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

[Doctordick]

Time is change in what one knows!

A better question would be, Why can we only remember one past?

Now doesn't it seem reasonable that, "The past is, by definition, what we remember." With regard to the "we" in your statement, anyone who has any experience with life to speak of is well aware that disagreement about the past is actually quite common. It follows that "we" as a collective unit actually do not remember only one past. Each remembers the past they think is correct.

What is more relevant is: "Why do so many people agree that there is but one past?" We certainly can not go back and check. Each of us only remember events personally experienced by themselves; for the rest of the past, we depend upon the descriptions of others. Why do we believe what they tell us? The answer to that question is actually very simple: the answers we believe make sense to us and the answers we don't believe don't make sense to us.

So we are living in a hypothetical world of our own creation and firmly believe that we are undoubtably correct in the opinion that there is only one possible past which could give rise to that view: i.e., it is the general opinion of mankind that anyone who disagrees with them must be insane. This opinion has been quite common throughout history in spite of rather substantial variation in what various groups believed to be the nature of that world.

However, today, we (in the western world) have gone well beyond the opinions of guru's who know the truth and want to share their insights with us. We now have exact science against which there can be no argument. Wait a minute, isn't that what all the guru's say. Well of course not, exact science doesn't make statements it can't show to be correct; well, at least they will change their position the moment any error is discovered (just ask them if you don't believe me).

So, let's get back to that question. Why is it that exact science manages to get such universal agreement on the description of the past (or at least the governing phenomena) if it is no more than a hypothetical world of our own creation? Surely it cannot possibly be a hypothetical creation as then we could all live in whatever world we wanted and science would have nothing to do with it. That is what all the scientists say anyway.

In case you have missed the point here, the question was essentially, "why is there only one past?" And the answer is (by universal acclaim) because I say so; the "I" of course being the guru of current belief.

The correct answer is, as a matter of fact, quite different; however, it takes some serious thought to figure the thing out.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Which is exactly what Schrodingers Cat would say. But if you asked a photon, well, I'm not so sure.

 

[Pi_314B]

"clocks do not measure time

This is just dead wrong. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII am sure of this.

I can't believe I'm giving a reply to the eye doctor.

 

[Smurf]

It follows that "we" as a collective unit actually do not remember only one past. Each remembers the past they think is correct.

I love it! I havn't even read the rest of your post, but that right there just made my day.

 

[Dr.Yes]

According to quantum theory sequence really can't exist. Superpostion suggests that people can exist in the (state of the) past at the same time as the present etc... Many people can be found stuck in the past . The question about whether the past is real or not belongs to the traditional relativist.

I'd say the equivalent of sequence in quantum studies is "regionalism". The superposition or entanglement of states "experienced" by an object do not occur in a sequence, (as in past, present, future) but it simultaneously "experiences" a region of states. It may not "experience" all states but only those states that pertain to its existence.

You have to calculate how much the past state is influencing your present, real time state. If it has no influence on your present state, then the past really isn't "real" in terms of the amount of influence it has on you, now. However, according to quantum logic, the past, present and future are all part of the region of states that support your existence. This tends to make all those states "real" in terms of being "essencial" to the existence of the present state. Thank you.

 

[Smurf]

According to quantum theory sequence really can't exist.

Superpostion suggests that the past is a state people can exist in at the same time as the present. Many people can be found stuck in the past. The question about whether the past is real or not belongs to the traditional relativist.

I'd say the equivalent of sequence in quantum studies is "regionalism". The superposition or entanglement of states "experienced" do not occur in a sequence, (as in past, present, future) but simultaneously "experiences" a region of states. It may not "experience" all states but only those states that pertain to its existence. Thank you.

Can you explain that a bit clearer for the amateur physicist? starting with why can't sequence exist according to quantum theory?

 

[Dr.Yes]

Can you explain that a bit clearer for the amateur physicist? starting with why can't sequence exist according to quantum theory?

Try reading my edited section... I added some stuff. Sequence only exists in a relative universe. The quantum theory suggests more of a simultaneous co-existence of waves, objects and states.

 

[Doctordick]

This is just dead wrong. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII am sure of this.

Ah, he has arrived! The guru of guru's At last we have someone who we can depend upon to give us the correct answers to all our questions.

Have a ball -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Try reading my edited section... I added some stuff. Sequence only exists in a relative universe. The quantum theory[/color] suggests more of a simultaneous co-existence of waves, objects and states.

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "theory" or are you so limited that you cannot comprehend the possibility that an accepted "theory" might be wrong?

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Dr.Yes]

are you so limited that you cannot comprehend the possibility that an accepted "theory" might be wrong?

Just making small talk on a small board like you.

In fact... out a here.

 

[Tournesol]

Now doesn't it seem reasonable that, "The past is, by definition, what we remember."

No. It indicates that we are incapable of remembering incorrectly, which is false.

With regard to the "we" in your statement, anyone who has any experience with life to speak of is well aware that disagreement about the past is actually quite common. It follows that "we" as a collective unit actually do not remember only one past. Each remembers the past they think is correct.

That doens't mean there are literally multiple pasts, only multiple memories
of varying degrees of accuracy.

 

[Doctordick]

Tournesol, I really wish you would put a little more thought into your responses. I have the very strong impression that you respond with the first thing that pops into your mind without considering the implications of the response.

Now doesn't it seem reasonable that, "The past is, by definition, what we remember."

No. It indicates that we are incapable of remembering incorrectly, which is false.

Please explain to me by what means you manage to know anything of the past which is not based on something you remember.

With regard to the "we" in your statement, anyone who has any experience with life to speak of is well aware that disagreement about the past is actually quite common. It follows that "we" as a collective unit actually do not remember only one past. Each remembers the past they think is correct.

That doens't mean there are literally multiple pasts, only multiple memories of varying degrees of accuracy.

And exactly what is it that you compare those inaccurate memories with if it is not other memories? In other words, what knowledge of the past qualifies as an accurate reference and is not part of your memory. Are you not assuming your interpretation of the past (the memories you have decided are accurate) constitute the only valid representation of the past?

Please take the time to think about what I am saying.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[professor]

the past was real, but can no longer exist on the same "tangent" as the one we remember, only a new course that would take you off in a completely different direction if at all possible to even travel/or see into the past. there is also a possibility that the past is observable through wormholes, though that would show that the observers past would be unobservable,the farther from his pasy in spacetime, the farther back, the oserver has potentil to view/travel to. thoughin essence since it was not the past of the observer, would he even be travling into the past in the first place?

 

[professor]

uhh.. buddy we compare those recollections to recorded images/videos/recordings ect... that how we know there was only one past...

 

[Doctordick]

uhh.. buddy we compare those recollections to recorded images/videos/recordings ect... that how we know there was only one past...

The problem with that response is that the consistency of that outcome is, itself, a memory. All you are really saying is that it is your expectation that the next time you do it you will get the same result. In other words, you are assuming your current world view is correct. That is an assumption based on your memory.

All I am saying is that the probabilidty of future events should be very similar to past events. The past (our memories) consist of a lot more information than what we are currently processing (the present). That the sun comes up every morning is no proof your current world view is correct, merely that it is at least consistent with your current memories.

Have fun -- Dick

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

 

[Tournesol]

Please explain to me by what means you manage to know anything of the past which is not based on something you remember.

I did not say we have any means of epistemological access to the past
other than out memories. I am saying that you cannot infer from that the
past just is , ontologically, memories.

You said:

"The past is, by definition, what we remember."

The past is, in fact, what happened before the present whether we remember
it or not.

And exactly what is it that you compare those inaccurate memories with if it is not other memories?

Direct evidence. If I remember putting my wallet in my trouser pocket only to find it in my jacket pocket, my memory was wrong.

In other words, what knowledge of the past qualifies as an accurate reference and is not part of your memory. Are you not assuming your interpretation of the past (the memories you have decided are accurate) constitute the only valid representation of the past?

As my example shows, I am not.

 

[professor]

thank you... doctordick... your wrong sry :)

 

[Doctordick]

I did not say we have any means of epistemological access to the past
other than out memories. I am saying that you cannot infer from that the
past just is , ontologically, memories.

Ontology: the study of the nature of reality; what is and what is not real. Certainly your assumption[/color] that the past is something other than your memories is an undefendable proposition. Let us carefully look at exactly what you know. First, it should be quite clear to you that you "know" absolutely nothing of the future. Now, it is true that you have expectations and would certainly be surprised if those expectations turned out to be wrong, but that is no proof that those expectations are correct (in fact, it is error in expectations which drives advances in science). Second, the present is just too short to be of any significance. The present turns into the past before you can even consider it. The past is all that is left and your only contact with the past is your memory. Since they are all we have, we can scarcely avoid using them. We can certainly presume our memories are themselves real[/color]; by simple definition if nothing else.

Please spend a few moments thinking about that. To deny one's memories are real leaves one with nothing. It is clear to me that what you want to do is to divide your memories into two categories: those which are consistent with your personal world view and those which are not. The problem with such a thing is that any division you make is made under the presumption that your world view is correct. You either have absolute faith in the validity of your world view (it is your religion) or it is subject to examination. To set any part of your perceptions above examination is to scuttle rational science. How do I convince you to take a look at those perceptions.

It seems to me that you should be able to comprehend that your expectations as to the future are one to one with your faith that your world view is correct. If we are to defend your world view, we must objectively[/color] examine the basis of that view. The basis can be nothing other than your memories.

You said:

"The past is, by definition, what we remember."

The past is, in fact, what happened before the present whether we remember
it or not.

God's in his heaven and all's well with the world! Your position is a religious stand.

If I remember putting my wallet in my trouser pocket only to find it in my jacket pocket, my memory was wrong.

Oh con tare, if you remember putting your wallet in your trouser pocket and also remember finding it in your jacket pocket, you decide the earlier memory was in error. In fact, you might wake up and decide the second memory was a dream and the first was accurate. The point is, you never have anything but your memories to work with; your world view is an attempt to make those memories make sense. That is, you create a consistent explanation of those memories; if that necessitates categorizing some of those memories as "invalid", that's what you do. Your mistake is thinking yours is the only solution.

If you believe your response is a valid refutation of my position, you have simply not thought the issue out.

Have fun -- Dick

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

 

[Tournesol]

Ontology: the study of the nature of reality; what is and what is not real. Certainly your assumption[/color] that the past is something other than your memories is an undefendable proposition.

I am principally claiming that that is what the word *means*.

Let us carefully look at exactly what you know. First, it should be quite clear to you that you "know" absolutely nothing of the future.

Nope. I know events that can be reliably predicted, up to a point. Of course memory is not 100% reliable either. It is a diffrerence of degree, not an
absolute.

