Brian Greene: "The Past is as Real as the Present

[selfAdjoint]

The explicit use of such an implied equivalence allows you to say things which on closer examination would be utterly ridiculous (apparently under the assumption that the members of this forum are too dumb to see the difference). In essence, you are saying that things which have influenced you in no way (things you do not know: i.e. utterly no information concerning them is available to you) have influenced you.

Consider Libet.

 

[Doctordick]

Consider Libet.

Sorry selfAdjoint! I don't think Libet's ideas apply at all. If you read what I said carefully, all I am pointing out is that Dr.Yes said, in essence, "things which have influenced you in no way, have influenced you.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[Tournesol]

I hate to break the news but, there are things in the past that you do not "know" about that have influenced you, are influencing you and are about to influence you.

I can not tell if you are being thoughtlessly simple minded or intentionally malicious. What you are doing is taking advantage of the vague definitions of the English language to misrepresent the issue under discussion. You are putting forth the emotional idea that "knowing" and "being aware you know" are perfectly equivalent statements. The explicit use of such an implied equivalence allows you to say things which on closer examination would be utterly ridiculous (apparently under the assumption that the members of this forum are too dumb to see the difference). In essence, you are saying that things which have influenced you in no way (things you do not know: i.e. utterly no information concerning them is available to you) have influenced you.

Dr Yes's comment is perfectly sensible, given a realistic perspective. If an earthquake
shakes you out of bed while you are asleep, something has influenced you without
your being aware of it. it is you who have the problem, because you think of everything in terms of disembodied clouds of abstract information.

What I mean is that, once one has an explanation of the events which he (or she) experiences (a world view so to speak), that there are things necessary to that explanation (things which, if removed, make the explanation unworkable). Any such things, which are absolutely required to support that world view, are classified as "real". As such, what is real is a function of your world view.

What you consider to be real is. What is really real is not.

And Tournesol, you are a prime example of exactly what I am talking about. You take it as a-priori that anyone who disagrees with you as to "what is and is not real" must be a solipsist.

It take it that believing the past is nothing but memories is a form of solipsism,
as I have said. Taking reality to be whatever people believe is real is another.
I have specific reasons for my accusations of solipsism. I do not apply
them to anyone who disagrees with me, as you falsely claim.

Your's is a religious position, not a scientific position.

Rhetorical and false.

Why do you think there are so many different religions and why are they always arguing with one another.

Why do you think there are so many scientific theories ? Yet they are all self-consistent.

And "non-predictive"? Read your history, religions have made predictions time and time again.

When I said predictive
I obviously meant it in the standard philosphy-of-science sense of making preodictions
that can be tested empirically. Wild-eyed prophecy is another matter entirely.

And they have explained their own failures too! Often someone had failed to live by god's rules.

Yep. They can maintain internal consistency by bolting on ad-hoc hypotheses.

Hmm, has inconsistentcy reared its ugly head?

No, over-complication has.

All kinds of self-consistent stories can be confabulated about a limited data-set.

Where did I say I was willing to accept a "limited data-set"? That is the essence of the three monkey approach (see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil). People use it all the time to avoid confronting the inconsistencies in their personal world view.

Every data set I have ever dealt with, or ever will deal with has been limited.

Every data set you have ever dealt with, or ever will deal with has been limited.

Moreover, give a self-consistent theory , you can generate further self-consistent theories by adding non-functional bells and whistles. So if self-consitency is achievable at all,it is not a sufficient criterion. You need some criterion of simplicity.

Then I guess you would say a world view must be wrong if it is not simple enough for Tournesol to understand? That's a pretty hard requirement to fight and seems to be the position of almost all religionists.

What a quitessentially Dickian comment. You have managed to
a) misunderstand what I am saying
b) display ignorance of the relevant intelectual background (in this case Occam's razor)
and
c) insult me

all in one go.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know if this observation has been made, but it struck me as funny that the title involves three loaded concepts for philosophers:

time
the verb "to be"
and the question of what's "real".

