Thread: Time ( i.e. the past)

One of the profound goofs of mankind is reconizing a past that never existed in the sense we veiw it, rather that be philosophical or in relativity in any other dogma.

To me the past is nothing more then a word that should be made into a letter followed by a dot, P.A.S.T. at least now we can get a sense of its true meaning,
"the Present At Said Time" thats all the past ever was or will be. even if we say History and what we learned from it, we are only saying we we gained at that present, at said time. Any lesson that followed from that was from that present and it movement forward from that point.

In medicine lets say Dr. Falk discoveres penicillen in the year 1932 (whatever)
this discoverey was made in that present of whatever day year 1932, advances in penicillen that came after his discovery only progressed from that present in which he frist discovered it, so the Past as we now relate to it didnt exist.

The great fallacy is to recognize a past period, but since it easily fits in our persepective of time and travel, (thanks to the big mr E) we know see it as a viable part of our existence and i hate to be the one to tell you this but its not.

If a Light from a big bang traveled in the past and can still be seen today presently, then perhaps our concept of travel is off too. whatever happened that brought us into being was a present at that time, and we now are nothing more then a progression of that present today, right now.

So maybe Light dont really travel but merely energizes a area in its influence and somehow we know look into the past to explain our present, when in truth all we have is now and a hope for tomorrow.

Work with What we have Now

Originally Posted by curious1

One of the profound goofs of mankind is reconizing a past that never existed in the sense we veiw it, rather that be philosophical or in relativity in any other dogma.

To me the past is nothing more then a word that should be made into a letter followed by a dot, P.A.S.T. at least now we can get a sense of its true meaning,
"the Present At Said Time" thats all the past ever was or will be.

How very very true. I have made a few "profound goofs" myself and posting on this thread may be one of them!

hang in there hall, in the end no foul no harm

I believe that this is out of place, being in the Earth Sciences section. Did you realize you were in this section when you posted this? This sounds like it should be a Philosophy post.

Anyway, what we have now has everything to do with what we learned from previously present times. The past has a huge social impact. However, if you're referring to any absolute impact, as I fear you may have been alluding to when you brushed on relativity and the nature of light, of course you are right that all we "have" is what is contained in the present.

I fail to recognize what exactly you mean by all of this though. What kind of suggestion are you making? That we should not regard the past as important? That you're annoyed with the word "past"?

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by curious1

One of the profound goofs of mankind is reconizing a past that never existed in the sense we veiw it, rather that be philosophical or in relativity in any other dogma.

To me the past is nothing more then a word that should be made into a letter followed by a dot, P.A.S.T. at least now we can get a sense of its true meaning,
"the Present At Said Time" thats all the past ever was or will be.

How very very true. I have made a few "profound goofs" myself and posting on this thread may be one of them!

What was the point, Halliday?

Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by curious1

One of the profound goofs of mankind is reconizing a past that never existed in the sense we veiw it, rather that be philosophical or in relativity in any other dogma.

To me the past is nothing more then a word that should be made into a letter followed by a dot, P.A.S.T. at least now we can get a sense of its true meaning,
"the Present At Said Time" thats all the past ever was or will be.

How very very true. I have made a few "profound goofs" myself and posting on this thread may be one of them!

What was the point, Halliday?

I suppose I was trying to be sarcastic as I was not convinced the OP had any real merit and also noticed, as you did, that it was sent to the wrong sub forum.
However I often tend to qualify my remarks because, as a layperson, there are posts, especially technical posts, which I might dismiss, as being of no value, because I was unable to understand them properly.

agree with the above comments - moved to philo

This is not Philosophy, I stated that there is no such thing as the past and that our veiw of time is thereby off despite the Big E theroy on time and space.

Originally Posted by curious1

This is not Philosophy, I stated that there is no such thing as the past and that our veiw of time is thereby off despite the Big E theroy on time and space.

