 McTaggart responds by restating this response in terms of second-order A-properties. To say that Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon was future, and was present, and is now past is to say that it has the properties of being past future (i.e. having been future), past present (i.e. having been present) and present past (i.e. now being past). And similar reasoning to the above suggests that every time and event has each of the nine possible second-order A-properties; and while it’s not the case that any two of them are incompatible, certain pairs of them are. Nothing can be both past past and future future, for example: if \(E\) has been a mere past event, it can’t be true that \(E\) will be something that is yet to happen. And yet the complete account of reality seems to include both Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon being past past and its being future future. After all, in 2000 BCE Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon was future future, since 1000 BCE was the future and Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon would still be the future then. And Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon is past past just now, since 1000 CE is past, and Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon was past then. But both 2000 BCE and the present are part of the overall history of the world, so the goings on at each time are part of what the world as a whole is like, and so Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon is both past past and future future, and yet those are incompatible. And again, the defender of the A-series will respond that it’s not that Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon is both past past and future future, it’s that it is now past past and was future future. And McTaggart will respond that this is to invoke third-order A-properties—being present past past, being past future future, etc. And the same problem will arise, and invite the same response, which will lead to the same problem concerning fourth-order A-properties, which will invite the same response again … and so on, ad infinitum.