School #8

Presentism

Broad, Prior

Presentism holds that only the present exists — the past has ceased to be and the future has not yet come into being, making the razor-thin "now" the totality of reality. C. D. Broad's 'Scientific Thought' (1923) developed a "growing block" model in which the past and present are real but the future is not, though strict presentists reject even the past's continued existence. Arthur Prior's 'Past, Present and Future' (1967) gave presentism its most rigorous logical framework through tense logic, a formal system in which tensed statements ("it was the case that," "it will be the case that") are irreducible primitives rather than disguised references to timelessly existing events. Presentism stands in direct opposition to the "block universe" of eternalism, insisting that the passage of time is ontologically real and not merely a subjective illusion.

Worldview

The presentist lives entirely in the now — not as a spiritual discipline but as an ontological conviction. The past is genuinely gone, not stored somewhere awaiting retrieval, and the future is genuinely open, not already laid out in a block universe. This produces a distinctive phenomenology of urgency and vividness: each moment is the entirety of what exists, a razor-thin edge of actuality poised between two voids. Memory is real as a present mental state, but it is not a window into a still-existing past; anticipation is real as a present orientation, but it does not reach into a pre-existing future. The presentist finds the here-and-now inexhaustibly rich precisely because it is all there is. The framework classifies this as None: presentism takes no stance requiring a personal deity or cosmic ordering principle; the metaphysics is exhausted by what is present. The framework reads this as Constructed moral authority: with no fixed past or future to anchor norms in, what counts as authoritative is constituted by present communities of practice deciding here and now — no Scripture, Tradition, or eternal Reason carries weight independent of the living moment.

Moral Implications

Presentism intensifies moral urgency by insisting that only present actions and present suffering are real. One cannot defer moral responsibility to the future or rationalize present harm by appeal to a "bigger picture" that spans all of time. Justice must be done now, because now is the only moment that exists. This orientation supports an ethics of immediate responsiveness — attending to present needs, present crises, present injustices — rather than utilitarian calculations that sacrifice present well-being for speculative future gains. Forgiveness, too, takes on a distinctive character: since the past no longer exists, the presentist asks whether clinging to past wrongs serves any purpose in the only moment that is real.

Practical Implications

Presentism challenges planning-oriented cultures that treat the future as a real domain to be colonized and optimized. While the presentist does not deny the usefulness of planning, they insist that plans are present mental states, not descriptions of a pre-existing future. This orientation can support mindfulness-based approaches to well-being, immediate humanitarian response over long-term development ideology, and a healthy skepticism toward promissory technologies that demand present sacrifice for future rewards. Environmentally, presentism demands attention to the present state of ecosystems rather than abstract projections of future sustainability.

I. Time

Time is emergent and finite — only the present moment is real. The past has ceased to exist and the future does not yet exist; both are mere conceptual extrapolations from the living now. Time is continuous, linear, and uni-directional, but its reality is exhausted by the present instant. Presentism makes time the most metaphysically thin of all dimensions: a single, razor-edge moment of actuality.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Dimensionality: One Direction: Uni-directional

II. Space

Space is emergent and finite — it exists only in the present moment. Since only the present is real, space is the current spatial configuration of present entities and nothing more. It is flat, local, and three-dimensional, reflecting the ordinary common-sense structure of the world as it exists right now.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

Matter is emergent and finite — only presently existing matter is real. Past states of matter no longer exist; future states do not yet exist. Conservation holds in the sense that currently existing matter persists from moment to moment, but the presentist cannot appeal to a permanently existing material substrate stretching across time.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

The observer can only exist in and perceive the present, because only the present is real. Past events have vanished and future events have not yet come into being; the observer occupies a single, fleeting now in a single location. Knowledge is limited to what currently exists — memories are present mental states, not windows into a still-existing past. Because past realities no longer exist, there is nothing to fully retain; what the observer "remembers" is a trace in the present, not a preserved record. The observer is embodied and active, engaged with a world that is constantly coming into and passing out of existence. Multiple observers share the same present moment, each experiencing the only slice of reality there is.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Extent of Knowledge: Immediate Retainment of Knowledge: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None Moral Authority: Reason Theological Method: N/A