This seems to involve a good part of philosophy all in one statement. Clinton couldn't have done better.

 

[Doctordick]

I don't know if this observation has been made, but it struck me as funny that the title involves three loaded concepts for philosophers:

time
the verb "to be"
and the question of what's "real".

This seems to involve a good part of philosophy all in one statement. Clinton couldn't have done better.

Hi Ivan,

It's nice to hear from you as you are the person who started this piece of (I really don't know what I ought to call it )! As for your "loaded concepts" is concerned, I certainly like people who take the trouble to let me know what they mean by the words they use. Time is a concept that I think (and certainly I could be in error) I have made it quite clear as to what I mean. At least better than the average if I am to consider the posts I have seen. Please let me know if you think I have failed in this endevore.

Now, with regard to the question of the meaning of "to be" I would like a little clarification of exactly what you meant by your comment. I am essentially confused.

On the other hand, as to the question of "what's real" could you please give me some indication of what problems you have with my definition of "what's real?". I personally thought it was quite general.

Have fun – Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hi Ivan,

It's nice to hear from you as you are the person who started this piece of (I really don't know what I ought to call it )!

Hey, I just quoted Brian Green. I'll proudly hide behind Green any day of the week.

As for what's real, I like to defer to this as a good example.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/4/2/1

The verb "to be" is a classic conundrum AFAIK, and as for time...I certainly don't need to justify that one.

But most generally, I prefer to torture the philosophers with my silence.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Dr Yes's comment is perfectly sensible, given a realistic perspective. If an earthquake
shakes you out of bed while you are asleep, something has influenced you without
your being aware of it. it is you who have the problem, because you think of everything in terms of disembodied clouds of abstract information.




What you consider to be real is. What is really real is not.




It take it that believing the past is nothing but memories is a form of solipsism,
as I have said. Taking reality to be whatever people believe is real is another.
I have specific reasons for my accusations of solipsism. I do not apply
them to anyone who disagrees with me, as you falsely claim.




Rhetorical and false.




Why do you think there are so many scientific theories ? Yet they are all self-consistent.




When I said predictive
I obviously meant it in the standard philosphy-of-science sense of making preodictions
that can be tested empirically. Wild-eyed prophecy is another matter entirely.




Yep. They can maintain internal consistency by bolting on ad-hoc hypotheses.



No, over-complication has.




Every data set I have ever dealt with, or ever will deal with has been limited.

Every data set you have ever dealt with, or ever will deal with has been limited.




What a quitessentially Dickian comment. You have managed to
a) misunderstand what I am saying
b) display ignorance of the relevant intelectual background (in this case Occam's razor)
and
c) insult me

all in one go.

A good example of not "knowing" or not "being aware" of an influencial event that has resulted in "awareness' itself would be this:

No one "knows" where life came from. Was it the collection of acids, sulphides and minerals at the flume of a deep sea volcanic vent? Or, was it the introduction of Viral RNA from space migrating viruses to this planet and, over time, the development of DNA? Or other?


What Dr. Dick is probably saying is, the results are evident in that we exist and we function as organisms, we are the "real" results of whatever events have shaped our evolution. This could be construed as "knowing" the events that have brought about our evolution.

I would suggest that we are far from understanding/knowing/being aware of those events that have shaped our present condition as humans.

We are more aware of the results of the events rather than the events as they took place.

That's why humans have developed the inquiring sciences.

We are well aware of our complete ignorance when it comes to those events that have had such a profound influence as to have shaped our evolution, and that of life on earth, to this point.

To reitinerate, we are a living, "real" result of the past. The present is fully reliant on the past. Whether we are aware of events that have shaped the present or not, the past remains a "real" part of right now.

 

[Dr.Yes]

And so when you see my title from earlier

"the past is going to gitcha"

what it explains is how the past (in the past) is (in the present) going to (in the future) gitcha.

Let me put it another way:

Past events are still happening... right now.

Each of these past events has changed from its original configuration, but, it is still present in the "present" as the evolved form of the original event(s).

