Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1879-04-19
Is There an Absolute Present.

ply to articles of mine pablished in anothe l
| paper The first was kind Of flank move
ment made upon me while engaged in
discussion with another party, and 10 which
replied through the columns of the Tus.
| culum Record the paper in which it frs
| appeared. l desire to reply to the second
through the columns of the CHRONICLE.
The gentleman having once stated that
the horse was sixteen feet high" is de-
| termined to stick to it. In his first article
he stated that the fallaey OF my argument
| consisted in making the thing measured
| and the means of measurement ldentlcal,"
and when l show conciusiVely that this
| not the case, he attempts to dodge by going
| back to my first article and saying that in
| the illustrations used l made the point or
| line represent the present. L used lllustra-
| tiOns showing that they are exactly S1nllLGT;
! that the present bears the same relation TO
time ,l..t point does to space, aud is no
more a part of time than point is part
of SPACE. Surely two things may be shown
TO be similar, and even one used in an
illustration to represent the other without
making the two things Identical. The very
fact that one Is used to represent the other,
shows they are not reg 4rded as identical.
but similar. If two things can be shown
to be identical, they can no longer be re-
garded as two but one; and it Is nonsense
to say thing can be made to represent it
self.
Mr. Milburn pretends to quote the illus
tration used to show that l do not make
the thing measured and the means of meas
urement identical, but he takes little here
and little there, and leaves out the very
part relied upon to prove my position
This he doubtless thought he could safely
do, as the readers of the CHRONICLE had
not seen my article. For that reason, and
to give your readers an opportunity to
Judge for themselves, | shall repeat the
Illustration
A second is that length of time required
fOra pundulum of given length to vibrate,
Time is the thing measured, the pendulum
the means of measurement. We will sup
pose the arc through which the pendulum
vibrates is just one foot long; then, as it will
take just one second for the pendulum to
pass from one end of the arc to the other,
1t will, of course, take just half a second to
go half way. There is a mathematical
point that divides the arc into two equal
parts, and another that is the center of the
pendulum ball. As the pendulum passes
from one end of the arc to the other, there
certainly is a point at which the center of
the pendulum ball is exactly over the mids
die of the arc. When it reaches this point,
the pendulum, or means Of measurement,
has moved just half q foot; and time, or the
thing measured, has moved Just half a SEQ
Ond. Now, 1t is just as clear that the en-
tire half secoud is gone as it is that the
and is also just as plain that the other half
secoad Is yet to come, as it is that the pen
dulum must move another entire half foot !
IN order to reach the end of the arc From |
this illustration, ! think it will be clearly |
seen that do not make the thing measured
and the means of measurement identical I;
for certainly do not claim that the ped,l-
lam is time, any more than L do that fo0t
is a second.
But how does the gentleman answer
he says ! assume the point in debate He
has one and the same answer to every
thing-' ne assumes the point IN debate"
Assumption indeedi 1t 1t takes certain
time for the pendulum to traverse a certain
distance, " hen the entire distance has been
traversed, Is it mere assumption to say that
the time is gomez If it takes half the
time to traverse half the distance when
just half the distance has been traVersed,
is it mere assumption TO say that half the
time Is gomez And if half the distance is
yet to traverse, is II mere assumption to
say that half the time is yet to Gomez Or, |
perhaps, Is it assuming the point in de- !
bate to say there is such a thing as half |
certain time or half certain distance. is |
that where l MISS it? | would like TO /
know exactly where the assumption is. |
What part Of the illustration does he gem
tleman say no TOT L dislike this denying
everything in general and nothing in par
ucular. But ne says the motion of the
pendulum is continuous motion. Suppose
1t is, does that Chsnge the matter2 If it
moves the distance of one foot, by passing
through all the intermediate distances from
nothing up to one foot, and half-foot is
one of the intermediate distances, is it still /
an assumption TO say there is a point at .
which 1t has gone just half way2 If this
is all assumption, then l have assumed the
point in debate, otherwise L have not.
The gentleman propOunds certain duesr
al oh fra cd 'lar /
yer's skill TO puzzle, yet shall try to an
sWer Them. II is fair that l do so, or say
that l can't.
docs the pendulum more IN the past or
future 2" Neither the one nor the ether,
but at the point of transition. The point
where the past and future meet is continu-
ally changing, and all motion exactly CO.
Incides. As the act is performed the time
passes so that the transition of time from
future to past exactly corresponds with the
continuous change in every act from the
to the performed.
If it naoUeS in the past, a0hGt time is it
lUheH at the middle Point?" Answering
the first question also answers this. L
quote it only to show the logic. from
this question it will be seen that the gen.
tleman admits that there is a point at
which the center of the pendulum ball Is
if what he tells US in another part of his
article be true this can never be, He tells
Us a part of one-half or the other of
he second is always present with US; then,
f this be true, we are never exactly at the
middle point, as all the parts are on the
1ne side or the other of that point. Then,
f we are always on one side or the other
# the middle of the second, the center of
he pendulum ball is always on one side or
he other of the middle of the arc. fla
ways on one side or the other of the middle,
hen it is never exactly at that point; and
f never exactly at that point, it is never
exactly at any other. If never exactly at
he middle point or any other, it is never
exactly Gnyl0here. This is Mr.. MilbUrn's
ogic, not mine. He says my argument is
Illogical, and 1 am rather glad he thinks
10.
II q0onder 4Uhich am agriting IN, the
past or future - In the relGtire present
but absolutely, as at every point in tue
writing, even to the crossing of I. a part
was done and the rest yet to do, so at every
point portion of the time was gone and
the rest yet to come. But Mr.. Milburn says
It was written in the absolute present.
What is the absolute present? An i1aco7l-
;eiUable Increment" Then his article was
written in an incOnceivable increment of ,