Now, it is true that you have expectations and would certainly be surprised if those expectations turned out to be wrong, but that is no proof that those expectations are correct (in fact, it is error in expectations which drives advances in science). Second, the present is just too short to be of any significance. The present turns into the past before you can even consider it. The past is all that is left and your only contact with the past is your memory. Since they are all we have, we can scarcely avoid using them. We can certainly presume our memories are themselves real[/color]; by simple definition if nothing else.

We have to assume our memories are reliable in the absence of countervailing evidence. So what?

Please spend a few moments thinking about that. To deny one's memories are real leaves one with nothing. It is clear to me that what you want to do is to divide your memories into two categories: those which are consistent with your personal world view and those which are not.

No, I am asserting that there is more to reality than my memories.
I need only reject memories that are inconsistent with the majority , not with some fixed world view.

The problem with such a thing is that any division you make is made under the presumption that your world view is correct. You either have absolute faith in the validity of your world view (it is your religion) or it is subject to examination. To set any part of your perceptions above examination is to scuttle rational science. How do I convince you to take a look at those perceptions

I do not have absolute faith in the total of my current beliefs (NB not a fixed world view). I have to work on the hypothesis that they are largely correct.
What do the epistemological considerations tell me about the reality of the past ?

It seems to me that you should be able to comprehend that your expectations as to the future are one to one with your faith that your world view is correct. If we are to defend your world view, we must objectively[/color] examine the basis of that view. The basis can be nothing other than your memories.
God's in his heaven and all's well with the world! Your position is a religious stand.

Rhetorical hogwash.

Oh con tare, if you remember putting your wallet in your trouser pocket and also remember finding it in your jacket pocket, you decide the earlier memory was in error.

I didn't say they were both memories, I said one was a present, direct
experience. (And you still haven't uttered a sinlge syllable to suggest
why the revisability of memories means the past is memories ontologically).

In fact, you might wake up and decide the second memory was a dream and the first was accurate. The point is, you never have anything but your memories to work with; your world view is an attempt to make those memories make sense. That is, you create a consistent explanation of those memories; if that necessitates categorizing some of those memories as "invalid", that's what you do. Your mistake is thinking yours is the only solution.

I don't see any evidence for radically different but equally valid world-views,
and the idea is clearly inimical to scientific objectivity.

The fact that I arrive at a world view that way doesn't have any ontologicla implications.

If you believe your response is a valid refutation of my position, you have simply not thought the issue out.

You haven't explained it -- you haven't come out with anything that even looks like a epxlanation.


Nothing you say is addresses the issue. You are still inferring an ontological claim
"certainly your assumption[/color] that the past is something other than your memories is an undefendable proposition."
from an epistemological premiss , and that is still a falacy. You have laboured
mightily to esablish a point I have already agree with , that the only epistemological access to the past is via memories. You don't even seem
to be able to see that this just isn't a premiss that supports your conclusion.
If a memory wasn't causally formed in the past, it isn't memory.

 

[Doctordick]

Tournesol, I believe that you are simply misinterpreting what I am saying. Whether this misinterpretation is intentional or just emotionally driven I am not sure. What I am trying to get you to do is to look at things from a slightly different perspective; I assure you that I have no argument against most of the things you say. My only thrust is to point out that they are based on some very subtle assumptions. The issue is, in fact, the difference between deduction and induction. Deduction can be logically defended point by point in a manner with which induction can not be defended. It should be clear to any thinking person that the errors in our world views (and here I am speaking of the accepted scientific world view) are very rarely if ever in their deductive results. The errors which exist are certainly a consequence of erroneous inductive conclusions.

The major problem with trying to omit inductive results (which has been pointed out by both philosophers and scientists for centuries) is that the omission leaves one with exactly nothing to work with. The foundations upon which any and all deductions are based are arrived at by "experience", the very essence of inductive reasoning. The only real defense of an inductive conclusion is, "I believe it is true". Why does one "believe it is true"? Why, because our deductions from it are consistent with the other things we believe are true.

What I am doing is attacking the conclusion that omitting inductive results does not leave one with anything to work with. Or, to put it another way, I have found a way of dealing with those inductive results without explicitly constraining them in any way. That is, I have developed a specific way of dealing with problem of deduction which is so general that the deductions so constructed are valid for absolutely any internally consistent set of inductive conclusions.

Of course, this way of attacking the problem is very alien to anyone who holds their personal world view (that set of inductive conclusions reached by their lifetime of experience) to be infallible. They invariably want me to point out where the error in their perspective is before they even consider looking at things from an alternate perspective. The real circumstance is that I am not actually questioning the adequacy of their world view at all. Rather, I am questioning their assumption that no alternate, equally valid, world view exists. The error they are making is assuming that their world view is the only world view one hundred percent consistent with their experiences. If you examine the history of science you will discover that, over and over again, the flaws in the old beliefs turned out to be in that very presumption.

Much is made of the fact that a new perspective must clear up a difficulty which the old perspective failed to handle. Erroneous prediction is the driving force of change. A new perspective can only supplant the old perspective when a proof exists that the old perspective is wrong (that old perspective must lead to invalid expectations before the scientific community will even consider alternate possibilities).

This (rather universal) attitude overlooks another very significant fact: every time an advance has ever occurred, it has done so via an altered world view which was totally and completely consistent with all the experiences upon which the old world view had been based. If it weren't consistent with the known facts (all the experiences upon which the old world view was based), there is no way the scientific community would even begin to accept it. The subtle issue here is that, prior to the difficulty with the first world view (that erroneous prediction mentioned above), both world views under discussion were in complete one hundred percent agreement with what was known. What I am pointing out is that, even if one's world view is perfectly consistent with what is known, either that world view is absolutely without error or there exists another world view which is just as perfectly consistent with what is known.

What you should conclude from that is that there exits more than one world view which is totally consistent with exactly the same experiences upon which your world view is based. That was certainly true in the past and I would conclude (by induction of course :rolf:) that it is most probably true at the present time. The question (which was in my head over fifty years ago) was, how does one go about opening up that issue in an exact scientific manner? At the time, I developed a way of dealing with those inductive results without constraining them in any way (rather worthless at that time because it yielded an equation I could not solve). Twenty three years ago, I managed to solve that equation and was quite astonished by the solutions.

To date, I have found it utterly impossible to communicate the existence of the issue I speak of above. Essentially, I am fighting the scientific community's failure to confront their own fallibility. One might as well try to explain Quantum Mechanics to a cave man. Or the world being round to my grandmother. They are not about to consider the possibility of being wrong without personally experiencing an error in their expectations.

I do not have absolute faith in the total of my current beliefs (NB not a fixed world view). I have to work on the hypothesis that they are largely correct.

So long as you believe you have to, how am I to persuade you to take the trouble to look at an alternative? Perhaps I can not. If that is the case then I suppose a continuation of this dialog serves no purpose. Let me know of your opinion on that subject.

Meanwhile, in hopes that it does something to clarify what I am saying, I will answer your comments.

I am principally claiming that that is what the word *means*.

You are claiming that the past is "more than you are aware of"? If your intention is to claim that there is more than you are aware of, I would agree that it is an inductive conclusion one hundred percent consistent with all our experiences but it is none the less an assumption and cannot be proved. You are certainly not aware of any part of the past which is not part of your memories.

Nope. I know events that can be reliably predicted, up to a point. Of course memory is not 100% reliable either. It is a diffrerence of degree, not an absolute.

Once again that is an inductive conclusion and cannot be proved. I won't argue with you that it is very reasonable to presume it is true; however, it is always possible that a prediction might be wrong. Unless you are claiming infallibility; but that would make your position a religious position and not a scientific one.

We have to assume our memories are reliable in the absence of countervailing evidence. So what?

You and I are talking about two different things. You are speaking from the position of an established world view; I am speaking from an objective scientific position. My position is that you have nothing to work with but your memories. That you have the memories is a fact, that your world view makes sense of them is an opinion and that your assumptions (inductive conclusions) are the only valid explanation is an overt error.

No, I am asserting that there is more to reality than my memories. I need only reject memories that are inconsistent with the majority , not with some fixed world view.

The problem is that your rejection of some memories and acceptance of others is exactly what is meant by the phrase "world view".

It seems to me that you should be able to comprehend that your expectations as to the future are one to one with your faith that your world view is correct. If we are to defend your world view, we must objectively[/color] examine the basis of that view. The basis can be nothing other than your memories.
God's in his heaven and all's well with the world! Your position is a religious stand.

Rhetorical hogwash.

Now that is a scientific rebuttal anyone would be proud of.

I didn't say they were both memories, I said one was a present, direct experience. (And you still haven't uttered a sinlge syllable to suggest why the revisability of memories means the past is memories ontologically).

Every "direct experience" you have ever had is a memory before you have the time to think about it. It follows that memories are the stuff you use to support your thoughts.

Ok, you want the past to be more than your memories. If that is the case, than most of the past of your world view is an assumption (events and entities assumed to exist in order to make your memories make sense). My point is not that such a move is stupid but rather that the events and entities you have assumed to exist are not the only assumptions which can make your memories make sense.

I don't see any evidence for radically different but equally valid world-views, and the idea is clearly inimical to scientific objectivity.

Of course you don't see any such evidence. Clearly there isn't any; if there were, the scientific community would have to drop the world view they hold. The issue is, should one examine the range available to "different but equally valid world-views" and, I would say, the simple refusal to consider such a possibility is "inimical to scientific objectivity" as it clearly totally equivalent to denying the possibility that their world view can in fact be flawed.

The fact that I arrive at a world view that way doesn't have any ontologicla implications.

You seem awful sure of that.

You haven't explained it -- you haven't come out with anything that even looks like a epxlanation.

Presenting explanation of a problem you cannot comprehend is a totally worthless endeavorer. The first step is to understand the subject under discussion: i.e., exactly what exists.

You have laboured mightily to esablish a point I have already agree with , that the only epistemological access to the past is via memories. You don't even seem to be able to see that this just isn't a premiss that supports your conclusion. If a memory wasn't causally formed in the past, it isn't memory.

Sorry, I hadn't caught the fact that you had agreed with anything I said. Ok, for the sake of argument, let us suppose the past doesn't exist (that was the original question on this thread). In that case what are memories? I would say that implies that, without memories, you certainly have no evidence that the past exists.

Ask yourself what your memories are in the absence of your world view to interpret them. If you have no way of interpreting or expressing them (having no world view) do your memories exist or not? That is, does your "only epistemological access" to what exists exist? Or look at it from another perspective, if there existed a "world view" which made all your memories make sense, since they amount to your "only epistemological access" to what exists, what purpose does it serve to assume additional things exist?

Let me know if any of this makes any sense to you at all.

Have fun -- Dick

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

 

[Tournesol]

Much is made of the fact that a new perspective must clear up a difficulty which the old perspective failed to handle. Erroneous prediction is the driving force of change. A new perspective can only supplant the old perspective when a proof exists that the old perspective is wrong (that old perspective must lead to invalid expectations before the scientific community will even consider alternate possibilities).