 

[Simetra7]

"Is the past real?" I don't have a definition for the concept of "real" personally. Could someone else please offer an explanation.

My personal definition of what is "real", is anything that we can interact with and change, whether it be mentally, emotionally or physically. I don't think memories can be changed. What can be changed is how we view or react to those memories in the present, so for me the present is the only thing that is real.

 

[hypnagogue]

My personal definition of what is "real", is anything that we can interact with and change, whether it be mentally, emotionally or physically. I don't think memories can be changed. What can be changed is how we view or react to those memories in the present, so for me the present is the only thing that is real.

Memories can most certainly be changed; all it takes is a proper adjustment of brain function, whether that comes from a whack on the head, a degenerative disease, or more complex psychological factors. Memories can also bring about certain thoughts and emotions and our thoughts and emotions can in turn influence what we remember and how we remember it, so there is plenty of room for interaction as well. This is still in keeping with your definition of what is real though, since memories don't occur in the past. (They're about the past, but when we experience a memory, we do so in the present moment.) I think when you say "memories" in the above you should say something like "past events" instead.

 

[Simetra7]

Memories can most certainly be changed; all it takes is a proper adjustment of brain function, whether that comes from a whack on the head, a degenerative disease, or more complex psychological factors. Memories can also bring about certain thoughts and emotions and our thoughts and emotions can in turn influence what we remember and how we remember it, so there is plenty of room for interaction as well.



Are the memories actually being changed, or are new interpretations of the memory being put in place, leaving the original memory lurking somewhere in the subconcious, possibly to be rediscovered at a later date.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If we assume for a moment that Green's interpretation is correct - the past is real - and keeping in mind that he speaks from a scientific, not philosophical point of view, what would be the resolution? Would this mean that the concept of "time" is flawed; or "real", or that both concepts are flawed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry, I didn't mean to step on the discussion. Consider this a floater...but I would be interested in knowing how this question would be addressed.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Memories can most certainly be changed; all it takes is a proper adjustment of brain function, whether that comes from a whack on the head, a degenerative disease, or more complex psychological factors. Memories can also bring about certain thoughts and emotions and our thoughts and emotions can in turn influence what we remember and how we remember it, so there is plenty of room for interaction as well.

Are the memories actually being changed, or are new interpretations of the memory being put in place, leaving the original memory lurking somewhere in the subconcious, possibly to be rediscovered at a later date.

This goes to Dennet's distinction between "Stalinist" and "Orwellian" reconstructions. The Stalinist one would edit the memory trace to make it consistent, changing the sequence of memories and such. Orwellian would just scrap the whole thing and replace it with a consisten scheme constructed offline.

 

[somasimple]

Hi All,
I think that we are only living in the Past. The real present is our future.
http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showthread.php?t=549

 

[nameless]

Personally, I have never experienced anything other then the apparent 'present' NOW. The ultimate NOW, being a Planck moment. No time!
I have never found any evidence of a 'past', other than as a 'mental construct' in the present!
No 'future', either, other than as a 'mental construct' in the present!
I've never looked at my feet and exclaimed, "Yippee! I'm in the 'past'!" or Yowza! I'm in the 'future'!" The 'realest reality' that I have found is Now/Here! After all, have YOU ever been 'there'? Nope, you are always 'here'. Yet we believe in all 'this' even with no direct experience. What about pink unicorns? Zeus? *__- The 'imagination' is/can be wonderful, but 'believing' it to be more than 'imagination/subjective fiction' is 'delusion'.

I think the concepts of past and future are one of those 'illusory' social constructs (memes?) that are passed and 'believed' for convenience and socialization and because if something is heard often enough, it is erroneously 'believed' as 'true'. 'Time' is, perhaps, another illusion that is the basis for the whole 'dream of life'. No 'time', no 'space', no 'matter', etc... Time is as fictitious as the 'solidity' of 'matter'.. but a useful fiction nontheless..
One has the best 'times' in dreams in which one is 'lucid'.