V. Energy

Energy is emergent and finite — only presently existing energy is real. Conservation holds as a regularity of present experience, but the presentist cannot ground it in an eternal physical law spanning a non-existent past and future. Dispersibility is irreversible within the present flow of experience.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Only present information is real — information about the past no longer exists except as present traces, and information about the future does not yet exist. Information is emergent and non-conserved. The framework places this as non-conserved at both scales: past cosmic information is not real (only the present is), and no personal-identity pattern persists beyond present existence — when the present moment of a life ends, nothing of that life remains in being.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Non-conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous

Experiments This School Responds To (7)

The Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser
1978 / 1999 · Denies / rejects the premise
A challenge: if only the present exists, the signal detection at D0 was a fully determinate event when it happened, and the later eraser cannot …
Hafele–Keating
1971 · Denies / rejects the premise
Hafele-Keating confirms differential aging, not eternalism: presentists can accept frame-dependent proper times while insisting on a single moving "now" relative to some preferred frame (Lorentzian …
The Cosmic Microwave Background
1964 (detection); 1948 (prediction) · Reframes the question
A challenge: if only the present exists, the CMB is evidence of past states that no longer do. Presentists must accept the evidence while denying …
Hubble's Redshift Law
1929 · Reframes the question
A challenge: light from distant galaxies brings evidence of states that no longer exist. Presentists must distinguish what is real (only the present) from what …
Eternal Recurrence
1882 · Denies / rejects the premise
If only the present exists, recurrence is empty: the "returning" moments are not the same moments, just qualitatively identical ones. The ethical test has the …
The Bilking Argument
1956 · Affirms / takes the bait
A natural ally: if only the present exists, the past is fixed and cannot be affected. The bilking argument formalises a deep presentist intuition.
Rossi-Hall Cosmic-Ray Muon Time Dilation
1941 · Reframes the question
Presentists must accommodate frame-dependent decay; neo-Lorentzian readings preserve a preferred frame, but conventional presentism is strained.

Films Reading Through This School (8)

The Mirror
1975 · dir. Andrei Tarkovsky · 25%
The film is presentist in its phenomenology: past and future events are filmed as if occurring now, because that is how they are present to …
Russian Ark
2002 · dir. Aleksandr Sokurov · 25%
The unbroken take makes everything phenomenologically present: Catherine and the siege survivors and the contemporary narrator share a single now because the camera does. The …
Tokyo Story
1953 · dir. Yasujirō Ozu · 20%
Ozu's style is presentist in form: each scene is given as a now, without flashback, voiceover, or anticipation. The past is audible only through what …
A Ghost Story
2017 · dir. David Lowery · 20%
Against the eternalist reading, the ghost's experience is also presentist: each long moment is given as a present, the next erases the last, and what …
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring
2003 · dir. Kim Ki-duk · 15%
Despite its cyclic frame, the film is phenomenologically presentist: each season is given as a now without flashback or anticipation, and the apprentice's lessons are …
Departures
2008 · dir. Yōjirō Takita · 15%
The film is presentist in style: each preparation is given as its own present, with the past available only through what the family says now, …
Last Year at Marienbad
1961 · dir. Alain Resnais · 10%
A presentist reading is forced upon the viewer: only what is on screen now is real, and the past that characters argue about has no …
Memento
2000 · dir. Christopher Nolan · 5%
Philosophical presentism (only the present is real) is forced into living form: for Leonard, the past literally is not, until he reads a note. The …
← #7 Determinism All Schools #9 Eternalism →

Works that name Presentism in their embodiments

Foundational texts that draw on this school, with each work's declared weight.