What's wrong with that ?

This (rather universal) attitude overlooks another very significant fact: every time an advance has ever occurred, it has done so via an altered world view which was totally and completely consistent with all the experiences upon which the old world view had been based.

Nope. There usually were problems with the old paradigm,and there usually are (fewer) problems with the new one. Read yer Kuhn.

If it weren't consistent with the known facts (all the experiences upon which the old world view was based), there is no way the scientific community would even begin to accept it. The subtle issue here is that, prior to the difficulty with the first world view (that erroneous prediction mentioned above), both world views under discussion were in complete one hundred percent agreement with what was known. What I am pointing out is that, even if one's world view is perfectly consistent with what is known, either that world view is absolutely without error or there exists another world view which is just as perfectly consistent with what is known.

Well, if they are both perfectly consistent, what reason would you have for preferring one over the other ? You keep saying that
everyone should adopt an alternative, but you never say why.

To date, I have found it utterly impossible to communicate the existence of the issue I speak of above. Essentially, I am fighting the scientific community's failure to confront their own fallibility.

Evry scientist knows science is fallible. What you have probably failed to is describe any specific fault with the old
WV that your replacement can solve. (Having read further, it is not at all clear whether you are taliking about scientific theories, such as Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, or metaphysical theories such as realsim and idealism).

One might as well try to explain Quantum Mechanics to a cave man. Or the world being round to my grandmother. They are not about to consider the possibility of being wrong without personally experiencing an error in their expectations.

Quite rightly.

I do not have absolute faith in the total of my current beliefs (NB not a fixed world view). I have to work on the hypothesis that they are largely correct.

So long as you believe you have to, how am I to persuade you to take the trouble to look at an alternative? Perhaps I can not. If that is the case then I suppose a continuation of this dialog serves no purpose. Let me know of your opinion on that subject.

I have to work on the hypothesis that they are largely correct because I have no specific reason to do otherwise.

That is not an assumption of infallibility on my part, it is a failure to explain on yours. It is no good saying that you have a superior
alternative, you have to say what it is, and what is superior about it.

You are claiming that the past is "more than you are aware of"? If your intention is to claim that there is more than you are aware of, I would agree that it is an inductive conclusion one hundred percent consistent with all our experiences but it is none the less an assumption and cannot be proved. You are certainly not aware of any part of the past which is not part of your memories.

I am aware that there are aspects of the past I cannot personally remember at time T, because at time T+1 I find out about them.
So what ? You have not given me any specific reason think that "assumption" is false.

You are speaking from the position of an established world view; I am speaking from an objective scientific position. My position is that you have nothing to work with but your memories. That you have the memories is a fact, that your world view makes sense of them is an opinion and that your assumptions (inductive conclusions) are the only valid explanation is an overt error.

I don't think my inductive conclusions are the only possible ones; I just refuse to change them without specific reason. You certainly haven't givenme any.

No, I am asserting that there is more to reality than my memories. I need only reject memories that are inconsistent with the majority , not with some fixed world view.

The problem is that your rejection of some memories and acceptance of others is exactly what is meant by the phrase "world view".

Yep. So what ? You still haven't said what I am doing wrong.

It seems to me that you should be able to comprehend that your expectations as to the future are one to one with your faith that your world view is correct. If we are to defend your world view, we must objectively examine the basis of that view. The basis can be nothing other than your memories.
God's in his heaven and all's well with the world! Your position is a religious stand.

Rhetorical hogwash.

Now that is a scientific rebuttal anyone would be proud of.

I don't consider "God's in his heaven and all's well with the world" to be a scientific comment.

I didn't say they were both memories, I said one was a present, direct experience. (And you still haven't uttered a sinlge syllable to suggest why the revisability of memories means the past is memories ontologically).

Every "direct experience" you have ever had is a memory before you have the time to think about it. It follows that memories are the stuff you use to support your thoughts.

So you say. Many psychologists would disagree. Aren't you supposed to be arguing without any appeal to specific empirical facts ?

Ok, you want the past to be more than your memories. If that is the case, than most of the past of your world view is an assumption (events and entities assumed to exist in order to make your memories make sense). My point is not that such a move is stupid but rather that the events and entities you have assumed to exist are not the only assumptions which can make your memories make sense.

And the alternative is ...?

I don't see any evidence for radically different but equally valid world-views, and the idea is clearly inimical to scientific objectivity.

Of course you don't see any such evidence. Clearly there isn't any; if there were, the scientific community would have to drop the world view they hold. The issue is, should one examine the range available to "different but equally valid world-views" and, I would say, the simple refusal to consider such a possibility is "inimical to scientific objectivity" as it clearly totally equivalent to denying the possibility that their world view can in fact be flawed.

it is not inimical to scientific enquiry to reject philosophical world-views which are basically inimical to the project
of science, such as solipsism and idealism. Yes, that is "assumption" on the basis of science, but so what ?
Science doesn't claim to have ultimate truth , only scientific truth. It would be a problem if philoosphers
rejected those "world views" (qua metaphysical theories) out of hand. You complaint is basically that scientists
don't think like philosophers. Well, dogs don't meow like cats.

Originally Posted by Tournesol
You haven't explained it -- you haven't come out with anything that even looks like a epxlanation.

Presenting explanation of a problem you cannot comprehend is a totally worthless endeavorer. The first step is to understand the subject under discussion: i.e., exactly what exists.

It's called metaphysics. It's not new and it's not new to me. As usual, you are making the patronising assumption that
people are too stupid to understand you, when the real problem is with your inability to comunicate what you have to say,
if you have anything to say.

You have laboured mightily to esablish a point I have already agree with , that the only epistemological access to the past is via memories. You don't even seem to be able to see that this just isn't a premiss that supports your conclusion. If a memory wasn't causally formed in the past, it isn't memory.

Sorry, I hadn't caught the fact that you had agreed with anything I said. Ok, for the sake of argument, let us suppose the past doesn't exist (that was the original question on this thread). In that case what are memories?

Since memories seem to be of the past, they would be some kind of illusion of hallucination. If the past didn't exist.
But that is just your hypothesis, which you have not supported in any way.

I would say that implies that, without memories, you certainly have no evidence that the past exists.

But I do have memories, so I do have evidence the past exists. So what ?

Ask yourself what your memories are in the absence of your world view to interpret them. If you have no way of interpreting or expressing them (having no world view) do your memories exist or not?

I don't think the process of forming memories and the process of interpreting them can be realistically prised apart.

That is, does your "only epistemological access" to what exists exist?

Yes. What you say above is hypothesis. I have memories.

Or look at it from another perspective, if there existed a "world view" which made all your memories make sense, since they amount to your "only epistemological access" to what exists, what purpose does it serve to assume additional things exist?

I already have a (philosophical) WV that makes sense of my memories and perception, and it includes a real external world.


Your alternative sounds like the standard argument for solipsism. Do you want me to rehearse all my standard objections ?

 

[Doctordick]

It is no good saying that you have a superior alternative, you have to say what it is, and what is superior about it.

As I said, "I believe that you are simply misinterpreting what I am saying." I have never once claimed to have a superior alternative. What I would like to find is someone willing to consider the actual logical range of "internally self consistent alternatives". What I have said is that the overt absolute refusal to consider the possibility that there exists more than one internally self consistent alternative is much more "inimical to scientific objectivity" than is willingness to consider the issue.

Referring to my work as "metaphysics" and, for that reason, not applicable to physics makes the assumption[/color] that nothing "metaphysics" has to say has anything to do with physics. My training was in physics. As a graduate student, I was severely bothered by the physics community's refusal to think about the issues I am talking about. Their emotional position was, and is, that absolutely nothing is to be gained by wasting one's time looking at those issues. I looked anyway. And I discovered something very interesting. When I came back to the community and said, "look what I have discovered", no one wanted to look.

Their position was very simple (in fact, it appears to be your position), they held I was talking about metaphysics and that is not physics. Apparently I was stupid, I thought it was physics since it was no more than an extension of what I had been taught by them. On occasion, over the last twenty years, I have talked to philosophers. Some of them actually took the trouble to look. Their reaction was consistent and universal. They said, "this isn't philosophy, this is mathematics" and stated they didn't understand enough mathematics to follow it. As a consequence, I showed it to a few mathematicians I have had contact with over the years. Their reaction was as consistent and universal as was the reaction of the philosophers; "this isn't mathematics, it's physics". Actually I tend to agree with them! So everyone has their intellectually solid and defendable reason[/color] for making no attempt to understand it at all.

The mathematicians I understand. Any mathematician who looks at my work immediately realizes that there is no new mathematics there. The only issue is, are the conclusions consistent with experimental physical reality and that's a physics issue. I also understand the philosophers position. Their only flaw is that they have very little interest in understanding mathematics (they leave the logic and mathematics to the hard scientists). For the most part, those who are intelligent would leave the validity of the mathematics to others even if they could follow it as it certainly is not a trivial issue. If errors exist, they are subtle and would take some diligence to uncover.

It is the physicists who I do not understand. There are a significant number of them who could follow the mathematics if they had any inkling to do so. And most every one of them could comprehend the conclusions if they took the trouble to examine the logic. Their only reason for refusing to look appears to be the "fact" that I couldn't possibly be correct[/color]. Actually, believe it or not, I think my thesis adviser (who I asked for help in getting it published) had it right when he told me no one would ever read my work because I hadn't "paid my dues" (I had neither published nor worked in conventional physics since obtaining my Ph.D.). He also refused to look at it.

Apparently you agree, to examine the logic my of reasoning is "inimical to scientific objectivity"[/color].

What's wrong with that ?[/QUOTE}What's wrong with that, (that old perspective must lead to invalid expectations before the scientific community will even consider alternate possibilities[/color])? I would say it is always wrong to refuse to consider alternate possibilities. That is in fact the very essence of religion. Now religion is a very nice way to decide those day to day questions essential to common survival but certainly can not be called "scientific objectivity". Likewise, conventional physics is an excellent way of obtaining design information for current modern projects, but that certainly is not "objective science"; it's a craft like pot making.

I don't consider "God's in his heaven and all's well with the world" to be a scientific comment.

Neither do I. That comment was there as being analogous to the position you were taking.

This (rather universal) attitude overlooks another very significant fact: every time an advance has ever occurred, it has done so via an altered world view which was totally and completely consistent with all the experiences upon which the old world view had been based.

Nope. There usually were problems with the old paradigm,and there usually are (fewer) problems with the new one. Read yer Kuhn.

