This is a paradigm example of arguing from both ends-reductively (inductively) and deductively, and that gets problematic as far as verbal interaction between similar content as far as the terms can generally be identified as making some sense.
Implication has various latitudes of comprehensive meaning, and I am trying to wrap my mind around the specificity You are requirying around time.
I am partly in complete agreement with the assertion that everything happens in the present time, but again I try to argue that notion has not developed legitimacy on basis of some intuition, OR games surrounding the analysis of sensible knowledge.
To accept that on it’s face appears sensible enough, but without the the objectiveness, the materiality of the source of such transaction (between the two modes of it); a prior determinative must entail the assumption that the author makes.
In fact such assumptions are only accepted a-priori, once the determination is understood to comply (not imply) a credible source.
That intuitive understanding has an analogy, is not a matter for doubt, as Einstein’s special Relativity is in relation to Lorentz’ theory on ether.
I feel no qualms to bring that up ,Peace Girl, and I do apologise for bringing in what may appear to You as unrelated.