NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking yesterday if the present actually exists. I think that there might only be past and future. Do you ever remember noticing something when it happened, or did you only remember it? Also, by the time something happening gets processed in your brain, it already happened.

Woah...

Gettin kind of deep, there.

That was almost interesting. Almost.

god damnit, not another one of these threads!

....I was just about to eat a slice of bread when I read this.
... There was mold all over it.
I don't believe there's any relation between these events.

The question usually works the other way around. How do we know the future and past exist, since we cannot experience them?

All that we are perceiving at this moment is the present. When that perception of a minute, second, or hour is over, it becomes past and cannot be experienced again. The future supposedly exists before the present, but we do not know the future until it becomes the present, so how can we say there is anything but the present.

I was thinking yesterday if the present actually exists. I think that there might only be past and future. Do you ever remember noticing something when it happened, or did you only remember it? Also, by the time something happening gets processed in your brain, it already happened.

I don't know, it seems more likely that every moment is 'now' and that the past and future don't actually exist as we think about it. No wait... I need to think about that more.

My God, this thread is making me want to order Domino's pizza and eat a bunch of Doritos!

And wear patchouli...lots and lots of patchouli...bathe in the stuff...instead of bathing in water...dude, when the hell is that Domino's getting here!

So who wants an aspirin?

Haha, but have you even considered that if any of the three concepts of 'past', 'present', or 'future' don't in fact exist - then it means that none of the others do either as they are only relative terms that only hold meaning in conjunction with the other terms.

But then that is all "time" is. Relative movement. Freedom to move position or atleast the illusion of changing position. But is it really freedom? As if one things moves it means another thing also has to move in relation to something else's movement.

I know that some people will be thinking "How can something move it has not had time to move?", but that appraoching the problem from the wrong direction. I say, "how can you judge time to exist at all if you don't have things that move in relation to each other?".

I acutally read something about this a few months back. Essentially the conclusion (tenative) was that no, the present does not exist, there is only the past and the future.

Actually is was more interesting because the guy who wrote the paper was an undergraduate, and he had been invited to speak all over the world about his theory. I can't remember who it was though. If I can find a reference I'll post it.

The present is things happening.

"now" is four words ago.

If an instant exists, so does the present.

....I was just about to eat a slice of bread when I read this.
... There was mold all over it.
I don't believe there's any relation between these events.
MY GOD!
How long did it take you to read this?

MY GOD!
How long did it take you to read this?

Well, you know.,..you have to admit that the question was pretty deep. So I had to think about it for a while... :p

the present exists, thats why they say that every moment is a gift. or something. :D

Yeah, yeah. Nothing happens instantly. When light hits your eyes it has already moved. When you speak it takes time for the sound to reach another person's ears. So technically you are always living in the past because your senses always need to catch up.

Haha, but have you even considered that if any of the three concepts of 'past', 'present', or 'future' don't in fact exist - then it means that none of the others do either as they are only relative terms that only hold meaning in conjunction with the other terms.

But then that is all "time" is. Relative movement. Freedom to move position or atleast the illusion of changing position. But is it really freedom? As if one things moves it means another thing also has to move in relation to something else's movement.

I know that some people will be thinking "How can something move it has not had time to move?", but that appraoching the problem from the wrong direction. I say, "how can you judge time to exist at all if you don't have things that move in relation to each other?".
well, japanese only has past and non-past tenses, i'm pretty shure. there does exist the probable mood, though.

Yeah, yeah. Nothing happens instantly. When light hits your eyes it has already moved. When you speak it takes time for the sound to reach another person's ears. So technically you are always living in the past because your senses always need to catch up.
But that suggests that "the present" is out there, where the things going on, instead of here, where your consciousness perceives it.

"Here and now" is the present.

well, japanese only has past and non-past tenses, i'm pretty shure. there does exist the probable mood, though.
This is actually more common that the complex system as in English. Finnish is another language with a "may happen"/"may have happened" potential mood.

But, whether or not the present exist, we cannot observe it, because our senses are far from instantaneous. We can ONLY say that we observe a "moving point of measurement" along the timeline, if we assume "timeline" to be a physically meaningful and accurate description.

Gravity is a thing humans take for granted, but a one-gee gravity is far from universal. You need only to get to free fall, and you can notice how confused you and your system becomes, when there is no "up" or "down". Maybe there is a "timeless" place somewhere, about which we know as much as medieval people knew about the outer space. In there, we'd be as confused as without gravity.

I was thinking yesterday if the present actually exists. I think that there might only be past and future. Do you ever remember noticing something when it happened, or did you only remember it? Also, by the time something happening gets processed in your brain, it already happened.

Only the present exists.

Don't believe me? I'll tell you why in the future...