Now here you appear to totally ignore what I am saying. Without thought, you simply answer "NOPE". Read what I said again; your answer amounts to is saying that a modern view need not explain the physical events our ancestors experienced. The point being that, before the information which invalidated the old perspective was available (an error in that perspective was discovered), the old perspective was consistent with the available information. Now the new position was generally taken as superior to the old perspective because it was consistent with the new information which invalidated the old perspective not because it disagreed with the information the old perspective was consistent with[/color]. These two facts taken together imply that, prior to being aware of that differentiating new information, both perspectives were consistent with what was known[/color]. In actual fact, the new perspective was not seriously considered until the old perspective failed.

That is, it is a fact that more than one perspective existed which was consistent with the known information[/color]. That fact is probably as true today as it was then. The standard academic attitude is to totally ignore that fact. Against their learned professional advice, I have looked into it.

You keep saying that everyone should adopt an alternative, but you never say why.

I have no idea where you get that idea. I am not proposing any alternatives; I am simply proposing that one look at the abstract collection of all possible alternatives. I have a very simple way to attack that problem and the attack yields some very interesting consequences absolutely independent of your world view. The whole scientific community reminds me of those three monkeys: "see no evil", "hear no evil" and "speak no evil". All I am doing is asking someone look at the details of my attack and talk to me about them.

Evry scientist knows science is fallible.

Except when you ask him to question one of his beliefs. As the priest says, "all men are fallible" (some would except the pope as the scientific community excepts Einstein).

What you have probably failed to is describe any specific fault with the old WV that your replacement can solve.

Look, a technician is only concerned with getting competent results with his calculations (the aspect of science he is interested in is the fact that it will yield usable results in his employment; he is not a scientist but he should certainly understand what is currently known). An experimentalist is interested in checking the validity of the theories currently accepted. It is his job to produce data against which competing paradigms may be intellectually measured (though technicians can often be the discoverer of these errors, experimentalism is the realm of science if the issue as a primary aspect of their job).

What is the job of a theorist? One thing I think, it is not is helping the experimentalist work out the consequences of current theory. In my humble opinion, the experimentalists should understand the current theory well enough to work out the detailed consequences themselves (and all the decent experimentalists I have met do have such an understanding of their specialty). What I think the theorist should be doing is looking for the possible flaws in a paradigm independent of the workability and/or usefulness of that paradigm. Sooner or later, problems are apt to arise which will require a change in that paradigm and it would certainly pay to have a good idea of where the weak points lie and where the paradigm is on strong fundamental ground. That is the area of my interest and I would like to find an intelligent educated person with a similar interest.

(Having read further, it is not at all clear whether you are taliking about scientific theories, such as Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, or metaphysical theories such as realsim and idealism).

Having read what? Have you even looked at my http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm ?

I have to work on the hypothesis that they are largely correct because I have no specific reason to do otherwise.

Exactly what reason do you need to think about alternative possibilities?

That is not an assumption of infallibility on my part, it is a failure to explain on yours. It is no good saying that you have a superior alternative, you have to say what it is, and what is superior about it.

My position is that I think it is reasonable to think about things and, to refuse to think about possible errors is an assumption of infallibility[/color].

You have not given me any specific reason think that "assumption" is false.

What is "an assumption" if it is not the fact that it could be false? Otherwise it would be called a fact.

I don't think my inductive conclusions are the only possible ones; I just refuse to change them without specific reason. You certainly haven't givenme any.

I haven't asked you to change your conclusions, I have merely asked you to look at the problem of understanding the universe from an objective open position.

Yep. So what ? You still haven't said what I am doing wrong.

That's simple, you are failing to consider alternatives.

So you say. Many psychologists would disagree. Aren't you supposed to be arguing without any appeal to specific empirical facts ?

Communication is impossible without appeal to presumed information. That was the whole subject of my division of thinking into the two different aspects (which I called "logical" thought and "squirrel" thought). Communication depends upon understanding the references. Since there is no way to assure that the two parties have the same concept in mind, it is best to regard all communications as vague except for mathematical expressions. Mathematical expressions have the advantage of thousands of years work attempting to limit the constructs to nothing but self consistent relations. The point there being that it makes no difference if you have something else in mind when you use an expression, what ever I have in mind will be an analog of it no matter what it is: i.e., to the extent that mathematicians are correct, the relationships and conclusions we reach will have a one to one correspondence.

And the alternative is ...?

Why do you need an alternative? What I am examining are the constraints an alternative would have to satisfy in order to be a viable alternative. If you are rational, you are certainly aware of the fact that "just any old alternative" is not a possibility. Constraints exist! I believe I have come up with an abstract way of expressing those constraints. Have you ever looked at the derivation of the "Black body" radiation distribution? It is quite elegant in that the whole thing is a consequence of stability (once one realizes that the energy of the scattering entities is quantized; see Plank' constant): the number of entities scattering into a given state must exactly equal the number of entities scattering out of that state. Kinematics provide the solution.

You complaint is basically that scientists don't think like philosophers. Well, dogs don't meow like cats.

My complaint is basically that those so called scientists don't think like scientists. They think more like priests; like them, they have their catechism which is not to be questioned!

It's called metaphysics. It's not new and it's not new to me. As usual, you are making the patronising assumption that people are too stupid to understand you, when the real problem is with your inability to comunicate what you have to say, if you have anything to say.

No, my complaint is that they are so inured of their own opinion that they won't pay any attention to what I say.

Since memories seem to be of the past, they would be some kind of illusion of hallucination. If the past didn't exist.
But that is just your hypothesis, which you have not supported in any way.

Well, I can think about some things and, as far as I can tell, they are all in the past. I try to think of new things but strange as it is, the moment I think of them the thoughts are in the past. As far as I can tell, the present is so short that there isn't enough time to think about anything. So, I just decided to define the past as what I remember and let it go at that. I haven't run into any problems with that position yet.

But I do have memories, so I do have evidence the past exists. So what ?

So what? So at least you know you have memories. You want to call something else the past, it must be something you can't remember.

I don't think the process of forming memories and the process of interpreting them can be realistically prised apart.

Then you would say they cannot be misinterpreted? If they can, then certainly "forming memories" (experience) and "interpreting them" (explaining) refer to different aspects of the problem.

Yes. What you say above is hypothesis. I have memories.

What is hypothesis? That your memories exist or that they are the "only epistemological access" to what exists?

I already have a (philosophical) WV that makes sense of my memories and perception, and it includes a real external world.

As I said, "God's in his heaven and all's well with the world!"

Your alternative sounds like the standard argument for solipsism. Do you want me to rehearse all my standard objections ?

I have no need of that; I am well aware of the arguments both for and against solipsism. What you don't seem to comprehend is that the issue is an unsettleable question.

One of the surprising conclusions of my work is that one need not settle the question; it is, in the end immaterial. The laws of physics arise from the simple requirement of internal self consistency. Very analogous to the way the black body spectrum arises straight out of self consistent kinematics in a temperature stable photon-photon scattering. A careful examination of the consequence of constraint is one of the most productive fields out there. What do you think string theory is all about.

Have fun -- Dick

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

 

[Tournesol]

As I said, "I believe that you are simply misinterpreting what I am saying." I have never once claimed to have a superior alternative.

So you are not claiming that "the past is nothing but memories" is superior to realism ?

Referring to my work as "metaphysics" and, for that reason, not applicable to physics makes the assumption[/color] that nothing "metaphysics" has to say has anything to do with physics.

I don't make any of those assumptions. Some people use the word "metaphysics" in a perjorative sense, but I am not one of them.
I was saying that metaphysics studies what really exists.

Apparently you agree, to examine the logic my of reasoning is "inimical to scientific objectivity"[/color].

I didn't say it would "inimical to scientific objectivity" to consider what you are saying; I said it would be inimical to scientific objectivity
to adopt a solipsistic approach to metaphysics, as you were proposing last time. This time, you have backpedalled and claimed
that you are not making any definite claims. Yet this converstion started when you made the definite claim that the past is nothing but memories.

Neither do I. That comment was there as being analogous to the position you were taking.
Now here you appear to totally ignore what I am saying. Without thought, you simply answer "NOPE". Read what I said again; your answer amounts to is saying that a modern view need not explain the physical events our ancestors experienced.

Of course it needs to. It needs to explain the current and historical data. Nothing I say implies anything different.

The point being that, before the information which invalidated the old perspective was available (an error in that perspective was discovered), the old perspective was consistent with the available information. Now the new position was generally taken as superior to the old perspective because it was consistent with the new information which invalidated the old perspective not because it disagreed with the information the old perspective was consistent with[/color]. These two facts taken together imply that, prior to being aware of that differentiating new information, both perspectives were consistent with what was known[/color]. In actual fact, the new perspective was not seriously considered until the old perspective failed.

So ? That doesn't mean there any number of equally valid perspectives at anyone time. Theory A and theory B may *appear* equally valid currently, but the likelihood is that only one will be compatible with future data.

That is, it is a fact that more than one perspective existed which was consistent with the known information[/color]. That fact is probably as true today as it was then. The standard academic attitude is to totally ignore that fact. Against their learned professional advice, I have looked into it.

And your conclusion is..?

I have no idea where you get that idea. I am not proposing any alternatives; I am simply proposing that one look at the abstract collection of all possible alternatives. I have a very simple way to attack that problem and the attack yields some very interesting consequences absolutely independent of your world view. The whole scientific community reminds me of those three monkeys: "see no evil", "hear no evil" and "speak no evil". All I am doing is asking someone look at the details of my attack and talk to me about them.
Except when you ask him to question one of his beliefs. As the priest says, "all men are fallible" (some would except the pope as the scientific community excepts Einstein).
Look, a technician is only concerned with getting competent results with his calculations (the aspect of science he is interested in is the fact that it will yield usable results in his employment; he is not a scientist but he should certainly understand what is currently known). An experimentalist is interested in checking the validity of the theories currently accepted. It is his job to produce data against which competing paradigms may be intellectually measured (though technicians can often be the discoverer of these errors, experimentalism is the realm of science if the issue as a primary aspect of their job).

What's that got to do with the reality of the past?

What is the job of a theorist? One thing I think, it is not is helping the experimentalist work out the consequences of current theory. In my humble opinion, the experimentalists should understand the current theory well enough to work out the detailed consequences themselves (and all the decent experimentalists I have met do have such an understanding of their specialty). What I think the theorist should be doing is looking for the possible flaws in a paradigm independent of the workability and/or usefulness of that paradigm. Sooner or later, problems are apt to arise which will require a change in that paradigm and it would certainly pay to have a good idea of where the weak points lie and where the paradigm is on strong fundamental ground. That is the area of my interest and I would like to find an intelligent educated person with a similar interest.
Having read what? Have you even looked at my http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm ?
Exactly what reason do you need to think about alternative possibilities?
My position is that I think it is reasonable to think about things and, to refuse to think about possible errors is an assumption of infallibility[/color].
What is "an assumption" if it is not the fact that it could be false? Otherwise it would be called a fact.
I haven't asked you to change your conclusions, I have merely asked you to look at the problem of understanding the universe from an objective open position.