There is serenity in Chaos.
Seek ye first the Eye of the Hurricane!

 

[Simetra7]

If we assume for a moment that Green's interpretation is correct - the past is real - and keeping in mind that he speaks from a scientific, not philosophical point of view, what would be the resolution? Would this mean that the concept of "time" is flawed; or "real", or that both concepts are flawed.

If the past is indeed real, then we would have to ask the question, "Where exactly is it?" And if the past is real then it would follow that the future is also real. At the rate technology is advancing at the present time, it would be reasonable to assume that some time in the future, somebody would work out where the past and future actually are, and how to travel back and forth between them. We have no evidence that people from the future are visiting the present. Of course this could also mean that humankind annihilated itself before ever reaching that stage!As for the concept of time itself, I think that so little is really understood about it that there is plenty of room for flaws.

 

[nameless]

So, you are discussing a 'figment' of the imagination, for which there is no evidence, as if it were 'reality'? Is that the definition of 'belief' and 'faith'? Science? Sounds like desperate grasping at validations for one's emotionally held 'beliefs'. Like religion...
Hmmm, I'm beginning to see Science as 'just' another religion. Intellect only so far, desperately clung to beliefs and constructs, validations, faith, groundless assumptions, the parallels seem to be endless...

 

[Simetra7]

So, you are discussing a 'figment' of the imagination, for which there is no evidence, as if it were 'reality'? Is that the definition of 'belief' and 'faith'? Science? Sounds like desperate grasping at validations for one's emotionally held 'beliefs'. Like religion...

I don't see how discussing a point of view that is different from your own can be construed as desperate grasping! It's just a discussion. In fact i totally agree with your earlier post, that the now is all there is. I was merely addressing the original question.

 

[nameless]

No harm meant, I was just being a bit dramatic... That IS the way it seems to me though. I was under the impression that science 'finds things', learns about them, tries to disprove them, and only, after having gone through the 'fire', and evermore available to further 'fire', only then is the 'hypothesis' tentatively accepted, until shown to be 'useless'. Emotional beliefs posit the accepted hypothesis, for, ordinarilly non-rational reasons, and then 'proof' and 'evidence' is sought to support ones 'belief' so desperately that 'falsifying the evidence' is a popular method of 'validation' o0f one's 'beliefs'.
I do get a bit dramatic at times as it is usually appreciated in all the oh so deadly serious conversations... a bit of 'street theater' in the name of 'truth', perhaps.
*__-

 

[Gir]

So, you are discussing a 'figment' of the imagination, for which there is no evidence, as if it were 'reality'? Is that the definition of 'belief' and 'faith'? Science? Sounds like desperate grasping at validations for one's emotionally held 'beliefs'. Like religion...
Hmmm, I'm beginning to see Science as 'just' another religion. Intellect only so far, desperately clung to beliefs and constructs, validations, faith, groundless assumptions, the parallels seem to be endless...

yes, that's right. just because we cannot at this point explain exactly what causes us to experience time it must not exist. give me a break. time must exist in some sense or we couldn't be having this conversation right now. time definatly progresses as we each type and in turn wait for a reply. to think we've made all possible scientific discoveries is very short sighted and ignorant. and then to say that there is no time and simply saying the universe is a giant machanical device, well okay, but even a machanical device requires time to pass for movements to take place. I have yet to see an argument for the non-existance of time that makes any sense what-so-ever.

you say groundless assumptions, well on what grounds do you base your "time does not exist" theory?

 

[Gir]

No harm meant, I was just being a bit dramatic... That IS the way it seems to me though. I was under the impression that science 'finds things', learns about them, tries to disprove them, and only, after having gone through the 'fire', and evermore available to further 'fire', only then is the 'hypothesis' tentatively accepted, until shown to be 'useless'. Emotional beliefs posit the accepted hypothesis, for, ordinarilly non-rational reasons, and then 'proof' and 'evidence' is sought to support ones 'belief' so desperately that 'falsifying the evidence' is a popular method of 'validation' o0f one's 'beliefs'.
I do get a bit dramatic at times as it is usually appreciated in all the oh so deadly serious conversations... a bit of 'street theater' in the name of 'truth', perhaps.
*__-

Im not sure if you noticed, but the reasons you stated for science being like faith is ignoring scientific method. a big part of that is being impartial. although as with the media, SOME jump to wild conclusions before having an understanding of what they're really looking for.