Ah, I see. It is pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by curious1

This is not Philosophy, I stated that there is no such thing as the past and that our veiw of time is thereby off despite the Big E theroy on time and space.

It sure as **** isn't science.

There is no past and there is no future there is only the present. Well at least for us :-D

Originally Posted by razvanone

There is no past and there is no future there is only the present. Well at least for us :-D

You say that now, but what about later?

It's philosophy of linguistics. You can define the terms in such a way as to have no meaning if you like, but it's arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by razvanone

There is no past and there is no future there is only the present. Well at least for us :-D

You say that now, but what about later?

that is already the past you cannot undo a past action

___curious1.

"the Present At Said Time"

___From this statement, you have offered some information, but to confirm it I need some more information.
___Philosophically, do you believe that time exists?
___Scientifically, do you believe that time exists?
___I am asking these questions, because if you have an acceptance of the concept of time, in either manner, I then have something as a starting point for showing how the Law of Causality shows a 'past' existing and having an existence.

___Philosophically, do you believe that time exists?
___Scientifically, do you believe that time exists?
Philosophically: no i do not believe that time exists
Scientifically:Yes it exist but i fear we have a wrong perception of it

Originally Posted by futrethink

___curious1.

"the Present At Said Time"

___From this statement, you have offered some information, but to confirm it I need some more information.
___Philosophically, do you believe that time exists?
___Scientifically, do you believe that time exists?
___I am asking these questions, because if you have an acceptance of the concept of time, in either manner, I then have something as a starting point for showing how the Law of Causality shows a 'past' existing and having an existence.

Rather one sees the past in philosophical terms or scientifically my humble opinion is that the past doesnt exist, please do not get my meaning of this mistaken as a denoucement of history, yes history is indeed events of the past, however my argument is at that particular time, whenever that event occured it was happing in that present (PAST Present At Said Time)

And while we may think it to be the past today it was only that present,

Look at your watch right this second lets say that it is 4:00pm right now, by folly we must then assume that in the past it was 3:00pm, however when it Was 3:00 pm it was a present time and now at 4:00pm a current present.

The past even used in english as in past tense is a folly as well, example
"Kilroy was here" written on a wall. the "was" makes it a past tense however at the time is was actually written the proper description of that event would be Kilroy is here.

In science a odd curiosity is that the science encylcopideias dont have a definition of the past in them, We link the past in with time as a result of the traveling of light in accordance to Einsteins Special theroy of relativity.

Originally Posted by razvanone

___Philosophically, do you believe that time exists?
___Scientifically, do you believe that time exists?
Philosophically: no i do not believe that time exists
Scientifically:Yes it exist but i fear we have a wrong perception of it

Suppose we have the light traveling thing wrong, with it photons or whatever, I tend to think that Light affects the space around it or under it influence sort of like a energizing of the void coming from its source, so maybe it doesnt travel through the darkness but instead energizes it to the degree that it can influence it.

lol I know left field right lol

___razvanone.

no i do not believe that time exists

___Good enough. That is something to be discussed later, because of the truth(s) connected to that concept.

Yes it exist but i fear we have a wrong perception of it

___Good enough. So, from that, do you accept certain humanly perceived facts that, possibly, show that a certain energy field exists which can be divided into increments and described by the symbol ‘time’ and any other homonyms in English or all other languages/forms of communication?

___curious1.

___I get it, curious1, there is only “Now”.
___You still haven’t answered my questions though, have you? I only asked,”Do you believe the concept described by the symbol “time” exists in one of two ways?” All you have done is argue your point about the past.

Look at your watch right this second lets say that it is 4:00pm right now, by folly we must then assume that in the past it was 3:00pm, however when it Was 3:00 pm it was a present time and now at 4:00pm a current present.