You haven;t said anything specific about what that consists of , except solipsism.

That's simple, you are failing to consider alternatives.

I'm being given no motivation to do so.

Communication is impossible without appeal to presumed information. That was the whole subject of my division of thinking into the two different aspects (which I called "logical" thought and "squirrel" thought). Communication depends upon understanding the references. Since there is no way to assure that the two parties have the same concept in mind, it is best to regard all communications as vague except for mathematical expressions.

Maths doesn't substitute take vague concepts and make them more precise, it just lops off a lot of the more
hard-to-define contentful stuff in favour of strucure and abstract labels. There is no mathematical concept
of freedom or love.

Mathematical expressions have the advantage of thousands of years work attempting to limit the constructs to nothing but self consistent relations. The point there being that it makes no difference if you have something else in mind when you use an expression, what ever I have in mind will be an analog of it no matter what it is: i.e., to the extent that mathematicians are correct, the relationships and conclusions we reach will have a one to one correspondence.

Indeed, maths is a system of structures and relationships which are self-consistent and can be placed into correspondence with
each other -- pure form, as it were. But that comes at a price, it is at the expense of content.

My complaint is basically that those so called scientists don't think like scientists. They think more like priests; like them, they have their catechism which is not to be questioned!

That is the complaint of all cranks.

Well, I can think about some things and, as far as I can tell, they are all in the past. I try to think of new things but strange as it is, the moment I think of them the thoughts are in the past.

No, at the moment you think about them, they are in the present. The next moment they are in the past.

As far as I can tell, the present is so short that there isn't enough time to think about anything. So, I just decided to define the past as what I remember and let it go at that.

Huh?? That doesn't follow from what you say about the present at all.

I haven't run into any problems with that position yet.

I. Suppose I remember thing that you can't ? Does that mean they never happenned ? or do I win ?

II. What about written records ?

III. What about physical traces like fossils?

IV. What about gaps ? If you can remember monday, and wednedsay, but not tuesday, does that mean tuesday never hapenned ?

V did the whole universe start up at the same time as you did ?

So what? So at least you know you have memories. You want to call something else the past, it must be something you can't remember.

I am saying there is more to the past than what I remember. I am not saying that my memories and the past are disjoint.

Then you would say they cannot be misinterpreted?

No.

I have no need of that; I am well aware of the arguments both for and against solipsism. What you don't seem to comprehend is that the issue is an unsettleable question.

I disagree.

One of the surprising conclusions of my work is that one need not settle the question; it is, in the end immaterial. The laws of physics arise from the simple requirement of internal self consistency.

And where does the consistency come from ? Can we choose new laws of physics ?

 

[genep]

Is time unreal? If it was real we could understand how light has no time and yet it travels so fast that it makes everything else, with time, stationary.

And if time was real our mind would not exchange thoughts with memories depending on its needs and wants or depending on the virtual-reality computer it is hooked up to, as in the movie The Matrix.

And if there was a past then the expanding sphere called the universe would not only have an inside but also an outside, the future.

-- just thoughts

 

[Doctordick]

So you are not claiming that "the past is nothing but memories" is superior to realism ?

No, I am of the opinion that my definition is the essence of realism. I am claiming two subtle facts: first, you can not prove the past is more than memories and second, the "definition", "the past is your memories" is sufficient to deduce all of what we know as physics.

I was saying that metaphysics studies what really exists.

If that is the case, it seems to me you should be willing to consider my proposition and not just reject it out of hand.

Yet this converstion started when you made the definite claim that the past is nothing but memories.

No, what I said was that I define the past to be my memories and your past to be your memories. You have baulked at this simply because it differs from your world view: i.e., you consider your world view as being the only rational possibility. I would like to differentiate between what must be true and what we hypothesize to be true.

Nothing I say implies anything different.

Well you and I differ as to what your comment implies.

So ? That doesn't mean there any number of equally valid perspectives at anyone time. Theory A and theory B may *appear* equally valid currently, but the likelihood is that only one will be compatible with future data.

Yes indeed, it certainly does imply that there is a possibility of multiple valid world views. Your position is no more than an assertion that there is but one and that constitutes a belief, not a provable fact.

Actually, I suspect you are well aware the possibility of multiple valid world views as why else would you be using the word "likelihood"? Being able to differentiate between religion and science is essential to an objective scientist. Belief is easy, thought is not. That is why so many people would rather believe than think.

And your conclusion is..?

My conclusion is that the benefit of looking into the issue is valuable beyond estimate.

What's that got to do with the reality of the past?

The technician's purpose does not require understanding the reality of the past. The experimentalist's purpose concerns only the validity of the current world view. That few people have any interest in the possibilities is understandable but one should not argue against thinking about the issue; that is, most definitely inimical to scientific advancement.

You haven't said anything specific about what that consists of , except solipsism.

Is it your opinion that "to look at the problem of understanding the universe from an objective open position" amounts to "solipsism"? I will admit that the collection of all possibilities includes solipsism but I deny that solipsism completes the collection of all possibilities.

That's simple, you are failing to consider alternatives.

I'm being given no motivation to do so.

I wouldn't expect you to require motivation to consider alternatives. In my head, the central aspect of trying to understand anything is "considering alternatives". Personally, I can not comprehend anyone who believes absolute refusal to consider alternatives is a scientifically rational position.

There is no mathematical concept of freedom or love.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Can you not conceive the abstract notion that there might be a way to express freedom and/or love mathematically? One thing I am sure of is that you certainly will not discover a way so long as you believe the possibility does not exist.

Indeed, maths is a system of structures and relationships which are self-consistent and can be placed into correspondence with each other -- pure form, as it were. But that comes at a price, it is at the expense of content.

All communications are performed at the expense of content. With English you just make the mistake of assuming you are being understood; the real content of the communication is significantly less than your presumptions. It just isn't as clear as it is with mathematics because mathematicians have spent centuries eliminating vague (or unclear) expressions.

That is the complaint of all cranks.

Peerless logic! It clearly follows that I must be a crank!

No, at the moment you think about them, they are in the present. The next moment they are in the past.

And exactly how much time does one have to think about them; just exactly how extensive may those thoughts be?

Huh?? That doesn't follow from what you say about the present at all.

It makes sense in my analysis. The past is what I know; the future is what I do not know and the present is a change in what I know. What I know changes but it is still the past. The present has utterly no extent and does not exist in the sense that the past (memories) exists. I can not prove the future exists; at least not until after it becomes part of the past.

I. Suppose I remember thing that you can't ? Does that mean they never happenned ? or do I win ?

That means that the details of the information your world view is built upon differ from the details of the information my world view is built upon. And I think those differences are worth examining. You make the assumption the details of the information and their interpretation are identical; an erroneous assumption.

II. What about written records ?

Ah, you remember reading them; you remember others referring to them and you remember finding the various texts when and where you expected them. Thus you conclude your world view is the only possible explanation.

III. What about physical traces like fossils?

You remember reading about them; perhaps you remember seeing examples of them; probably you remember going to a museum a number of times and seeing examples consistent with your world view. And again, you conclude your world view is the only possible explanation.

IV. What about gaps ? If you can remember monday, and wednedsay, but not tuesday, does that mean tuesday never hapenned ?

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, ..., etc. are concepts central to your world view. Certainly, if you were capable of creating an internally consistent world view[/color] consistent with the idea that Tuesday never happened, it would be an internally consistent world view[/color] and would work fine. What you seem to want to ignore is that a self consistent world view must be consistent with all your memories including the communications you remember having had with others.

V did the whole universe start up at the same time as you did ?

You miss the whole point of my presentation. We want to (and you should include yourself in that) consider all possible self consistent models of the universe (what we are aware of). The object of these models is to explain our experiences. It is an assumption that, if the model explains our experiences, it is a correct statement of the nature of the universe. That step is always an assumption. When and how the universe began is part of your world view and not a memory. It is a hypothetical thing and could be wrong. On the other hand, that you have memories is fact and not hypothesis.

And where does the consistency come from ? Can we choose new laws of physics ?

The consistency comes from the fact that the purpose of an explanation is to provide a reason for our memories. The definition of "inconsistent" (with regard to an explanation) is that different results are obtained if a different approach is taken (within that same explanation) to answer the same question. Thus, if an explanation is inconsistent, it fails its purpose. And yes, we can choose new laws of physics any time we wish. When we do so, it alters greatly what is required to exist. In fact, I can show that there is a specific trade off between the two aspects of an explanation: between what is presumed to exist and what the rules are. If you simplify one you must complicate the other.

Holistic examination of a problem can often yield results not otherwise achievable. The black body spectrum is a direct consequence of internal consistency in the kinematics of quantized photon interactions. The time rate of scattering out of a state must equal the time rate of scattering into that state or the system will not be stable. You should note that the solution is called the "law of black body radiation" not the "theory of black body radiation". It's a law because the outcome cannot be otherwise.

The result of my examination of all possible explanations of reality leads directly to a "Law of Quantum Mechanics" and imbedded in that law is a "Law of Relativity". These things are laws in the same sense that the derivation of the black body spectrum results in a law.

Have fun -- Dick

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

 

[brunardot]

The Present Does Not Exist.

When pressed for a definition regarding "the past", and whether or not it "does" exist, Brian Greene

http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/results2.pperl?authorid=11013

made this comment in an interview tonight.

~ I don't know if we can get there, but "the past is as real as the present"

Interesting, I thought.

The most important piece of advice [for aspiring physicists] is to keep your sense of wonderment alive - Dr. Michio Kaku

There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors - J. Robert Oppenheimer

Creative research is having confidence in nonsense - Burt Rutan

Science progresses one death at a time - Niels Bohr

Nice quotations. :)

I have no quibble with the past and the future existing as I look to the Cosmos. However, I would strongly argue that the present does not exist. It must be either past or future.

The duality of Infinity is beyond Reality.

 

[sd01g]

The duality of Infinity is beyond Reality.

Everything that is beyond Reality lies in the realm of the IMAGINARY.

As a human entity, one remembers or reads about the past, experiences the present and thinks about, imagines or projects the future. These pasts, presents and futures are all different--the past is not the present.

Empirically, the past, the present and the future are all composed of the same atoms, molecules, subatomic particles. This makes the empirical past, present, and future the same thing. The past is the present.

It is the movement and changing location of the components of empirical reality which comprise the past/present/future of the human entity.

Is the past the present? Yes and no.

 

[Tournesol]

So you are not claiming that "the past is nothing but memories" is superior to realism ?

No, I am of the opinion that my definition is the essence of realism. I am claiming two subtle facts: first, you can not prove the past is more than memories and second, the "definition", "the past is your memories" is sufficient to deduce all of what we know as physics.

Well, it doesn't look like you know what realism means.

And solipsistic physics is hardly physics at all - it isn't about anything.

