McTaggert says time includes an "irreducible" A series, of the past present and future flowing on like we're used to.

I think he says that the A series cannot exist so time isn't real.

McTaggart argued that there is in fact no such thing as time,

What philosophical evidence is there that this "A series" is real?

I ask because I maybe think that while I do seem to experience an A series, that I only really need commit to:

  1. now, and
  2. not now.

And I seem more inclined to accept that while something both is and isn't now, as per the style of McTaggert's argument against the A series, the terms are utterly primitive and unanalyzable and so this is no contradiction.

Does any philosophical text take this approach in an interesting way?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Joseph Weissman Jan 8 '16 at 20:49

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Also where does mctaggart subscribe himself to the A-theory? – virmaior Jul 22 '15 at 9:07
  • ah yeah poorly worded – user6917 Jul 22 '15 at 18:50