Future and past are immaterial, but what of the present? It must also be immaterial, and yet it contains materiality -- space-time.Future and past, being parts of this immaterial thing, time, do not need to have material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover
Is the future not part of a continuous time? Is it a separate entity to the past and present? If we do accept the continuous nature of time, then the materiality of space- time of the present must extend into the future as it does into the past. The only other option is for time to abandon space and race off on its own. — MikeL
Would you agree that the past is determined? That we can read of the history of the world and it does not change every time we pick up the book? Again, arguing the continuous nature of time, we can deduce that if the past is determined, so too is the future as they are all parts of this same 'immaterial thing'. If the past existed and the present exists then the future will exist. This means it will be written into the past and assume the determined form. — MikeL
When we review the continuous nature of the past we see no discontinuity between what was a civilization's future and their past. It is one continuous path that we can clearly identify. A determined path. When Julius Caesar walks into the senate on the day of his assassination, his future is determined. It would therefore seem that to hold the contention that the future is not determined would suggest the need to ascribe different properties to the future of the past then to the future of the present. How can one be determined and the other not? — MikeL
Clearly the future is completely distinct from the past. Our living experience demonstrates that the two are not the same at all. — Metaphysician Undercover
I agree that the past is determined, But I do not agree with your conclusion, that the future must be also, because they are both parts of the same thing. Two parts of the same thing may be very different in nature, so long as there is a proper separation, or boundary, between the two parts, and this is what we find with the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
When you talk about "continuous time" I assume you refer to the present. The present appears to be continuous, but it is neither the future nor the past, it is some sort of division between the two. — Metaphysician Undercover
The present is like a massive wall, and behind that wall is nothing, in relation to your experience. — Metaphysician Undercover
How so? Only in a relational sense surely. One is in front behind the wall, the other is behind in memory. The content though is a continuation of the story, I just need to turn the page to find out what the words written there say. — MikeL
Do you accept that space and time are inseparable entities? — MikeL
The workaround in this situation would be to invoke a duration of time of random quantity and assign that as the present. Thus we have two measures of time - the duration of the present and the timeline of history and the future. But the duration of the present cannot make the trip from the past to the future - it is not of sufficient duration to make the trip. — MikeL
Invoking the present as the only true time becomes totally deterministic. — MikeL
Yes, but just because I can't see past the wall does not mean there is nothing past it. In fact my experience tells me that there is something past it. I can go to bed and close my eyes confident that tomorrow will come. — MikeL
Things in the past are fixed, determined. With respect to the future we can work to avoid unpleasant things, and create pleasant ones. So clearly there is a substantial difference between things of the past, and things of the future. — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you accept that space and time are inseparable entities?— MikeL
No, I do not accept this. What "time" refers to, and what "space" refers to are completely distinct. I do not believe that it is possible that the future contains space, I think that this idea is a misunderstanding of the relationship between space and time. I believe that spatial existence comes into being at the present. The fact that the human being is capable of changing things in the physical world, annihilating thing setc., at any moment, at will, is evidence that there is no spatial existence on the other side of the present (future). — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, I believe it is necessary to assume two dimensions of time. I would say that the present has breadth. This is what you call the duration of the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
Oh I believe there is something on the other side of the present (future), this is necessary to account for the continued existence which we observe at the present. However, the fact that we can interfere with that continued existence, at any moment, at will, indicates that the continued existence is not necessary. If it is not necessary, thenwe cannot hold it as a fundamental principle. — Metaphysician Undercover
And the fact that anything can be destroyed at any moment indicates that there is no spatial existence on that side of the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is no difference at all. — MikeL
The first highlighted part is suggesting that because I can manipulate space in the present, the present is not necessary? — MikeL
What can't we hold as a fundamental principle? And a fundamental principle of what? — MikeL
Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program, as quoted by Standford University disagrees with you on this point. — MikeL