No, what I said was that I define the past to be my memories and your past to be your memories. You have baulked at this simply because it differs from your world view: i.e., you consider your world view as being the only rational possibility. I would like to differentiate between what must be true and what we hypothesize to be true.

I don't think my view is the only possibility, just a better possibility than solipsism.

Yes indeed, it certainly does imply that there is a possibility of multiple valid world views. Your position is no more than an assertion that there is but one and that constitutes a belief, not a provable fact.

My position is not just an assertion, it is based on history. History shows that you do not have multiple EQUALLY VALID theories for significant periods
of time. You are pesistently confusing the question of whether alternative theories are possible (which is obviously true) with the
question of whether they are always as good as, equally valid as, each other.

What's that got to do with the reality of the past?

The technician's purpose does not require understanding the reality of the past. The experimentalist's purpose concerns only the validity of the current world view. That few people have any interest in the possibilities is understandable but one should not argue against thinking about the issue; that is, most definitely inimical to scientific advancement.

What's THAT got to do with the reality of the past?

You haven't said anything specific about what that consists of , except solipsism.

Is it your opinion that "to look at the problem of understanding the universe from an objective open position" amounts to "solipsism"?

It's my opinion that solipsism is the only definite proposal you have made. It is your opinion that it is somehow objective.
Everybidy else thinks solipsism is the last word in subjectivity.

I will admit that the collection of all possibilities includes solipsism but I deny that solipsism completes the collection of all possibilities.

That is the obvious point, that solipsism is *a* possibility, established all over again. Now: where is the argument that is equally valid compared to realism ?

That's simple, you are failing to consider alternatives.

I'm being given no motivation to do so.

I wouldn't expect you to require motivation to consider alternatives. In my head, the central aspect of trying to understand anything is "considering alternatives". Personally, I can not comprehend anyone who believes absolute refusal to consider alternatives is a scientifically rational position.

I have considered and rejected solipsism, years ago. You have given me no motivation to reconsider it.

There is no mathematical concept of freedom or love.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Can you not conceive the abstract notion that there might be a way to express freedom and/or love mathematically? One thing I am sure of is that you certainly will not discover a way so long as you believe the possibility does not exist.

if you *have* doscovered a way, kindly spell it out.

Indeed, maths is a system of structures and relationships which are self-consistent and can be placed into correspondence with each other -- pure form, as it were. But that comes at a price, it is at the expense of content.

All communications are performed at the expense of content. With English you just make the mistake of assuming you are being understood; the real content of the communication is significantly less than your presumptions. It just isn't as clear as it is with mathematics because mathematicians have spent centuries eliminating vague (or unclear) expressions.

Only at the expense of content.

That means that the details of the information your world view is built upon differ from the details of the information my world view is built upon. And I think those differences are worth examining. You make the assumption the details of the information and their interpretation are identical; an erroneous assumption.

I think the very possibility of coherence requires a world beyond your mind and my mind; or rather, it requires a world beyond my mind,
because your mind is just an assumption on my part based of my sense-data -- solipsistically speaking.

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, ..., etc. are concepts central to your world view. Certainly, if you were capable of creating an internally consistent world view consistent with the idea that Tuesday never happened, it would be an internally consistent world view and would work fine. What you seem to want to ignore is that a self consistent world view must be consistent with all your memories including the communications you remember having had with others.

Yet if we were a community of disembodied spirits floating around in never-never land , there would be no basis for agreement. There would be no basis
for communication, even. Without a common world of sense there can be no common language.

You miss the whole point of my presentation. We want to (and you should include yourself in that) consider all possible self consistent models of the universe (what we are aware of). The object of these models is to explain our experiences. It is an assumption that, if the model explains our experiences, it is a correct statement of the nature of the universe. That step is always an assumption.

As opposed to what ? Solipsists always pretend to have this ultra-high standard of truth when they are attacking other beliefs, but they canot produce
anything positive that meets their criterion of absolute certainty. So everything is an assumption. And if you work
on that basis, it turns out that realism, nos solipsism is the best assumption.

When and how the universe began is part of your world view and not a memory. It is a hypothetical thing and could be wrong. On the other hand, that you have memories is fact and not hypothesis.

That even direct experiences are really memories is also a hypothesis.

The consistency comes from the fact that the purpose of an explanation is to provide a reason for our memories.

"Our memories" ? Just consistency of my memeories with each other ? Consistency of my memories with your memories ?
But then, why should your memories be consitient with my memories if we are not both plugged ito a common world.

It's a law because the outcome cannot be otherwise.

Hmmm. There are really no alternative possibilities ? Or you are prejudically refusing to consider any ?

The result of my examination of all possible explanations of reality leads directly to a "Law of Quantum Mechanics" and imbedded in that law is a "Law of Relativity". These things are laws in the same sense that the derivation of the black body spectrum results in a law.

So *your* laws don't have to co-exist with an infinity of equally likely possibiliites. How remarkably convenient.

 

[Doctordick]

I have no quibble with the past and the future existing as I look to the Cosmos. However, I would strongly argue that the present does not exist. It must be either past or future.

I would agree, the present is a figment of our imagination: i.e., it is the boundary between the past and the future and thus consists of nothing. Please note here that the fundamental definition of the present is, "all events that are simultaneous" and, anyone who understands relativity, comprehends that "simultaneity" can not be uniquely defined (it is a function of the frame of reference of the observer). That fact[/color] totally destroys the idea that the present exists[/color] in the sense of a physically specifiable reality. On the other hand, the present certainly exists as a description of the experiences of an observer.

Against this one must recognize that the future only exists hypothetically. No part of it can be proved to exist until it has become part of the past. So, if we wish to be accurate with our assessment of what exists and what is a figment of our imagination, we can only be absolutely assured that the past exists. It seems to me that the issue brought up by Ivan Seeking has to be settled in the affirmative: the past certainly does exist as, if it doesn't, nothing exists.

But the other half of Ivan's comment seems to be ignored by everyone except myself. To quote Ivan, "when pressed for a definition regarding 'the past', and whether or not it 'does' exist, Brian Greene ..." didn't give a definition. Nobody does! They all simply assume everyone knows what they are talking about. So I put forth my definition: "the past is what we know". This is clearly a highly personal definition as it must be since it must encompass a definition of the present; otherwise no separation between the past and future can be defined.

Now Tournesol has admitted that our only epistemological access to the past is our memories, but he absolutely refuses to view that from the perspective where "our memories" constitute a definition of the past. The only support for his refusal seems to be the authoritative position that it is a fact[/color] that the "past which exists" is more than his memories. I can not seem to communicate to him that there is a difference between "the past" (which is deemed to exist) and "his explanation of the past" (which is a product of his intellectual abilities). Any assistance in this endeavorer would certainly be appreciated.

No, I am of the opinion that my definition is the essence of realism. I am claiming two subtle facts: first, you can not prove the past is more than memories and second, the "definition", "the past is your memories" is sufficient to deduce all of what we know as physics.

Well, it doesn't look like you know what realism means.

You already admitted that your only epistemological access to the past is your memories, how can you claim it is "unrealistic" to see it as sufficient to deduce all of what we know as physics?

I won't bother answering your overwhelming desire to see "solipsism" as the only possibility of an objective approach; you are simply being closed minded on the subject of an objective examination of what we know and I simply don't know how to open your mind.

History shows that you do not have multiple EQUALLY VALID theories for significant periods of time.

And you are using that fact to argue that we shouldn't think about the possibility; I am simply saying that your attitude is not scientifically objective.

You are pesistently confusing the question of whether alternative theories are possible (which is obviously true) with the question of whether they are always as good as, equally valid as, each other.

No I am not. I am attempting to get you to look at the possibility of alternative theories. That is, to examine very carefully the constraints implied by that issue referred to as validity[/color]. In order to do that, we need to abstract away from "what we think is true" to "what could be true". In order to know what could be true we must be very careful as to exactly what our conclusions are based on.

What's THAT got to do with the reality of the past?

The only epistemological access we have to the universe is our memories. Since we have nothing else, that is what our conclusions must be based on (the only thing we must accept).

Hmmm. There are really no alternative possibilities ? Or you are prejudically refusing to consider any ?

I am explicitly allowing all possibilities. And, contrary to the position held by the authorities, it turns out that there are some very specific deductions which can be obtained. That is, the truth of those deductions is not a function of the true nature of reality but follow directly from the requirement that the explanation under consideration be internally self consistent. If they are false, the explanation is internally inconsistent and one knows that the explanation is wrong without further examination. The actual nature of the deduction is quite interesting.

So *your* laws don't have to co-exist with an infinity of equally likely possibiliites. How remarkably convenient.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What I am saying is that there always exists an internally self consistent interpretation[/color] of any internally consistent explanation of anything which must obey a very simple differential equation and that fact yields some very interesting consequences. Instead of arguing that I can not possibly have done what I say I have done, why don't you examine the http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm ?

The first issue is to define exactly what is meant by the phrase "an explanation". I begin by pointing out that all "explanations" require something which is to be explained. Whatever it is that is to be explained, it can be thought of as information. It thus follows that "an explanation" is something which is done to (or for) information. The problem is then, if we are to model "an explanation" in general, we must lay down exactly what it is that an explanation does to (or for) information.

I say that what an explanation does for information is that it provides expectations of subsets of that information. That is, it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered (that could be regarded as the definition of "knowing"). On the other hand, if the information is understood, then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information not known; the explanation constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known.

Thus I define "An explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information[/color].

That is my definition of an explanation. If you find fault with it, either point out an explanation which fails to provide any expectations or a method of yielding one's expectations which cannot be thought of as an explanation. Baring that event, I will show you exactly what can be deduced from that definition and a little mathematics. This is not solipsism nor was it ever solipsism; however, it is interesting to note that even a solipsistic explanation must be as much bound by these deductions as is any other explanation. The only constraint I place on the explanation is that it is, itself, internally self consistent.

Have fun -- Dick

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

 

[Tournesol]

I would agree, the present is a figment of our imagination: i.e., it is the boundary between the past and the future and thus consists of nothing.

Meaning what ? That it is zero ? That is is finite but very small ? That it is infenitessimal. Someone who knows physics should pay attention to these distinctions.

Please note here that the fundamental definition of the present is, "all events that are simultaneous" and, anyone who understands relativity, comprehends that "simultaneity" can not be uniquely defined (it is a function of the frame of reference of the observer).

Being a function of the reference-frame of the observer is a far cry from being a figment of the imagination..

That fact totally destroys the idea that the present exists in the sense of a physically specifiable reality.

It is physically specifiable and objectively specifiable. It just isn't globally specifiable.

Against this one must recognize that the future only exists hypothetically.

So you say.

No part of it can be proved to exist until it has become part of the past.

That doesn't mean it didn't actually exist. You are confusing epistemology with ontology,yet again.

So, if we wish to be accurate with our assessment of what exists and what is a figment of our imagination, we can only be absolutely assured
that the past exists.