;)

Technically all disscussion of time, the present etc in a direct link to anything but human perception is pointless and meaningless - time is nothing more than a human invention, seriously. We make it up so we don't have to face the mind-numbing relentlessness of eternity. We break up our experiences into units of 'time' but nothing else does - ever notice a star with an alarm clock :D

BTW all that is quite probably bollocks, but oh well, it makes me sounf clever :P

Technically all disscussion of time, the present etc in a direct link to anything but human perception is pointless and meaningless - time is nothing more than a human invention, seriously. We make it up so we don't have to face the mind-numbing relentlessness of eternity. We break up our experiences into units of 'time' but nothing else does - ever notice a star with an alarm clock :D
Like... a pulsar? ;)

just because you cant percieve it doesnt mean the present doesnt exist.you cant remember pain,but it exists

:headbang:

*Sigh.*

Alright! Pay attention there kiddies 'cause this is the LAST time I'm going to answer this question!

Does "the present" exist?

Yes. It's under the christmas tree.

I was thinking yesterday if the present actually exists. I think that there might only be past and future. Do you ever remember noticing something when it happened, or did you only remember it? Also, by the time something happening gets processed in your brain, it already happened.

How's the weed?

Existentialism AND quantum physics? My head hurts -- where's the Tylenol? :headbang:

the present is existing

just because you cant percieve it doesnt mean the present doesnt exist.you cant remember pain,but it exists
Actually, the present is the only thing you can perceive. :D

Yes, the present exists. And not just that gift under the Christmas tree, either.

It exists outside your perception of events, and independent of your experiencing it. It will happen without you being there, and happens when you're asleep.

Think about, if nothing exists when you're not paying attention to it, why does it suddenly pop back when you do? We don't have that effect on reality. Stars exist without us seeing them, move without our say-so, and die without us mourning them. Things happen without our notice, but when they don't exist we notice their lack. Do you consciously direct each breath and beat of your heart? No, of course not. These things are designed to happen without input. You notice their lack, rather than their existance.

Reality exists without you noticing it. The world cannot be the sum of millions upon millions of different viewpoints, for how else could it have common rules?

From a scientific aspect (I know you all love these):

1) Relativity
The present of any location is the vertice of the light cone, thus the present exists.
2) Quantum Mechanics
The present of any object is unattainable. As time progresses, even if we have located an object, we have no knowledge of where it was nor where it will be. Thus as soon we have measured the values of an object, there is no possible way of knowing anything concerning the object at the moment of consideration, thus the present does not exist.

Yes, the present exists. And not just that gift under the Christmas tree, either.

It exists outside your perception of events, and independent of your experiencing it. It will happen without you being there, and happens when you're asleep.

Think about, if nothing exists when you're not paying attention to it, why does it suddenly pop back when you do? We don't have that effect on reality. Stars exist without us seeing them, move without our say-so, and die without us mourning them. Things happen without our notice, but when they don't exist we notice their lack. Do you consciously direct each breath and beat of your heart? No, of course not. These things are designed to happen without input. You notice their lack, rather than their existance.

Reality exists without you noticing it. The world cannot be the sum of millions upon millions of different viewpoints, for how else could it have common rules?
"The present" is a moment of time experienced. It is what of reality is presented to you, the observer, at any given moment. Time exists independent of an observer; the present does not. If you go 30 minutes into the past, then that becomes the present for you. The present for others, that they are experiencing back "where" you came from, is now the future for you. That future moment is not a "real" present, more real than the one you have; the present for you is the present, as far as you are concerned.

It is entirely relative.

The present is an infinately small unit of time between the future and the past.

And if it is infinately small it mathematically does not exist, according to my maths teacher.

And as hemmingsoft said, the heisenberg uncertainty principle makes the present unattainable.

The present is an infinately small unit of time between the future and the past.

And if it is infinately small it mathematically does not exist, according to my maths teacher.

And as hemmingsoft said, the heisenberg uncertainty principle makes the present unattainable.
Your statement, "The present is an infinately small unit of time between the future and the past," requires an observer. Otherwise, where, if the present is objectively real, do "the future" and "the past" meet? They don't, in physical reality. Only from the view of an observer do they meet. Objectively, time is just an unbroken chain of events. Subjectively, there is a past (in memory) and a future (speculatively).

There is no present, no past, no future unless perceived by an individual consciousness. This does not mean that the present is not "real" (in the sense that concepts are valid). It only means that concepts are not physically/materially real, which no one disputes. The present is a very real relationship between consciousness and reality. A conscious observer is an absolute necessity to give concepts reality (validity).

As for existence, concepts exist... in the mind of the observer. Existence does not equal reality.

The present is a conceptual point, yes, this infinitely small interface between past and future subjectively experienced. A singularity, I believe they call it. It exists experientially, as an observation of time.

Your statement, "The present is an infinately small unit of time between the future and the past," requires an observer. Otherwise, where, if the present is objectively real, do "the future" and "the past" meet? They don't, in physical reality. Only from the view of an observer do they meet. Objectively, time is just an unbroken chain of events. Subjectively, there is a past (in memory) and a future (speculatively).

