The past is real — neonspectraltoast

It depends on how you interpret time. According to Kantian theories, time doesn't exist empirically outside our minds. There are even some debates that evolve to time paradoxes when we argue about past, present and future.
So, I am not confident enough to say that the past is "real"

Well, to be repulsively blunt, there has only ever been one now, and all moments are of the same now.

This is a pure fact many are desperate to escape. But it makes sense of everything.

So, I am not confident enough to say that the past is "real" — javi2541997

The past was real, now it is past, a real past. We are in contact with the past constantly, as every moment incessantly falls into it. If the now has come to have special significance for us, it is due to the fact that we appear to be able to exercise a real influence on the state of affairs in which we find ourselves. So the "temporally inflated" now of a conscious being reflects a state of potential doing. If a large rock falls off a cliff face and then gets poised on the edge of another cliff, just barely balanced, that is a "now," a metastable state on the brink of altering to something else through human intervention.

Isn't a quality of "realness" that it's immutably real, though. I would say so.

Everything exists in and affects the present.

Isn't a quality of "realness" that it's immutably real, though. I would say so. — neonspectraltoast

What does "immutably real" mean? The essence of property (?) real is that it is itself a complete characterization. Things are not "more real" or "less real." Or "apparently real."

For that matter, this would also be saying that mutability is not real, which is clearly false.

Is the future real?
Is time linear? past-present-future? or could time be multidimensional?
How do you account for time dilation in your description of 'real'?
Is 'real' a measure of what you personally experience? If it is, then you can experience the exact same event differently than I do, so what was real for you was not identical to what was real for me.
I think the term 'real' is not as 'objectively real' or universally real as you suggest. 'Real' is more nuanced than that.

That's what I mean. A trait of being real, to truly define reality, is that it's a fact. Time and circumstance have no authority on the "realness" of anything. To be real is a permanent condition.

Otherwise you're saying that facts become fictions.

Time isn't linear. That's what I'm getting at. The knowledge that one is real can't be altered by anything, even death.

And the parameters of reality have never made anything unreal. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. Cohesively, there is one reality with all its various parameters.

But what's fascinating is that the past is convinced it's real now. The passage of time can't diminish the nowness of past events.

Once real, due to the quality of being real, forever factual. Linear time is irrelevant.

I would think it common sense that the past doesn't exist apart from the essence of reality.

I understand that time lapse does exist in our awareness and I am agree with your argument. Nevertheless, I was referring to the fact that time only exists in our lifetime. Past, present and future only exists and affects us but I wonder if a stone or a dog care about years passing or even if my dog suffers of nostalgia. It is a very complex thought and this circumstance is only up to the most complex animal in earth: humans.

Granted. But even lower animals can learn, which is a form of temporal-awareness, I guess.

Agreed. But I still doubt if an animal (whatever the species) can be aware of a time lapse when he learns something new. I mean: can an animal be aware of how much time did he take to learn a trick?
We are the only ones capable of measuring the circumstances in time.

We are the only ones capable of measuring the circumstances in time. — javi2541997

As it happens I'm just reading one of the longest novels in the world, whose main themes are the ways in which memories extrude themselves into life, and the ways in which things actually become memorable.

As it happens I'm just reading one of the longest novels in the world, whose main themes are the ways in which memories extrude themselves into life, and the ways in which things actually become memorable. — Pantagruel

Don Quixote? ... In Search of Lost Time?

Yes, the Proust. It's really, really good. I guess I envisioned it would be a bit of a chore, but quite the opposite. It carries you right along.

Time isn't linear. — neonspectraltoast

Based on what evidence? Time may not be linear but we don't know for sure.

The knowledge that one is real can't be altered by anything, even death. — neonspectraltoast

The time tenses would suggest that past tense means 'was real but is real no longer.' We can only look back in time at a large universal scale. The Sun as it was 8 minutes ago, the furthers galaxies as they were billions of light years ago. What we see in the sky is past tense and may or may not still exist.
You are correct that the sub-atomic parts that made up dead people are still around but they are disassembled and dissipated. We have no evidence that their consciousness is still intact either so they are past tense combinatorials. They are no longer real as the combinatorial they were.