We don't have an ability to see directly into the past; we have to work on traces -- including memories -- that exist
in the present. What we can be "absolutely assured" of is so slight that nothng useful can be done with it. There is always
trade-off between certainty and meaningfulness.

But the other half of Ivan's comment seems to be ignored by everyone except myself. To quote Ivan, "when pressed for a definition regarding 'the
past', and whether or not it 'does' exist, Brian Greene ..." didn't give a definition. Nobody does! They all simply assume everyone knows what they are
talking about. So I put forth my definition: "the past is what we know". This is clearly a highly personal definition as it must be since it must
encompass a definition of the present; otherwise no separation between the past and future can be defined.

It's just false that no-one has offered a definition of the past,. I have already offered the standard definition that it is what happened before the present.

Now Tournesol has admitted that our only epistemological access to the past is our memories,

..and other traces existing in the present ..

but he absolutely refuses to view that from the perspective where "our memories" constitute a definition of the past. The only support for his
refusal seems to be the authoritative position that it is a fact that the "past which exists" is more than his memories. I can not seem to communicate
to him that there is a difference between "the past" (which is deemed to exist) and "his explanation of the past" (which is a product of his
intellectual abilities).

It is because I do understand the difference that I refuse to identify the actualy-existing-past with what-I-happen-to_remember. And also
because doing so allows me to trade the (infinitely prized yet infinitely scarce) commodity of certainty for meaning.

You already admitted that your only epistemological access to the past is your memories, how can you claim it is "unrealistic" to see it as
sufficient to deduce all of what we know as physics?

The *appearances* which constitute memories must be sufficient to *infer* what the world *really* is, of anything is, but what
the world *really* is, is, by definition, different from what it *appears* to be. Thus, momories (and other traces) are my only basis for *inferring* the past, but what I infer on that basis is not my memories themselves. If the past "is" my memories, then nothing *further* can be inferred from them, and
they *mean* nothing -- they are just free-floating appearances with no underlying reality behind them. But *realism* requires a further meaning,
an underlying *reality*. Hence the name.

I won't bother answering your overwhelming desire to see "solipsism" as the only possibility of an objective approach;

Nothing else has been offered by you.

you are simply being closed minded on the subject of an objective examination of what we know and I simply don't know how to open your mind.a further meaning

Solipsism is not objective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tournesol

History shows that you do not have multiple EQUALLY VALID theories for significant periods of time.

And you are using that fact to argue that we shouldn't think about the possibility; I am simply saying that your attitude is not scientifically objective.

If you give me a motivation to think about ohter psosibilities , I will do so. Otherwise you are just confusing the mere existence of alterntive possibilites with the EQUAL VALIDITY of alternative possibilites. Again.

You are pesistently confusing the question of whether alternative theories are possible (which is obviously true) with the question of whether they are always as good as, equally valid as, each other.

No I am not. I am attempting to get you to look at the possibility of alternative theories. That is, to examine very carefully the constraints implied by that issue referred to as validity. In order to do that, we need to abstract away from "what we think is true" to "what could be true". In order to know what could be true we must be very careful as to exactly what our conclusions are based on.

Whatever. You still haven't cited any criterion which would place the certain-but-sterile approach of solipsism on a apr with the
fruitful-but-uncertain philoosphy of realism.

The only epistemological access we have to the universe is our memories. Since we have nothing else, that is what our conclusions must be based on (the only thing we must accept).

Doesn't come remotely close to answering the question -- about the REALITY of the past. You just seem blind to he difference between ontological and epistemological issues.

I say that what an explanation does for information is that it provides expectations of subsets of that information.

And I say, that while that is a start, it must do much more tha that; it must explain what things really are, behing the "veil of appearances".

Thus I define "An explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information.

That is my definition of an explanation.

Well, as I have indicated, I think it is too narrow. For instance, General Relativity doesn't produce many pedictions; its interest lies it the fact that it says what gravity *is*.

If you find fault with it, either point out an explanation which fails to provide any expectations

Expectations may well be a *necessary* component of an explanantion; the question is whether they are *sufficient*.

or a method of yielding one's expectations which cannot be thought of as an explanation. Baring that event, I will show you exactly what can be deduced from that definition and a little mathematics. This is not solipsism nor was it ever solipsism; however, it is interesting to note that even a solipsistic explanation must be as much bound by these deductions as is any other explanation.

You can achieve this compatibility with solipsism quite easily if your defintion of explanation does not require realism in the first place.
If it does, you can't.

The only constraint I place on the explanation is that it is, itself, internally self consistent.

That is far too weak. All kinds of self-consistent stories can be confabulated.

 

[Doctordick]

Meaning what ? That it is zero ? That is is finite but very small ? That it is infenitessimal. Someone who knows physics should pay attention to these distinctions.

Meaning that it need not exist as part of reality. Its existence is not required to construct a valid explanation of "reality".

Being a function of the reference-frame of the observer is a far cry from being a figment of the imagination..

Simultaneity is not a uniquely definable thing. Would you hold that "simultaneity" exists in the sense that a physical object of reality exists? Or is it rather a convenient mental construct allowing simple specifications of events.

It is physically specifiable and objectively specifiable. It just isn't globally specifiable.

Specifiable with respect to what? Don't you have to know the reference of the observer in order to specify it? Again, exactly how "real" can it be if it can not be specified in the absence of state of the observer. It seems to me concluding it to be a figment of the observers imagination is much more realistic.

So you say.

It certainly is not necessary to presume it exists. That I can prove.

That doesn't mean it didn't actually exist. You are confusing epistemology with ontology,yet again.

No I am not! What I am saying is that your ontology is not necessarily the only possibility.

We don't have an ability to see directly into the past; we have to work on traces -- including memories -- that exist in the present. What we can be "absolutely assured" of is so slight that nothng useful can be done with it. There is always trade-off between certainty and meaningfulness.

I believe you must define the past before you can comment on what you can and can not do with it. Are you sure that "what we can be 'absolutely assured' of" is really "so slight that nothing useful can be done with it"? I don't think that's true at all. I have looked and I know some very interesting things which can be done with it.

It's just false that no-one has offered a definition of the past,. I have already offered the standard definition that it is what happened before the present.

You've defined it in terms of the present which can not be uniquely defined. It follows that your definition of the past is no more "real" than your definition of the present.

The *appearances* which constitute memories must be sufficient to *infer* what the world *really* is, of anything is, but what the world *really* is, is, by definition, different from what it *appears* to be.

"By definition"? Just where do you get your definitions. And "reality is whatever you've inferred it to be? I think you are talking about "belief" not science.

Thus, momories (and other traces) are my only basis for *inferring* the past, but what I infer on that basis is not my memories themselves. If the past "is" my memories, then nothing *further* can be inferred from them, and they *mean* nothing -- they are just free-floating appearances with no underlying reality behind them. But *realism* requires a further meaning,
an underlying *reality*. Hence the name.

I can not comprehend how you can hold that your conclusions constitute reality a valid statement of reality. Your hypothesis that your memories "are just free-floating appearances with no underlying reality behind them" is a rather extreme conclusion and appears undefendable to me.

Regarding Solipsism, let me assert once more that I am not at all proposing solipsism and I have offered a definite proposition which certainly is not solipsistic but, to date, you have simply refused to look.

If you give me a motivation to think about ohter psosibilities , I will do so. Otherwise you are just confusing the mere existence of alterntive possibilites with the EQUAL VALIDITY of alternative possibilites. Again.

No, that is not the case at all. I am simply concerned with the consequences of requiring validity itself; thus deducing in what way such a constraint effects alternate possibilities without specifying what those alternate possibilities are. All you are doing is insisting that I can deduce nothing of significance; an out and out opinion and not a reasoned position at all.

And I can not comprehend why you insist on equating what I want to do with solipsism. The only rational explanation I can think of is that you just want to throw up a straw man so you can appear to be rational in your refusal to look at my logic.

Doesn't come remotely close to answering the question -- about the REALITY of the past. You just seem blind to he difference between ontological and epistemological issues.

Isn't the ontological issue the question of what you believe to be true? The existence of things your explanation is based on? It seems to me that you should leave that issue open until after you have thought the implications of your memories out. It should be obvious to you that your solution of the problem is supposed to reduce to your ontology. To suppose you know the ontology is to suppose you know the truth. Suppose you are wrong; how would you intend to handle that problem. And don't tell me there is no possibility that you are wrong; that's the broken catechism of every academy since the beginning of reason.

And I say, that while that is a start, it must do much more tha that; it must explain what things really are, behing the "veil of appearances".

But you have used the word "explain" in your description of what an explanation must do. That act makes your description circular. My question would be, how does it explain what things really are, if not by yielding the entire method by which your expectations are deduced?

Well, as I have indicated, I think it is too narrow. For instance, General Relativity doesn't produce many pedictions; its interest lies it the fact that it says what gravity *is*.

And how does it do that if it does not say anything about what is to be expected. The elements of an explanation of anything are: "what exists" (your ontology) and "what the rules are" (how the things that exist influence one another). In the final analysis, the result of the explanation is that it provides a method of deducing your expectations. That word is "expectations" (what you expect); if you expect predictions, the explanation should provide those expectation, if you don't than the explanation should provide that expectation. The explanation is the source of your expectations.

Now you think my definition is too narrow. Too narrow for what? That is my definition: what I mean when I say "explain". I would like to show you the deductions which can be made from that definition. Until you know the extent of those deductions, you have nothing with which to make such a judgement.

Expectations may well be a *necessary* component of an explanantion; the question is whether they are *sufficient*.

How can you judge the sufficiency of the component without knowing what can be deduced from that definition?

You can achieve this compatibility with solipsism quite easily if your defintion of explanation does not require realism in the first place.
If it does, you can't.

Now that's a rather adamant position. You are completely ignoring the possibility that some of the things you believe are real are a consequence of your faith in an invalid theory. As I said, the ontology should be left until after you know exactly what your theory requires. To set the ontology first is to make the subject a religion.

That is far too weak. All kinds of self-consistent stories can be confabulated.

Oh, that's a fact is it? You sound awfully confident of that assertion. Please "confabulate" for me a single internally self-consistent story which explains every experiment in the universe which myself or any scientist I can contact is aware can be done!

Go read my comment to Rob55.

Have fun -- Dick

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

 

[Dr.Yes]

The Past Is Gonna Git Cha

Anything you read is the past. The past thoughts. The past actions. The past. Its right in your face right now. And its past. And its real. Its affecting you and influencing you now. It is the past.

The past makes itself felt now - in a very real manner - very real, right now. The past. Without the past, as I've suggested before, there is no right now which makes it very real, right now.

Now you're going to tell me that QM will prove that all there is is now. This is doubtful. There is a region of the now and there is a region of the past and there is a region of the future. These regions work together as part of the fabric of existence.