___Since the scientific usage/knowledge of a ‘p.a.s.t.’ (as you describe it) as history creates knowledge of the present ‘Now”, to make the statement that it is a ‘folly’ or an ‘assumption’ to do such, on that level, is to say that (relating to anything temporal) any and all science/facts MUST be wrong in all ways, shapes and forms.
___Anyway, we can get back to you thinking and deciding if the concept of ‘time’ exists for you to use a “Now” in. Moving on. Let’s start with the Law of Causality as part of my argument and how you perceive it, to eliminate any miscommunication (again) with you.
___These are two links for a search for the “law of causality”. One is a Google search”: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&cl...=&oq=&gs_rfai= and this other one is a site called ‘onelook.com’ which searches for dictionaries showing the word searched for: http://onelook.com/?w=Causality&ls=a . Pick some accredited definitions and/or explanations which satisfies your understanding and from that, we can continue within that framework.

Yes it exist but i fear we have a wrong perception of it

___Good enough. So, from that, do you accept certain humanly perceived facts that, possibly, show that a certain energy field exists which can be divided into increments and described by the symbol ‘time’ and any other homonyms in English or all other languages/forms of communication?[/quote]

I mean normally that we do not perceive it correctly look in the universe it takes billions of years to create something and 1 second to destroy it we must have a wrong perception of time.

___razvanone.

I mean normally that we do not perceive it correctly look in the universe it takes billions of years to create something and 1 second to destroy it we must have a wrong perception of time.

___Um, you've lost me on that one. How does the time it takes to create or destroy something show an error in perception (of time) on the part of a human being?

Originally Posted by futrethink

___razvanone.

I mean normally that we do not perceive it correctly look in the universe it takes billions of years to create something and 1 second to destroy it we must have a wrong perception of time.

___Um, you've lost me on that one. How does the time it takes to create or destroy something show an error in perception (of time) on the part of a human being?

well what i mean is that we think that an hour has 60 minutes or 3600 seconds but i think that we do not fully understand the value of 1 second it could change the hole history of the universe but can we know for sure that 1 second is actually a blink of an eye? think about it this way what if 1 day and one night is actually 2 seconds but we think that there are actually 24 hours.

Time does not exist period, the concept of time would have to have a start point that actually began at the start, not when we brought it about for it's convenance.
Barring that start point at the start, the concept of time is folly.

Time in its concept is seen as a lateral thing, thats to say it has a past, present and furture, the basis for this is directly related to the traveling of light as detailed by Eienstein, and No i dont discount gains in science but i can say that any science that base its validity on time could very well be wrong.

scientifically I wondered rather perhaps we have got light traveling wrong if thats possible then time is even more a folly then ever.

Cause & effect, pray tell what cause is served by a past, what unfolding present have a cause other then to fit in our comfort zone on time in general, and what future can we even attempt to predict as a result of cause and effect.

___razvanone.

think about it this way what if 1 day and one night is actually 2 seconds but we think that there are actually 24 hours.

___Then it comes down to whether there is an individual (who subjectively chooses and overrides everyone else’s ,in existence, understanding and perceptions of time)or existence itself (objectively and without any thought, which moves time only in certain ways outside of the mind}) who decides how time actually works.
___In simpler terms, it comes down to who or what decides how time moves for each individual, doesn’t it?
___Another way to look at it is how a fly might perceive time, in its life, and how we see it. A fly’s reactions are faster, so does that mean its thoughts (small that they probably are) and perceptions allow it to think that its lifetime is equal to how a human being sees its, say, 78 to 84 years of life?
___Time has been shown that it can move at differing speeds, so the way we divide it is merely a convenience for us to place some order in what can appear to be chaotic.

___curious1.

Time does not exist period, the concept of time would have to have a start point that actually began at the start, not when we brought it about for it's convenance.

___Fact or belief?
___Okay. Let’s start with your starting point argument and use a simple and unmarked sphere to counter it. In a temporal sense a sphere has a start, because it had come into existence at some point, but once it exists can you find a start point on it? I do mean on the sphere and not one that you choose to use as a start point. Not everything has a ‘start’ in all ways.

