A concept of time

Ant_222 wrote:
<<But: at every fixed moment of time things are «freezed».
The current moment of time is called «Now».
Since things are changing, we know that «Now» is changing.>>

My reply:
Your idea is great. But what if things HAVE CHANGED? Is it still «Now» or not?

«our idea is great. But what if things HAVE CHANGED? Is it still «Now» or not?»

What do you mean¿ I don't understand you question.
Ex.: «Things have changed drastically since 1982.»
That's a past action, because, by the moment of speech, the time period in question was since 1982 till «Now» (that moment, which was «Now» by the moment of speech), and it doesn't matter whether things are changing now or not...

1. our -> Your

2. Typo in the last sentence: «And it doesn't matter wether things were changing or not (at the moment of speech)»

Ant_222 wrote:
<<Ex.: «Things have changed drastically since 1982.»
That's a past action...>>

My reply:
What about "I have lived here since 1982"? Is this a past action also?

No.

«I have lived here since 1982»

This can be somebody still living there and by somebody who has just been evicted.

<<"To D62NN??
Why have you chosen such a weird dynamic nick?"

It's effectively a serial number.

Unfortunately, the Antimoon forum allows impostors to use your name and pass their postings off as yours. Very annoying.

To counter this, I have a simple program that generates a unique serial number for each post.>>

My reply:
Your new method of nomenclature has troubled other correspondents.

You have actually made it easier for so-called imposters to use your name again and, this time, you cannot complain.

If the imposter now uses "D6277YH", you cannot say he uses your name, because you haven't used it before at all. But according to your new way of calling, we have to take "D6277YH" as you. I hope you may reconsider your pen name. Get a fixed number.

You may make fun of the name of Simple Present, but you shall not make fun of your own pen name.

Ant_222 wrote:
<<«I have lived here since 1982»

This can be somebody still living there and by somebody who has just been evicted.>>

My reply:
So? It is still not a past action, is it?

Why "Things have changed drastically since 1982" is a past action,
and "I have lived here since 1982" isn't?

Does the pattern <Present Perfect + since> have two implications, either a past action or not a past action?

In light of "engtense's" last posting, all I can say is:

If Darwin lectured a classroom full of monkeys on the Theory of Evolution for a thousand years, after a thousand years they'd still be monkeys.

Human beings have existed much more than a thousand years. What have they changed in such an evolution?

Talking of monkeys, according to some wiseguy, if you left a monkey alone with a typewriter long enough the time would come when the animal would have typed out the complete works of shakespeare. he never said just how long that would take.

Would the monkey not die of old age?

I explained: "What about This Week? Is it a present time or a future time?....."

D6233RS wrote:
<<Again, I frankly haven’t the faintest idea what you’re trying to say here.....>>

My reply:
I want to try my luck again:

'Tomorrow' is within a present time This Week, so Tomorrow does not have to be called a future time. Future time and present time are overlapped and they both cannot be a criterion to judge a future action or a present action. A future action is judged by an auxiliary modal verb.

Modal auxiliary verbs are Will, Shall, Can, Must, Ought To, May, etc., and their past forms Would, Should, Could, etc. They help other verbs to indicate an uncertainty, a so-called future action.
By uncertainty, it is actually not an action yet:
Ex: I will see the movie tomorrow.
Ex: They may build the house there.
Ex: We ought to go to see him.

By the time we are certain whether "I will see the movie tomorrow" is an action or not, it is in the future. This is why they are regarded as a future action. However, at that time, as they have become certainty, we dispense with modal auxiliaries:
Ex1a: I saw the movie.
Ex1b: I didn't see the movie.
Therefore "I will see the movie tomorrow" is a future action, and its tense a Future Tense.

We are not omniscience, and have uncertainty in the future, at the present, and in the past. Therefore, modal auxiliary verbs can pair with various kinds of time adverbials:
Ex: They will visit us Next Week.
Ex: He may be in the office Now.
Ex: She must have seen the letter Yesterday.
== Again, they each are not really an action. They are only a supposition, an uncertainty. By the time they are an action, it is in the future. This is why they are regarded as a future action. Their tense is Future Tense.

Examples not using modal auxiliary verbs are not uncertainty:
Ex: "I see/am seeing the movie tomorrow."
Again, it has nothing to do with time adverbial, which is hardly a future time, for it is within this week. Further, if I have a habit of seeing movie, it must include last time and next time. Therefore, if next time "I see/am seeing the movie tomorrow", it is only a present habit that is not yet finished not.

Typo: The ending "not yet finished not" should have been 'not yet finished now'.

I said: "Please be noted again that Tomorrow is within this present week or present month, so it is a present time."

D6233RS wrote:
<<Hello? Unless I'm very much mistaken, tomorrow is always in the future. So how can an action taking place tomorrow be present time?
It can be present tense but it can never be present time.>>

My reply:
If Tomorrow must be a future time, then next hour, next minute, next second, and next millisecond must be a future time too. If so, where is the present time? I have reported here that readers in another forum could not answer this question and the discussion has become a (temporary) halt. Today, there is still no further response there.

Even to be the most precise, in a timeline we can only cut into two parts, the past and the non-past:
---------------+----------------
The shortest past instant is to the left, while the shortest present and the shortest future instants are overlapped to the right.

Because of the overlap to the right, therefore, one cannot cut a part that must be called present, and cut another part that must be called future. As the present time to the right can be infinite, one cannot take a part of it and call it 'future'.

The reason why we have to keep two kinds of time notions, present and future, however, has been explained before: A present action is clearly different from a future action.
If you say it is a future action (using modal auxiliary verb) and it turns out not a fact, it is still OK. You have a bad judgment.
If you say it is a present action and it turns out not a fact, it is not OK. You have a bad credibility. In some cases, it is a crime.