true?

You would naturally say existing dinosaurs make it true.

But of course, the present is denies that dinosaurs exist on.

So what the present is then needs to do is one of two things they need to either find a reason to.

In a way of modifying truth maker theory, all they need to find some other truth makeup to make.

True, I talk about the past as far as I'm concerned that the thing that'll philosopher's look for on DSO would quest one, and so the great discovery would be is a really good argument.

I think that that's that's our bread and butter.

And so to do it really well, to come up with a really excellent argument that persuaded people off some new view of some position that had premises that you just simply couldn't find it within yourself to dispute that was logically tight.

That would be that would be the discovery.

That would be what would be really, really interesting.

So So when I take someone, what is that I do We talk about this, that the typical reaction is how interesting.

And then there's a pause or a silence on.

Then someone normally laughs and said, Well, that killed a conversation, didn't it?

So, yes, they're saying that you do.

The philosophy of time for a living is, uh it's a great way to kill conversations with people.

I do.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I reckon it's about 20 to 12.