Thread: The Future

Does the future exist?

Of course it does. Why else would we be moving forward in time? We have to have something to move into right?

Would that not mean it will exist in dure time?

There isn't a future until you get there and then its no longer the future.

The future is not set, there is no fate but what we make for ourselves...

There's never a future. Ever, only relative to the past.

Originally Posted by tritai

Of course it does. Why else would we be moving forward in time? We have to have something to move into right?

What do you suppose the universe is expanding into?

Poptarts.

But to really understand that the universe is even expanding, what is the universe? Is the universe the space that things exist in, or the things that exist in space? Also, is space expanding into nothingness, or is matter expanding into empty space?

-I'm currently scowling-

Darn it! I should've known you philosophical prodigies were going to do this to me! I dunno!

What do you suppose the universe is expanding into?

Well, it has to expand into something, but I can't tell you what. Maybe it will merge with another universe? Otherwise it's expanding into nothingness in order to make it something, because nothing can exist outside of the universe, because everything is inside the universe, and yet, if nothing has nothing in it, then there would be no such thing as nothing, because if it existed, it would have to have a hue or something, which nothing can't have otherwise it would be known by its color, so yeah, I just totally confused myself, and am going to go overdose on some aspirin. Way to go. You all made me try to think, and NOW look where it's gotten me landed.

According to Big Bang Theory the universe is not expanding into "something", rather space itself is expanding, taking all the matter-energy with it.

Similarly I suspect, time is being created second by second as the past builds up: it is simply a paradox of words to suggest the future exists right now.

How about this. There is no time nor space. The past is relative to the now, the future is there because we have no inkling of what will happen next. Both is beyond our control.

Some good points posted... I actually started a light hearted enjoyable thread!

Notice how these kinds of questions alwyas lead back to phsyics...

Originally Posted by sox

Notice how these kinds of questions alwyas lead back to phsyics...

True, but you wont see many scientists showing up in a philosophy thread about linguistic paradoxes or morality. Unless they starts saying the universe is deterministic and free will is an illusion, therefore morality is an illusion!

To the point in hand, whether the future actually exists or not is the same as asking if the past exists or not (depending on what you mean by 'exist'). Perhaps the present is just an infinitely short (or planck short maybe?) speck on a 'time line'.
In a deterministic universe the future would be as predictable as the past, so you could argue both are equally real and pre-written and we are just spectators in the present. In a universe where probabilitys reign, the future would be unpredictable and would not actually exist. Turning time to run backwards may reveal that the probabilies also do not allow a predictable universe in reverse time, therefore neither exist and the present is all that actaully exists.

Does something that happened last year actually exist? Definitions are becoming important here. If i ran time backwards to that point, could i be sure the event would still be there?

Although i cant help feeling that perhaps its the way our perception works is the problem and this is actually a moot point!! Time is an invention to help us understand change in the universe. Past and future being futile mortal human creations!! :P

Excuse my trail of thoughts on the matter.

I have thought of another variant of this:

Say the sun is destroyed, or some other cataclysmic event occurs there. It would take approx 8 minutes for the light to reach us about the event, and we could only be affected after this point. Question is, from earth, does the event actaully exist in our present until the information about the event reaches us 8 minutes later? There is absolutely no way for us to know that the event had occured until 8 minutes later, so does it exist?

Originally Posted by harvestein

I have thought of another variant of this:

Say the sun is destroyed, or some other cataclysmic event occurs there. It would take approx 8 minutes for the light to reach us about the event, and we could only be affected after this point. Question is, from earth, does the event actaully exist in our present until the information about the event reaches us 8 minutes later? There is absolutely no way for us to know that the event had occured until 8 minutes later, so i would assume that means that it doesnt exist yet?

Newton said something like this:

If the sun were to vanish. Then the planets would all go off instantaneously at once together. Einstein knew that this would violate his special relativity. He knew this couldn't be true because the speed of light would not allow it.

This is how he developed General relativity and why he did. The gravity of the Earth would exist for 8 minutes. Time is relative. Try not to think of it as cosmic and the same because time doesn't work like that, and if you had a temporal compensator everywhere in the universe, it would look TOTALLY different.

Anyway. The universe is deterministic and free will is an illusion so it doesn't matter. But then again the opposite can be true so... meh.

Try and think of the 5th dimension if you want to understand the 4th. Here's a clue. The fith dimension is cause and effect universes infinitely in existence. Now explain time using a 5 dimensional concept, its a lot easier... (even though its not as simple as calling it 'the 5th dimension).

You can thank me later... :P

I see what your getting at, I find the thought confusing though.
If the theorist is observing the universe all at once as a snapshot, then of course, the event does exist, that is what we are doing when we are saying "it will take 8 minutes to reach us", we are seeing the sun and earth in the same picture.
But for a less superior (but real!) observer on earth such as myself, is it fair for me to say that when i see this event, it did not exist for the previous 8 minutes that the theorist observer has seen?

I can see that this line of thinking is a fallacy of the way we are used to thinking about time, but still it bends the conceptions you normally take for granted.

I understand. The sun disappearing doesn't happen until we see no light and no going around the sun. So it doesn't happen until we see it. We'd probably tell though that it has happened before we saw it after we see it due to seeing Venus for a split second longer in the sky... Likewise with Mars and the other planets...

As in Venus will absorb and send out light after the sun's own goes past. Mars will still keep giving off light for a while after the sun has gone. This is how we will tell it happened before we could notice it...