Don't you agree that the argument that future space time doesn't exist because we can't see it yet in the present is a little akin to sailing a boat down a river claiming that the waterfall at the end of it doesn't exist because we can't see it? Or that it is also a bit like saying a tree falling in a forest doesn't make a sound because we can't hear it? — MikeL
That fact that human beings can change their world is not in dispute. — MikeL
If, for arguments sake, we say that space is materialising at the present, from which realm is it manifesting itself? — MikeL
How did it get to the present? How come it has all the properties of space, but is not space? How does the present tether it to time (If I bend space I slow time)? What is it about the present that causes it to become space? Why can't we see the interface of this cosmic cloud with the present? Does it change to space at the outer interface of the present (I have never seen a cloud from the future in my present existence)? If it is does form space at the outer interface of the present does that mean the present is also determined and not just the past? — MikeL
No, no, you misunderstand me. I do not say the breadth of the present is duration. I am saying the breadth of the present must encompass the entire timeline. The duration would be the sideways bump that allows the instantaneous traversal of the entire timeline by the present. If it is not the case that it happens this way, then the duration of the present is of insufficient interval to span the entire timeline. It would move through an instant and run out of steam. No future or past, just a frozen moment. — MikeL
Can we destroy space? I had no idea. What happens when we do? — MikeL
This is the hole which modern physics has fallen into as a result of people believing that special relativity expresses a truth about time. — Metaphysician Undercover
Hmmm, is this part of the new theory?Quantum field theory effectively destroys space, and what happens is quantum entanglement. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why would you conclude, that if the present had breadth, it must be wide enough to encompass the entire past? — Metaphysician Undercover
I really don't understand these other questions, perhaps we could take them one at a time, and you could explain more thoroughly the issues which you are questioning. — Metaphysician Undercover
Spatial existence manifests from the realm of the future. This is where the Neo-Platonic Forms are, which are the cause of material existence. Temporal existence is defined by the passing of time. In the future, time has not yet passed. So these Forms are described as eternal (meaning outside of time, rather than forever in time). — Metaphysician Undercover
- this about the comment of free choice in a determined universe.I don't believe this statement from you. I think that is exactly what is being disputed. If you actually believed that human beings could change their world, you wouldn't believe that the waterfall at the end is necessitated by the passing of time. These two are completely inconsistent, incompatible, contrary, statements. — Metaphysician Undercover
So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it. — MikeL
So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it. — MikeL
You told me that the present had duration. How long is that duration? Is it less than the duration of the entire timeline? There are two conceivable answers.
1. No, the duration is the same - in which case the entire timeline is the present. The present is now. So the entire timeline is happening right now. If that is the case then it is determined.
2. Yes, the duration of the present is shorter than the timeline. In this case the present will run out before it reaches the end of the timeline. Having reached the end of its duration time will freeze. There will be no further progress into the future. — MikeL
Thus, for the argument to stay alive, in addition to duration you might also invoke a breadth for the present and have the breadth span the entire timeline. The breadth is at right angles to the duration of the present. Thus when the present moves it does not move from past to future, but rather sideways across the timeline, so that all instants of the timeline occur now. As you can see though this solution also proves that the future is determined. — MikeL
OK, imagining for a second that none of what I said proves determinism, the question becomes about the interface between the future and the present. Where does this occur? The present is a duration of time which encapsulates me but there is no nebulous haze of future that I can see around me. It is filled with both space and time - nothing is outside of space or time, but we have established that space is determined. Everything in space has a place and is performing an action of some sort. Therefore, the bubble of time you are calling the present must also be determined. It must, at the very least, become determined at the start of the duration of the present. So now you must have not only a determined past, but also a determined present. — MikeL
How much more determined can you get than a state of being that is eternal? If it is outside of time, it doesn't change. — MikeL
Of course we can make choices. But the choices are fated. The universe is determined. — MikeL
So, you are abandoning the notion of space-time and proposing a whole new theory of the universe here to support the argument that the future isn't determined? Well, that's one way to go about it.