 

[nameless]

yes, that's right. just because we cannot at this point explain exactly what causes us to experience time it must not exist. give me a break. time must exist in some sense or we couldn't be having this conversation right now. time definatly progresses as we each type and in turn wait for a reply. to think we've made all possible scientific discoveries is very short sighted and ignorant. and then to say that there is no time and simply saying the universe is a giant machanical device, well okay, but even a machanical device requires time to pass for movements to take place. I have yet to see an argument for the non-existance of time that makes any sense what-so-ever. ...you say groundless assumptions, well on what grounds do you base your "time does not exist" theory?

All you have to do to get a bit of a glimpse into some of the foundational data that has led me to my present perspective is to 'Soople' or 'Google' phrases as 'time is an illusion', or 'time as illusion', or 'illusory time', or 'time does not exist' and whatever else you would enter if you were really interesting in learning. Then read what you are able to translate on the first, say, forty pages of each search thread; collate, compare, experiment and then all this is a bit of the raw data for 'critical creative thought'.

It shouldn't be long before you will be well educated and have an understanding into the hypothesis that time does not exist other than as a mental construct. No mind, no time.

One reason that it is so difficult to accept is that ones entire 'reality' is predicated upon the 'assumption' of time. Without time, there cannot be space, matter, dimentionality, duality, NOTHING could 'exist'. So that our long dearly held 'beliefs' and 'assumptions' must be totally discarded in the face of 'truth'. People hold tightly to their 'self images'.
Ego is involved.
Even physicists 'refused to see what was before their eyes' due to tightly held emotional egoic beliefs. Those 'assumptions' 'colored' their work. Those groundless assumptions. Time can be reversed in the equations, time can be eliminated from the equations and it makes no difference, the equations remain symmetrical! It was obfuscatingly kept in the equations due to 'beliefs' (like religion, scientific method or not!), 'ass-umptions' (hey, no assumptions, no grants, right?), dishonest lazy cowardly 'givens'.

But, the Earth was finally accepted as NOT the center of the universe. Soon you will accept also.. Any science magazine will be full of the new paradigm in ten or fifteen years.

I'll be happy to provide a couple of referrences if you like. How... would you like it, detailed down and dirty physics, equations and referrences and all? Overview of basics for a layman? A view from Buddhist writings? Should you be laughing, I found Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle practically word for word in the Avatamsaka Sutra!
I would think that your own, sincere and honest search (for 'truth') would probably be most fruitful.
Then, hopefully, welcome to NOW!

 

[sd01g]

If the past is indeed real, then we would have to ask the question, "Where exactly is it?" And if the past is real then it would follow that the future is also real. At the rate technology is advancing at the present time, it would be reasonable to assume that some time in the future, somebody would work out where the past and future actually are, and how to travel back and forth between them. We have no evidence that people from the future are visiting the present. Of course this could also mean that humankind annihilated itself before ever reaching that stage!As for the concept of time itself, I think that so little is really understood about it that there is plenty of room for flaws.

I agree with you. The past has no existence or location except for memory and history. Real existence is composed of matter/energy and is constantly in motion and changing location and exists only in what we perceive to be the present. No amount of diatribe will negate this fact.

For those who think the past is Real--locate it. Go ahead and try, you will fail 100% of the time. For those who think 'memory' is the same as experiencing the THE NOW, then maybe 'illusions' is the best answer.

 

[nameless]

I agree with you. The past has no existence or location except for memory and history. Real existence is composed of matter/energy and is constantly in motion and changing location and exists only in what we perceive to be the present. No amount of diatribe will negate this fact.