The past, the present and the future are interdependent elements of existence, each exhurting as much influence as the other.

Its the real thing.

 

[Doctordick]

The past, the present and the future are interdependent elements of existence, each exhurting as much influence as the other.

Its the real thing.

I agree with you one hundred percent only I give them slightly different names (for a very subtle reasons). I call the past "what I know"; I call the present "change in what I know" and I call the future "what I do not know". Quantum mechanics tells me what kinds of changes to expect in order to agree with the past (the past, being what I know, is the collection of all the changes I am aware of).

Have fun -- Dick

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

 

[Dr.Yes]

I agree with you one hundred percent only I give them slightly different names (for a very subtle reasons). I call the past "what I know"; I call the present "change in what I know" and I call the future "what I do not know". Quantum mechanics tells me what kinds of changes to expect in order to agree with the past (the past, being what I know, is the collection of all the changes I am aware of).

Have fun -- Dick

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

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.



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

 

[sd01g]

When pressed for a definition regarding "the past", and whether or not it "does" exist, Brian Greene

http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/results2.pperl?authorid=11013

made this comment in an interview tonight.

~ I don't know if we can get there, but "the past is as real as the present"

Interesting, I thought.

One cannot 'get to the past' because the past does not empirically exist. The past exists only as memory and history. The past is not as real as the present because the present has a Real Location --where you are 'Right Now'. Memories persist and history remains, but the past is gone forever--you cannot go back.

 

[Gir]

There is no direction for the flow of time. There is no past, nor is there a future. What you may think of as the past is actually a current event. Whatever you may dwell on as the future is actually a current event. Without a past or future - there can be no flow of time in a particular direction.

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.

that would only be true if we lived in a three dimensional space, but we dont. we live in 4, however we can only perceve at any givin time 3. if you could take away time as a dimention, all things would be happening at once. every possiblity would exist at one time. the past exists, as does the future, it's happening right now, except our personal future has yet to be determened if you take into account the possiblity of a mutiverse. since the future is constantly being changed and split our minds just cannot go through all the future possiblities so insted it only remembers events from the past possiblities.

if this multiverse were to collaps then time would go backwords as possiblities "fell into" each other. we would still remember the past, only as events went by we would forget them because they will have ceased to exist.

I may not have explained this well but it's my understanding of time.

 

[Dr.Yes]

that would only be true if we lived in a three dimensional space, but we dont. we live in 4, however we can only perceve at any givin time 3. if you could take away time as a dimention, all things would be happening at once. every possiblity would exist at one time. the past exists, as does the future, it's happening right now, except our personal future has yet to be determened if you take into account the possiblity of a mutiverse. since the future is constantly being changed and split our minds just cannot go through all the future possiblities so insted it only remembers events from the past possiblities.

if this multiverse were to collaps then time would go backwords as possiblities "fell into" each other. we would still remember the past, only as events went by we would forget them because they will have ceased to exist.

I may not have explained this well but it's my understanding of time.

My adoped understanding of time from W.C. Fields:

"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."

 

[Tournesol]

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

"The stuff that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it" -- Phillip K Dick.

 

[Tournesol]

Meaning that [ the present ] need not exist as part of reality. Its existence is not required to construct a valid explanation of "reality".

Given a very narrow definition of "explanantion".

Simultaneity is not a uniquely definable thing. Would you hold that "simultaneity" exists in the sense that a physical object of reality exists? Or is it rather a convenient mental construct allowing simple specifications of events.

I would regard it as something that is objectively defineable for an observer, given some fairly strict constraints (unlike things which are genuinely subjective, like your favourite flavour of ice-cream). It is not a physical object with a certain mass, spatial dimensions
and so on. But restricting objectivity to that kind of object (for all its popularity with ebginners to philosophy) is problematical. If space and time aren't real , how can spatio-temporal objects be real ?

Specifiable with respect to what?

An observer.

Don't you have to know the reference of the observer in order to specify it? Again, exactly how "real" can it be if it can not be specified in the absence of state of the observer.

Why should that make it any less real ?

It seems to me concluding it to be a figment of the observers imagination is much more realistic.

Observers cannot freely decide what to treat as simulatenous, so it is not a figment of their imagination.
The fact that some part of physics is relative to some other part does not make it mental
or subjective in any way -- although it is a typical beginners mistake to suppose that it does.

What I am saying is that your ontology is not necessarily the only possibility.

You haven't displayed a BETTER alternative.

I believe you must define the past before you can comment on what you can and can not do with it.

I already have: what happenned before the present, and caused the traces, including memories, that we use to reconstruct it.

Are you sure that "what we can be 'absolutely assured' of" is really "so slight that nothing useful can be done with it"? I don't think that's true at all. I have looked and I know some very interesting things which can be done with it.

Which you have yet to reveal...

It's just false that no-one has offered a definition of the past,. I have already offered the standard definition that it is what happened before the present.

You've defined it in terms of the present which can not be uniquely defined. It follows that your definition of the past is no more "real" than your definition of the present.

Or no less real. As an observer, my past and present are real enough for me. You can object to that, but without consistency, since you think solipsism is viable.

The *appearances* which constitute memories must be sufficient to *infer* what the world *really* is, of anything is, but what the world *really* is, is, by definition, different from what it *appears* to be.

And "reality is whatever you've inferred it to be?

"sufficient to infer what it really is IF ANYTHING IS".

Thus, momories (and other traces) are my only basis for *inferring* the past, but what I infer on that basis is not my memories themselves. If the past "is" my memories, then nothing *further* can be inferred from them, and they *mean* nothing -- they are just free-floating appearances with no underlying reality behind them. But *realism* requires a further meaning,
an underlying *reality*. Hence the name.

I can not comprehend how you can hold that your conclusions constitute reality a valid statement of reality. Your hypothesis that your memories "are just free-floating appearances with no underlying reality behind them" is a rather extreme conclusion and appears undefendable to me.

That is not what i am saying they are , I am saying that is what they WOULD BE if realism is false. Which I don't think it is.

Regarding Solipsism, let me assert once more that I am not at all proposing solipsism and I have offered a definite proposition which certainly is not solipsistic but, to date, you have simply refused to look.

You have said "the past is memories". That is solipsism to me.

If you give me a motivation to think about ohter psosibilities , I will do so. Otherwise you are just confusing the mere existence of alterntive possibilites with the EQUAL VALIDITY of alternative possibilites. Again.

No, that is not the case at all. I am simply concerned with the consequences of requiring validity itself; thus deducing in what way such a constraint effects alternate possibilities without specifying what those alternate possibilities are. All you are doing is insisting that I can deduce nothing of significance; an out and out opinion and not a reasoned position at all.

The only alternative you have suggested is solipsism.

Isn't the ontological issue the question of what you believe to be true?

No it is the issue of what really exists -- "is the past real?".

The existence of things your explanation is based on? It seems to me that you should leave that issue open until after you have thought the implications of your memories out. It should be obvious to you that your solution of the problem is supposed to reduce to your ontology. To suppose you know the ontology is to suppose you know the truth. Suppose you are wrong; how would you intend to handle that problem. And don't tell me there is no possibility that you are wrong; that's the broken catechism of every academy since the beginning of reason.

Show me a BETTER alternative and I will admit I am wrong.

But you have used the word "explain" in your description of what an explanation must do. That act makes your description circular. My question would be, how does it explain what things really are, if not by yielding the entire method by which your expectations are deduced?

From what is behind the veil of experiences , the experiences themselves must be deduced, so that theory can be checked against observation.
Without the one you have mysticism, without the other solipsism.

Well, as I have indicated, I think it is too narrow. For instance, General Relativity doesn't produce many pedictions; its interest lies it the fact that it says what gravity *is*.

And how does it do that if it does not say anything about what is to be expected.

I didn't say it doesnt'produce ANY predictions, I said it doesn't produce MANY predictions.

The elements of an explanation of anything are: "what exists" (your ontology) and "what the rules are" (how the things that exist influence one another). In the final analysis, the result of the explanation is that it provides a method of deducing your expectations. That word is "expectations" (what you expect); if you expect predictions, the explanation should provide those expectation, if you don't than the explanation should provide that expectation. The explanation is the source of your expectations.

Yes, but I am not really interested in the results of experiments per se: they are only a means to an aned, the ned
ebing the ontology.

Now you think my definition is too narrow. Too narrow for what?

Too satisfy the curiosity about the world that most people have.

That is my definition: what I mean when I say "explain". I would like to show you the deductions which can be made from that definition. Until you know the extent of those deductions, you have nothing with which to make such a judgement.

The only deduction you have made so far is the absurd one that the "past is memories".

Expectations may well be a *necessary* component of an explanantion; the question is whether they are *sufficient*.

How can you judge the sufficiency of the component without knowing what can be deduced from that definition?

A method that doesn't even try to answer questions about what things really are is hardly likely to produce answers.

You can achieve this compatibility with solipsism quite easily if your defintion of explanation does not require realism in the first place.
If it does, you can't.

Now that's a rather adamant position. You are completely ignoring the possibility that some of the things you believe are real are a consequence of your faith in an invalid theory.

You are confusing the question of whether some particular realistic theory is true with the question of whether realism in
general is true.

That is far too weak. All kinds of self-consistent stories can be confabulated.

Oh, that's a fact is it? You sound awfully confident of that assertion. Please "confabulate" for me a single internally self-consistent story which explains every experiment in the universe which myself or any scientist I can contact is aware can be done!

OK: "GOD". Self-consistent...but unverifiable and non-predictive.

All kinds of self-consistent stories can be confabulated about a limited data-set. Creationism is self-consistent, for instance.
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,

 

[Doctordick]

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[/color] 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.

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

Are you sure you wanted to say that?

A very simple explanation of "why" you don't have a definition for the concept of "real" is that you haven't thought about the question.

Seriously, if you cannot define what you mean when you use the word "real", you are using a word which you personally do not understand: that is, you do not know what you are trying to convey when you use the word. That is what meaning is all about. Now, if your intention was to ask what other people mean when they use the word, that's a different question. I know what I mean and (although I have no real knowledge of what others mean) I presume others mean something quite similar to what I mean.

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. To a pagan, Zeus was real. To a Christian, heaven is real. Everybody thinks their religion is the right one: "what they think is real is correct and they want everyone else to admit that they are right.

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

OK: "GOD". Self-consistent...but unverifiable and non-predictive.

No, I would not call it "self-consistent" and I think there are a lot of people who would agree with me. Why do you think there are so many different religions and why are they always arguing with one another. And "non-predictive"? Read your history, religions have made predictions time and time again. And they have explained their own failures too! Often someone had failed to live by god's rules. Hmm, has inconsistentcy reared its ugly head?

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.

Creationism is self-consistent, for instance.

Oh, is it really?

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.

Have fun -- Dick

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

 

[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.