Time in its concept is seen as a lateral thing, thats to say it has a past, present and furture, the basis for this is directly related to the traveling of light as detailed by Eienstein

___True, but when and how does TIME move through time? Or is this what you are trying to explain?
___In my understanding and research of time, it doesn’t have only a past, present and future, because: time exists, time doesn’t exist, it is both at the same time (snicker), is neither of them, is all of the previous at the same time and none of this sentence. A multi-valued perception and not just following bi or tri valued logic. This multi-valued logic applied to time is just a part of how it works across the entire board.

Cause & effect, pray tell what cause is served by a past, what unfolding present have a cause other then to fit in our comfort zone on time in general, and what future can we even attempt to predict as a result of cause and effect.

___Take away a cause in time/the past and the effect it created can never exist now, can it? Should that Cause cease to exist and cease to have an existence, which results in it becoming completely nonexistent, because no individual has any knowledge of it anymore, how can the effect exist or have an existence anymore?
___The present is the future of the past. Your ‘now’ is also a future. The past, at the “Said Time” was a present, so to that your now is an existing future, whether that Present At Said Time is existing anymore or not. It still has an existence, because History/the past is knowledge used as a part of the present. So, in that way a past, present and future all are a part of reality and having an existence.

@ curious1

Here's an example that I would like your comments on:

Lets say you are in jail and every day at exactly 8:00 pm the guard comes in to your cell and beats the crap out of you.

After a while (shouldn't take very long) you will know based on past events that the next time 8:00 pm becomes your present you will receive a beating.

Given this situation I can't believe that the past, present and future won't be on your mind all the time (in the present of course).

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

@ curious1

Here's an example that I would like your comments on:

Lets say you are in jail and every day at exactly 8:00 pm the guard comes in to your cell and beats the crap out of you.

After a while (shouldn't take very long) you will know based on past events that the next time 8:00 pm becomes your present you will receive a beating.

Given this situation I can't believe that the past, present and future won't be on your mind all the time (in the present of course).

And that my friend would also be a prime example of the past, hindering your present thereby impacting your future and thus being useless, After the first beating on day one the next time the guards come at whatever time to hand out more of the same a fight will take place, and that objection may very well negate any other such visits.

___curious1.

And that my friend would also be a prime example of the past, hindering your present thereby impacting your future and thus being useless,

___So how does it make it useless? You learn that by fighting, as you have in the past, makes the guards alter their actions and thereby showing that you can have an effect on their actions and personalities. From that, you alter your present actions and know that if you continually alter your (future) present actions you can possibly change their present and future present actions to arrive at a compromise between what you want to happen and what they want to happen in the present.
___What is negated for a point in time doesn’t stay that way, does it? Change occurs and the only way that change can occur is movement in space and time (both being hypothesized as energy). And the only way that there can be movement in an area is if that area exists. If that area (be it either space or time) has no existence at all as an ‘area’, as you’ve claimed, there could be no changes.
___So, again, I will ask you, “How does it make it useless?”

Originally Posted by futrethink

___Philosophically, do you believe that time exists?
___Scientifically, do you believe that time exists?

What do you mean by philosophically vs scientifically believing something: inductive vs deductive reasoning?

Originally Posted by curious1

any science that base its validity on time could very well be wrong

Surely all science is assumes the validity of time, given that all science is based on cause and effect which in turn is utterly dependent on a temporal sequence.

I'm not sure i'm following anyone's reasoning on this thread and i'm not sure it's my fault.

___Prometheus.

What do you mean by philosophically vs scientifically believing something: inductive vs deductive reasoning?

___Philosophy pertains more to beliefs, while science pertains more to facts. They are separate disciplines even though philosophy leads to science and science leads to philosophy.
___What those questions were trying to ascertain was if curious1 had any type of acceptance of the existence of the concept described by the symbol “time” and if they did, by which path they have reached this acceptance.

My original words was that the past as a entity does not exist. subsequent posting was for or against said remark.