For those who think the past is Real--locate it. Go ahead and try, you will fail 100% of the time. For those who think 'memory' is the same as experiencing the THE NOW, then maybe 'illusions' is the best answer.

You are almost there..

If we can agree that 'time' is an essential foundation for the 'existence' of 'matter/energy/space/time'? After all, for something to 'exist', it must 'exist' for some period of 'time'? In 'space'? Hence, 'space/time'.

So what would be the ultimate NOW of which you speak? An hour? Couldn't be, as that would involve memory to build that 'hour'. A second? Same problem. A second still is too long for the most ultimate NOW. A 'Planck moment' seems to be the penultimate NOW that requires no 'thought', but awareness/consciousness only. A Planck moment is outside 'Time'. It is too 'short' to be considered temporally relevent. Another one of those 'speed of light' things. No smaller increment of Now can be (theoretically) possible as time has no 'dimensionality' at this level, therefore 'nothing' to further divide.

So, in the ultimate NOW, 'time' has no reality, no 'existence'.

Therefore, all apparent 'materiality', 'space/time/matter/energy', can have no inherent existence because...
it is within consciousness that there is 'mind';
it is within mind that there is 'time';
it is within 'time' that there is 'sensorily/mentally apparent existence',
where we find our egoic 'selves'..

All is a dream of 'consciousness', existing within 'mind' alone.

Even if there were such a 'thing' as an 'out there' (objective reality), we could never possibly 'know' it!

All we can ever 'know' is what is within 'mind';
all we can 'see',
all we can 'measure',
all we can 'touch',
all we can 'weigh' and determine 'mass',
all we 'hear',
and smell',
all we can 'concieve/imagine',
our whole 'universe'...
All we can ever 'know' is what is within 'mind'.

 

[Tournesol]

If the past is indeed real, then we would have to ask the question, "Where exactly is it?"

If there is, literally, a 4th dimension , that is where it is.

And if the past is real then it would follow that the future is also real.

Not necessarily.

 

[sd01g]

You are almost there..

If we can agree that 'time' is an essential foundation for the 'existence' of 'matter/energy/space/time'? After all, for something to 'exist', it must 'exist' for some period of 'time'? In 'space'? Hence, 'space/time'.

.

Unfortunately we can not agree that 'time' is an essential foundation for the 'existence' of matter/energy/space. Things just exist and move in space. Always have and always will. Time is not a function of existence. Time is a construct of the mind to account for the movement of matter/energy in space. The Mind can not process 'movement' without the constructs of time and space. If you think that 'time' is something Real, just try to LOCATE it. Empirically, you will find only movement of matter/energy in space--some random, some uniform--and that is all you will find. You will find no UNITS of time. The units of time (seconds, minutes, hours, etc.) are not empirical realities but are constructs of mind and do not exist independently of mind.

THE NOW is not a function of time. Memory is a function of time. THE NOW is how we experience existence--The Present.

 

[Genecks]

I don't know, man. I'm still psyched out about yesterday. :)

 

[Gir]

Unfortunately we can not agree that 'time' is an essential foundation for the 'existence' of matter/energy/space. Things just exist and move in space. Always have and always will. Time is not a function of existence. Time is a construct of the mind to account for the movement of matter/energy in space. The Mind can not process 'movement' without the constructs of time and space. If you think that 'time' is something Real, just try to LOCATE it. Empirically, you will find only movement of matter/energy in space--some random, some uniform--and that is all you will find. You will find no UNITS of time. The units of time (seconds, minutes, hours, etc.) are not empirical realities but are constructs of mind and do not exist independently of mind.

THE NOW is not a function of time. Memory is a function of time. THE NOW is how we experience existence--The Present.

you sir have the mind of a nat, that is all.

 

[sd01g]

you sir have the mind of a nat, that is all.

I did not intend to offend you or anyone else. If you are off offended by other people's ideas just disregard them and replace them with better ideas.