I would think it common sense that the past doesn't exist apart from the essence of reality. — neonspectraltoast

So now you are saying people who are dead are real in essence only?
This seems to me to clash with:

The knowledge that one is real can't be altered by anything, even death. — neonspectraltoast

Yes, the Proust. It's really, really good. — Pantagruel

Enjoy it! :up:

How does saying "we" have no proof time isn't linear aid in obtaining proof that time isn't linear.

"We" in quotes, because I have witnessed the proof.

Also, I'm not saying that because all events are essentially real that they're only real in essence. I'm saying anything that occurs is fixed as real.

If I took your approach, nothing would be real, realness defined as sameness, as nothing has ever been the same.

"Defining real" by what every definition necessarily presupposes ...? :chin:

'Whatever is real' is subject/mind/language/gauge-invariant.

The irreversibility of 'the past' is real.

The inexorability of 'the future' is real.

The ineluctability of 'the present' is real.

The inseparability of 'past-present-future' (e.g. origami-like, strange loop-like) is real.

'Whatever is real' encompasses – exhausts – reason and therefore cannot be encompassed – totalized – by, or within, reason. — The Irreality of 180 Proof (excerpts)

How does saying "we" have no proof time isn't linear aid in obtaining proof that time isn't linear. — neonspectraltoast

In a dilation sense time is not linear as speeds approach light speed.

Proper time change as speed approaches c.

How does saying "we" have no proof time isn't linear aid in obtaining proof that time isn't linear.

"We" in quotes, because I have witnessed the proof. — neonspectraltoast

Is that a serious question or are you just being childish?
Your second sentence makes no sense.

Thanks 180. You may not be a supporter of life sublime, but at least you're honest.

If we don't acknowledge the living past, there will be no progress, because that's truly how it is.

I am just captain obvious, pointing out that we persistently witness the past, deluded, believing...nay, convinced and absolutely correct that it is real.

Universe's, the child is always the one who diminishes. Many children are more genuine than you. Your identity is in being contradictory, right or wrong, but we've been through the looking glass seventy odd years. I'm slightly ashamed that I'm after clout, pointing out the obvious.

Bring in the moderators.

You should believe time isn't linear. — neonspectraltoast

:smile: Nae bother mate! Each to their own!

The past can be the future, the future the past. — neonspectraltoast

Bring in the moderators — Banno

:lol:

Bring in the moderators. — Banno

You rang?

The past is real. When you watch a really old movie, the dead are convinced they are real. — neonspectraltoast

That's an interesting perspective to take on media watching; that those who are no longer living become reanimated through video and audio playback. I'm rather fond of thinking about media as time travel, so your thoughts are well-received.

that those who are no longer living become reanimated through video and audio playback. — Bret Bernhoft

What do you mean by 'reanimated?'
Are you advocating some sort of philosophical romanticism? Based on a description such as from wiki:

Romanticism (also known as the Romantic movement or Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism, clandestine literature, paganism, idealization of nature, suspicion of science and industrialization, and glorification of the past with a strong preference for the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, the social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature. It was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on historiography, education, chess, social sciences, and the natural sciences. It had a significant and complex effect on politics, with romantic thinkers influencing conservatism, liberalism, radicalism, and nationalism.

The movement emphasized intense emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as fear, horror, terror and awe — especially that experienced in confronting the new aesthetic categories of the sublime and beauty of nature. It elevated folk art and ancient custom to something noble, but also spontaneity as a desirable characteristic (as in the musical impromptu). In contrast to the rationalism and classicism of the Enlightenment, Romanticism revived medievalism and elements of art and narrative perceived as authentically medieval in an attempt to escape population growth, early urban sprawl, and industrialism.