I stated that time (the Past) has no value either philosophically or sciencetifically,
On the science side of things, most physicist veiw time in terms of "the arrow of time" here, time only proceeds from present to an unknow future.

philosophically the past is only a concept and again with no clear value other then historical significance.

So thus my veiw of the past as noll and void.

What you are saying is that time is the 0th dimension, therefore it does not exist. By talking about the P.A.S.T. you are saying that time is a point. It was proved by Einstien that time is the 4th dimension. It is an interesting argument, but it is contrary to empirical science and therefore cannot be- philosophy cannot contradict science.

___curious1.

philosophically the past is only a concept and again with no clear value other then historical significance.
So thus my veiw of the past as noll and void.

___Okay. Your belief is that the past stops existing as an objective (outside the mind) pattern of energy in all ways, shapes and forms of actual existence once a present point of time passes us by.
___We’ll accept that that is your view and just put it on hold for now.
___Do you accept that the Law of Causality is a proven fact? And that there has never been a way to prove it wrong in all of known human recorded science?

Originally Posted by 15uliane

What you are saying is that time is the 0th dimension, therefore it does not exist. By talking about the P.A.S.T. you are saying that time is a point. It was proved by Einstien that time is the 4th dimension. It is an interesting argument, but it is contrary to empirical science and therefore cannot be- philosophy cannot contradict science.

Philosophy breeds science, there is always a question or statement or hypothesis first, then the factual findings of science rear its head.

4th dimension, please elaborate....

Originally Posted by futrethink

___curious1.

philosophically the past is only a concept and again with no clear value other then historical significance.
So thus my veiw of the past as noll and void.

___Okay. Your belief is that the past stops existing as an objective (outside the mind) pattern of energy in all ways, shapes and forms of actual existence once a present point of time passes us by.
___We’ll accept that that is your view and just put it on hold for now.
___Do you accept that the Law of Causality is a proven fact? And that there has never been a way to prove it wrong in all of known human recorded science?

So by reference, your saying (A) the past is the reason for (B) the present, and thereby causality is proved and the Past a scientific fact. i do not concur.
Im following the term of "The arrow of time" THE PAST IS NOTHING MORE THAN
THE, PRESENT AT SAID TIME (past) no know effect can occur untill it reveals itself in the furture, causality is not automatic.

___curious1.

So by reference, your saying (A) the past is the reason for (B) the present, and thereby causality is proved and the Past a scientific fact. i do not concur.

___I didn’t expect you would. A person convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still.

THE PAST IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE, PRESENT AT SAID TIME (past) no know effect can occur untill it reveals itself in the furture, causality is not automatic.

___The exact effect is not known, true, but an effect will still occur following the cause, as has scientifically, philosophically and otherwise (whatever can be found) been proved time and time again. So, causality is automatic. Or do you have proof that there has been an incident anywhere in known recorded human history where an effect has never followed a cause?
___If you have that proof, then you will win your point that the past doesn’t exist. If you don’t, describing it as the “present at said time” won’t change what it is, because the Law of Causality and that the present effects will stop existing if the past becomes nonexistent in all ways, shapes and forms, will win out.

I shall take your argument to the Lab and get back with you after i investigate it more in earnest.

Causality 1, not a cover all for every effect, realizing putting two chemicals togeather which by combining produces a third is agreed too.

2. seeing time as it is standardly reconized with a Past---present---and furture defys causality. lets take the Wright brothers and their invention of the plane, lets suppose they never existed would we then at present time not have flight, or is it just as possible that the Johnson brothers could have invented the plane.

Causality in physics cant hold in relation to conceptual ideas which time is.
first it was mesured by the seasons so as to put some order to agriculture, then men decided to use it to establish some order in their doings and it became a timex type of thing, but the past can only be described as "Present at said time"

with no value far as causality go since it is neighter chemical or matter just a conception.

___curious1.

lets take the Wright brothers and their invention of the plane, lets suppose they never existed would we then at present time not have flight, or is it just as possible that the Johnson brothers could have invented the plane.

