Peter provided the following word game in order to question the validity of
the fact that existence exists. He wrote:

“Time is divided into three parts: past, present, and future. The future
does not exist since it has not arrived yet. The past, likewise, does not
exist because it has already happened (it would "exist" only in memory).
The present is where all experience occurs. However, the present has no
duration because if it did, half would be future and half past. Something
without duration has no existence. Therefore, the present does not exist.
The future (one non-existence) goes immediately into the past (another
non-existence) with no existence inbetween the two states. Therefore
existence doesn't exist.”

I think the most questionable premise which Peter gives here is the
following: “However, the present has no duration because if it did, half
would be future and half past. Something without duration has no
existence.”

I disagree. In fact, since it is always what time it is, then the idea that
“the present has no duration” is wrong. It’s always the present, so Peter’s
statement cannot be true.

However, the whole scenario is built on an invalid view of time. Time, Peter
says, is “divided into three parts: past, present, and future.” But where
does Peter define the concept ‘time’? (Indeed, where does the Bible define
this term?) The answer, of course, is again found in Objectivism. According
to Objectivism, time is a measurement of motion and action, and nothing
more. Since motion and action exist, and since motion and action are motion
and action *of things which exist,* the concept ‘time’ naturally presupposes
the fact that existence exists. So, simply asserting the concept ‘time’ one
must assume the fact that existence exists to begin with. Furthermore, even
if we were to accept the notion that “the present has no duration” and that
“the future does not exist since it has not arrived yet” or that the “past,
likewise, does not exist because it has already happened,” this would not
overturn the fact that no matter how much time goes by, the existents which
are engaged in the actions so considered still exist, in one form or
another. Additionally, in order to consider the thought experiment itself,
one must be conscious, and one must exist if he is conscious, and something
must exist for him to be conscious of.

Existence does not exist “in time” and the universe does not exist “in
time.” Rather, time happens because existents can be engaged in activity. I
quote Dr. Peikoff:

“Time is a measurement of motion [which presupposes that entities exist]; as
such, it is a type of relationship. Time applies only within the universe,
when you define a standard - such as the motion of the earth around the sun.
If you take that as a unit, you can say: ‘This person has a certain
relationship to that motion; he has existed for three revolutions; he is
three years old.’ But when you get to the universe as a whole, obviously, no
standard is applicable. You cannot get outside the universe. The universe is
eternal in the literal sense: non-temporal, out of time.” (L. Peikoff, The
Philosophy of Objectivism, lecture series [1976].)

These conceptual games may confuse some people, Peter, and I wouldn’t be
surprised that, given today’s philosophical disconnect among misguided
academics, such “reasoning” might be taken seriously by some. However, I see
it all as completely invalid.

CertainVerdict