There is no present, no past, no future unless perceived by an individual consciousness. This does not mean that the present is not "real" (in the sense that concepts are valid). It only means that concepts are not physically/materially real, which no one disputes. The present is a very real relationship between consciousness and reality. A conscious observer is an absolute necessity to give concepts reality (validity).

As for existence, concepts exist... in the mind of the observer. Existence does not equal reality.

The present is a conceptual point, yes, this infinitely small interface between past and future subjectively experienced. A singularity, I believe they call it. It exists experientially, as an observation of time.
Well, as no one's countered this yet, I suppose I'll have to counter it myself.

Here's the posit:

Time, objectively, is an unbroken chain of events. I'm not going to go into beginning and endings, as that's irrelevant (I think, unless someone demonstrates otherwise) to this argument. Any point (moment) of this "line" of time is no more or less significant, no more or less real, than any other point.

Now, bring in a consciousness to this scenario, a living being. Suddenly certain points on the chain gain tremendous significance because they happen simultaneously with the growth and development of this living being. The present is the relationship this conscious observer has with the universe that is presented to him, as he experiences it.

Other moments have significance, too. Some moments deemed "before the present" are stored, held in memory to be recalled "later". Some moments can be extrapolated, projected into a "future". All are relative to the living being.

Having a present creates a past and a future, all relative. Without conscious life-forms, there is no real point which is "the present". This is the posit.

To turn that around again, we take all the living conscious entities out of the picture and time is but an unbroken string of events, any point which has no more significance than any other.

So... if this view is correct, and the present is but a concept, a result of life-forms experiencing a certain moment in the unbroken "line" of time... if the present is entirely relative, then why do we all experience the same moment in time? And do we?

So... is "the present" objectively real?

Well, as no one's countered this yet, I suppose I'll have to counter it myself.

Here's the posit:

Time, objectively, is an unbroken chain of events. I'm not going to go into beginning and endings, as that's irrelevant (I think, unless someone demonstrates otherwise) to this argument. Any point (moment) of this "line" of time is no more or less significant, no more or less real, than any other point.

Now, bring in a consciousness to this scenario, a living being. Suddenly certain points on the chain gain tremendous significance because they happen simultaneously with the growth and development of this living being. The present is the relationship this conscious observer has with the universe that is presented to him, as he experiences it.

Other moments have significance, too. Some moments deemed "before the present" are stored, held in memory to be recalled "later". Some moments can be extrapolated, projected into a "future". All are relative to the living being.

Having a present creates a past and a future, all relative. Without conscious life-forms, there is no real point which is "the present". This is the posit.

To turn that around again, we take all the living conscious entities out of the picture and time is but an unbroken string of events, any point which has no more significance than any other.

So... if this view is correct, and the present is but a concept, a result of life-forms experiencing a certain moment in the unbroken "line" of time... if the present is entirely relative, then why do we all experience the same moment in time? And do we?

So... is "the present" objectively real?


Arrr, but it wouldn't really matter if we didn't...... because we still really would. It's all relative isn't it? how do you judge your relative position? By observing things around you.
If we experience every moment there is, (or atleast every moment our corporeal existence allows) in a consistent lineal chain, then with that internal relativeness we are experiencing all moments at the same time as each other. As with each moment, in relating to each other we are in the same moment (not considering delay in communication in the transference of information from one another).
But externally, providing that there is still somekind of higher relative state to experience time, you could start your journey at different points in time in relation to that lower level; as all time is only defined internally.
But as you get into the "centre" of a singularity (I say "centre", as you probably know, because it is only an estimation on working out the relation of the observable matter) time disolves. Simply we have no movement to judge time, or if you prefer, no time to allow movement; therefore no particle could ever reach the "centre" of a singularity and why no position can be judged, as we always judge a position by relative points. Doesn't matter what it is, a point in space or time, or space-time.

So if we are talking about different rates of time then we must not consider any rate at the level of a singularity and any level this side of a singularity will always be moving in the same direction in time as we are. So it's not like we could go backwards in time in this higher relative state of time that I previously mentioned. But simply slow down or speed up how we experience time in relation to what surrounds us by varying our speed. However we must still move relative to the overall direction of everything else. Then even if we did reverse time (hypothetically) then it would be relative, so everything would reverse, and again because of relativity, everything would still remain causal.

Then in the extreme consideration that something like a "higher" relative state exists beyond the singularity which we simply can not detect (although 'higher' doesn't any longer have any meaning at all). It wouldn't hold any relation to this set of events at all. So supposing the unlikely event we could cross that boundary, there is no determining 'where' and 'when' on the other side (supposing they are even conceptually viable in that domain) you will end up.
As point/singularity in space and time holds a relative position that is connected to all possible position in both time and space (which creates the illusion of no localised position).

So you could end up anywhere as you cross from the other side, supposing it's actually there and you actually can.

.............But then I may not have any idea what I'm on about and this could all be BS. [/Disclaimer]