___If the Wright brothers had never existed, then the effects caused by their existence would not be, of course: the food that they ate, wasn’t eaten. The clothes that they wore, were worn by other people or trashed because they weren’t bought and/or used. The people, objects and energy patterns that were affected by their existence were not affected and the timeline/existing reality we know of that exists now, would not have arisen. But. Causality would still have occurred. Eliminate a specific cause in the past and you eliminate those specific effects ONLY relating, in a temporal manner, to that specific cause, but you haven’t stopped the effects arising out of that negative existence of that specific cause.

first it was mesured by the seasons so as to put some order to agriculture, then men decided to use it to establish some order in their doings and it became a timex type of thing, but the past can only be described as "Present at said time"

___So, plants and animals never had a past time cause effects upon them?

This is what i got from what OP has posted:

First he mentions the obvious that the past does not exist and then based on that he suggests disregarding the whole notion of time (although he did so in an indirect manor so he himself may not see that he did so).

It seems causality is under attack by some physicist, Mr Hubble gave it legs in explaining the expansion of the universe, (the effect) the cause was thereby attributed to the Big Bang (the cause).

Now it seems that cause may not be the cause after all and these inquires are directly related to science.

My position is that time ( the Past) in its conceptional form, as it is a concept since
a absolute starting point is impossible to obtain, has no bearing especially when it concerns conceptional ideas.

What a plant ate at a particular time that brought the effect of its growth easily fits into the "Arrow of time" P.A.S.T.----------- effect this tangable explanation does not exclude causation since its of a biological nature, However concepts like time in its standard form.... Past------Present-----Future does not validate the past.

___Cleverusername.

First he mentions the obvious that the past does not exist and then based on that he suggests disregarding the whole notion of time (although he did so in an indirect manor so he himself may not see that he did so).

___That the past does not exist is a fact when you perceive/consider nonlinear time, but false when you perceive/consider linear time.
___As to curious1 disregarding the concept of time itself? Yeah. They do show that manner of thought.

___curious1.

My position is that time ( the Past) in its conceptional form, as it is a concept since
a absolute starting point is impossible to obtain, has no bearing especially when it concerns conceptional ideas.

___Conceptional ideas only arise from learned knowledge acquired in a past. Again, removing the past from existence deletes that past knowledge and results in those conceptional ideas ever coming into existence. That learned knowledge of science, hard facts and/or ANY knowledge coming in a physical, mental or spiritual (yes, I know that you will probably argue against this way) manner comes from the perception of solid objects, so removing the past from existence removes those solid objects acting as the cause for the effects of those conceptional ideas.

What a plant ate at a particular time that brought the effect of its growth easily fits into the "Arrow of time" P.A.S.T.----------- effect this tangable explanation does not exclude causation since its of a biological nature,

___So the causal biology of plants are not connected to the causality relating to humans, with our conceptional ideas, and other higher life forms? Hmm, wonder how that works for vegetarians?

However concepts like time in its standard form.... Past------Present-----Future does not validate the past.

___The subjective understanding of linear time does indeed not validate the entirety of the concept we describe as ‘time’. Nonlinear time has neither a future nor a past, but only a present at said time.
___But.
___The entirety of existence has a requirement for both (and other) perceptions/levels of the manners of temporal movement.

It seems causality is under attack by some physicist, Mr Hubble gave it legs in explaining the expansion of the universe, (the effect) the cause was thereby attributed to the Big Bang (the cause).

Now it seems that cause may not be the cause after all and these inquires are directly related to science.

as it is a concept since a absolute starting point is impossible to obtain

___That singular point of existence that might or might not be the start of it all will be a highly contended point of debate for a long, long (chuckle) time. And having an existence with no starting point (nonlinear) does indeed throw a wet blanket on causality. But, there is a reason for that perception/level of existence, its opposing perception/level and others, which will be found out (after a point of time and space).