— MikeL
That is correct. — Metaphysician Undercover
time should rather be the 0th dimension. This allows for the reality of the non-spatial existence which we understand as ideas and concepts, — Metaphysician Undercover
So, what type of activity might we see in a Time dimension with no spatial relationships? The mixing of ideas and concepts? The blueprint of of the coming present?Then we can comprehend real non-dimensional existence, and activity within non-dimensional points. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is analogous to the sewing machine example I gave before, which showed a determined future.So we have a time line created by the "flow of time", which begins at the point of "now", and extends into the past. — Metaphysician Undercover
The breadth of time is at a right angle to the flow of time, and it's magnitude is a representation of how we experience the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
Let's redraw the timeline with the breadth you call the 'now'. That only reinforces that every moment that ever existed is happening now. So if now is happening now and the sacking of Rome is also happening now, why can't a person say the same thing next year? It doesn't make sense to preclude the future from the now - after all, the fact that the time line has been redrawn in the 'now' format is telling us that there is no separation of time points on the timeline. Now is one gigantic superposition. Like it or not, that superposition includes the future as two weeks from now I will still be having that 'now' experience. It all becomes determined.If the point of the now has breadth, duration, then the whole timeline must be redrawn to allow that the timeline has breadth. — Metaphysician Undercover
The second thing is what I said about the human experience of the present. What we call "the present" is limited to how we experience the present. So depending on the context, one might use "the present" to refer to a second, a minute, the day, the year, whatever arbitrary duration one chooses. — Metaphysician Undercover
The only difference I am proposing, from how we currently use "the present", is that we cannot include any future time in "the present". — Metaphysician Undercover
You are making a false representation here, referring to "the future that I can see around me". What you see around you is the activity of things. The activity is the result of this process which is the future becoming the past (time passing) This occurs at the present. This activity is "determined", but it is determined by the Platonic Forms, which exist on the future side of the present, it is not determined by what has occurred in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover
Lucky for me my bed keeps emanating in my bedroom each present moment from the past - although at times I think the Forms emanate my wallet and keys to other areas of the house. :)Because the present has breadth, the Forms may interact with each other during the process of emanation, at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
The real timeline cannot extend into the future because time has not come into existence there yet. — Metaphysician Undercover
You've forgotten one thing though, time as we know it, only exists as the present comes to pass. So the "entire timeline" is from now until what we call the beginning of time. The real timeline cannot extend into the future because time has not come into existence there yet. — Metaphysician Undercover
Insisting that the universe is determined doesn't answer my question of why you contradict yourself. You said it is a fact that human beings can change their world, but you also claim that what's to be, in the future, is already determined, just hidden behind a curtain. So how is it that human beings can change their world when what's to be is just hidden from us. I don't see how this allows for change. You don't really believe that human beings can change their world, do you? — Metaphysician Undercover
You don't really believe that human beings can change their world, do you? — Metaphysician Undercover
Have you studied this issue? There is nothing to abandon. SR and GR are solutions to measurement problems. They have zero ontological standing. They describe nothing about the experience of life. — Rich
OK, well, I'm glad we can both agree that in the universe as most people understand it, our world is determined. — MikeL
So if now is happening now and the sacking of Rome is also happening now, why can't a person say the same thing next year? — MikeL
It doesn't make sense to preclude the future from the now - after all, the fact that the time line has been redrawn in the 'now' format is telling us that there is no separation of time points on the timeline. Now is one gigantic superposition. Like it or not, that superposition includes the future as two weeks from now I will still be having that 'now' experience. It all becomes determined. — MikeL
So, we are no longer even arguing that the present- the place we make choice- is determined, only what it is determined by. And you say it is determined by the Platonic Forms on the future side of the present. But I thought you wanted people in the present to have free choice. How can they when they live in a determined world - as determined by the Platonic Forms of the future? Isn't that the argument you're trying to use against me? — MikeL
Lucky for me my bed keeps emanating in my bedroom each present moment from the past - although at times I think the Forms emanate my wallet and keys to other areas of the house. :) — MikeL
If time has not come into existence in the future yet, then we only have space in the future. Space is full of spatial relations - it is determined, just like the past. Time when it comes along merely sweeps over it, creating the illusion of movement, just like flipping the pages of book with an animated comic drawn on them. — MikeL
There is no contradiction. Human beings can change their world, that is why their determined paths through time are so complex, rather than straight lines. Do you not think that when Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon he made the decision to do so? - a decision you yourself have conceded was determined. — MikeL
Your theory to prove that the universe is not determined wants to separate time into its own dimension separate from space, but the problem is that it does not mean space no long exists. — MikeL
I know what you are saying Metaphysician Undercover. You presented your case well, but I put you in a bind by getting to you to concede to a determined past. In doing so, two different ways of looking at time became conflated. — MikeL
Which one do I think is truest reflection of reality? The second. The timeline is the construct in our mind. — MikeL
Like I said, I think you did a good job at articulating your case. I was playing a devil's advocate roll to see if there was a deeper truth about it all I could find as well. When you push back against ideas you find their strength and weaknesses. — MikeL
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.