40%
Time and Modality (Early (Prior's first major synthesis of tense logic, derived from his 1955-56 Oxford Locke Lectures))
Arthur N. Prior · 1957
25%
Examination of McTaggart's Philosophy (Mature)
C. D. Broad · 1933 (vol. 1), 1938 (vol. 2)
15%
Past, Present and Future (Mature)
Arthur Norman Prior · 1967
10%
Papers on Time and Tense (Late)
Arthur Norman Prior · 1968
10%
Fragments and Testimonia
Aristippus of Cyrene · c. early 4th century BCE (original teachings); testimonia from antiquity
5%
Truth and Other Enigmas (Mid)
Michael Dummett · 1978 (essays 1954-77)

Personas with Presentism as a declared influence

60%  Arthur Norman Prior 30%  C. D. Broad 10%  Aristippus of Cyrene -15%  J. M. E. McTaggart

How Presentism resolves each dilemma

56 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 3 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 1 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas, all mainstream
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (29/208)
What makes someone the same person over time?
When dementia hollows out memory, when a coma resolves with no recall, when you imagine being uploaded — the question of whether the surviving person is still you turns on what kind of thing the 'you' was to begin with.
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
On these views, what we call a self was always a stream of experience, a constructed narrative, a process — never a thing whose continuity could be the question. Dementia, upload, transformation, death are stages in a process, not events that either preserve or destroy …
Roads not taken You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. (36%) · You are a soul — what persists through change is the non-bodily aspect. (30%) · You span moments — identity is a pattern that need not be located at a single now. (9%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (29/208)
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Loss of memory, of recognition, of the cognitive patterns that made the person — does this end the person, or merely the person you knew? The answer turns on what makes someone who they are.
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
On these views, the person their spouse married was never a fixed thing whose continuation could be tracked across time. There has always been a stream of experiences, a developing character, a construction. Dementia is one of the more visible changes in the process; the …
Roads not taken Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. (36%) · The soul persists; the cognitive change is the body's, not the person's. (30%) · The person is the pattern across moments — diminished pattern, diminished person. (9%)
Distinctive · only 14% of schools agree (29/208)
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
The Star Trek transporter problem: a machine scans your body atom by atom, transmits the pattern, builds an exact duplicate at the destination, and dismantles the original. Whether you arrive at the destination or die in the scanner is the question; the answer depends on what you are.
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
On these views, the question presupposes a fixed self whose continuity is the issue. There isn't one. The teleporter case feels more troubling than ordinary sleep, dementia, or growth, but the framework is the same: a stream of experience stops at the scanner, a new …
Roads not taken Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. (36%) · The soul accompanies the person; engineering can't transfer it. (30%) · You are the pattern; the pattern survives the substrate change. You arrive. (9%)
33 mainstream positions
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 55% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 55% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 50% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 50% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 50% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 47% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 47% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 43% What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? The category does not apply — the school is non-religious. 42% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The discrete person is the moral primary. 38% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. 36% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. 36% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. 36% Does history have a direction or meaning? History is not where the deepest truth lives. 36% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 31% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 31% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 31% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 31% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 31% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 29% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 29% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration. 24%
1 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Jump to school (208)
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 #64 #65 #66 #67 #68 #69 #70 #71 #72 #73 #74 #75 #76 #77 #78 #79 #80 #81 #82 #83 #84 #85 #86 #87 #88 #89 #90 #91 #92 #93 #94 #95 #96 #97 #98 #99 #100 #101 #102 #103 #104 #105 #106 #107 #108 #109 #110 #111 #112 #113 #114 #115 #116 #117 #118 #119 #120 #121 #122 #123 #124 #125 #126 #127 #128 #129 #130 #131 #132 #133 #134 #135 #136 #137 #138 #139 #140 #141 #142 #143 #144 #145 #146 #147 #148 #149 #150 #151 #152 #153 #154 #155 #156 #157 #158 #159 #160 #161 #162 #163 #164 #165 #166 #167 #168 #169 #170 #171 #172 #173 #174 #175 #176 #177 #178 #179 #180 #181 #182 #183 #184 #185 #186 #187 #188 #189 #190 #191 #192 #193 #194 #195 #196 #197 #198 #199 #200 #201 #202 #203 #204 #205 #206 #207 #208