Does the Present Truly Exist?

[Prometheus]

There is only now, the present. We are forever and always in it, the present.
There is no other place or time that we can be other than the here and now.

I agree. You can argue this, and I will agree. There is a context where in this is true, and you are using it.

On the other hand, human beings are time binders. In the mind, we can look into the past and we can look into the future. We can see what is in front of us know, yet we can react to what we see based on our past experiences.

Our past influences our awareness of the present, and our past and our present influence our expectations of the future. Do you disagree? There is both a past and a future. In the human mind, it is possible to live in the past and in the future.

 

[Dayle Record]

The flash of insight, happens in the present. Premonition is the act of being super-present. Inspiration is the instantaneous connection of many factors in a super present moment; that forges an immediate connection to future acts or understanding.

 

[Royce]

When I first found and joined the PF, Mentat and I had a discussion about this topic. There are those that believe that there is only one time or all time exists always. Another way to put it is that there is no time, no past, present or future; that it all exists always and that we humans experience and perceive time as sequentially because we are 3 dimensional beings and cannot see or travel physically in time but are rather carried along with our 3 dimenional plane as it moves along the time axis.

Think of it as if we were 2 dimensional beings on a flat plane. We can travel East or West, North or Souths but can never leave the surface of the plane.
We can also look N,S,E or W and see in all directions for a short distance; but, we cannot see nor move off of the plane. When we move East, West does not cease to exist. It is still there. It is just that we are no longer there and can not see it anymore. Say the plane is moving along a third axis, dimension. We can detect the movement because the things that we can see change as they intersect our plane but we can not see anything above or below our plane yet it still exists even though we cannot see or detect it because it is no longer intersecting our plane.

Now add back in our missing dimension. We live in a 3 dimensional plane and have three degrees of freedom to move and see in our 3D plane. We know that there is a forth dimension along which our plane travels as we can detect and track changes where it intersects with our plane. We call that dimension time and perceive it as duration moving in one direction only as cause always precedes effect and never the reverse. Yet we should know that simply because we moved along the axis to a different place, it does not mean that that place no longer exists just as the place where we are about to move must already exist even thought we cannot see it or move into it any faster than our 3D plane moves us along it. We are physical irrevocablly tied to our 3D plane.

This has nothing to do with mental and/or spiritual consciousness. We are not necessarily spiritual/mental 3D beings with only 3 degrees of freedom.
If we believe and have reason to believe that some of us can see the future then that implies, at least to me, that the future already exists.

The big questions then are:

1. Does this mean that the universe is determinate since the past, present
and future already exists?
2. Does this then mean that there is no real free will as it is already known
what we will do and nothing can change that any more than we can
change the past?

I say the answer to both questions is no because just as x,y and z axies exist it does no limit us or make our universe determinate. Why should another dimension limit us or change our view of the universe just because of our limited perception of it.

Mathematically there is no limit to the number of dimentions possible. String Theory or Superstring Theory says that 11 dimentions are necessary. Simply because we cannot see or detect them as such does not mean that they do not exist. Why should the dimension of time, if it is truly a dimension rather than merely a convention of stating it as such, be any different from any other dimension?

 

[donnie]

Good one...!

 

[LordLoki]

We are always in present time. We can't exist in the future or past. The present is also not just an instant in time but a something much larger extending back in time and slightly forward.

 

[Zerqzee]

"Now" is the succession of moments demarcating "existence". Only the now exists. The past no longer exists and the future has not yet been created. Existence is the now. Time is the observance of change in existence. Your present "now", your observance of change, is relative. Reality is comprised of a multitude of relative nows. The physicality of "existence" reguires relativity in individual nows. My now is unique in the local I find myself.

Time is not consistent. because the rate of change can vary from observer to observer.

 

[Tigron-X]

I'm not trying to be negative or anything, but I'm curious as to why it matters?

 

[Loren Booda]

One event marks consciousness in the present; events lying on its corresponding Minkowski cone surface are also at present. All other entities reside in the relative present and future.

 

[Smurf]

I'm not trying to be negative or anything, but I'm curious as to why it matters?

Entertainment

Nice one royce!

-Ruler of the Universe,
Smurf

 

[Magg$]

"We perceive things slightly after the point at which they have occurred.
Is there any such thing as the present time, or is what we call the present time actually always slightly in the past?
In other words, does 'now' actually exist?"


Well... Its a hard concept to grasp, that we are never really existing in the present... hmmm... but i understand this concept, and feel its true...

However, not all beings live in the lag that we do... A dogs heartbeat is faster than ours, and its system moves faster as a whole... The images it sees are processed far quicker than ours and thus what a dog sees is closer to the present (which is, in my definition, the time at which something actually happens) than what we see. Then, take a fly. Its heart beat and system is many times faster, i think 100x faster or somethink like that, and its said by biologists that there is NO lag between what it sees and what actually happens...

So yeah, some things do see the present... Its just us...

 

[hypnagogue]

So yeah, some things do see the present... Its just us...

It's theoretically impossible for anything to live 'in the present' in the sense it's being used here. Consider that all living things require must receive and process physical signals from their environment in order to know anything about their environment, and as this process has an absolute speed limit (the speed of light, c), it necessarily takes a non-zero amount of time to occur.

Even neglecting the time needed for an animal to cognitively process a visual signal, the visual stimulus itself, originating (say) x meters away from the animal, must take at least x/c seconds to arrive at the animal's eye. Including some cognitive processing time t, the animal necessarily sees the object as it was x/c + t seconds ago.

 

[TENYEARS]

You will know it when it happens and not until. Jesus Albert Happy the clown or anyone else will not be able to take if from you or convince you of anything else. Your experience will be beyond convinced. You will have crossed over into a place where there is no turning back.

 

[Philocrat]

I'm not certain that this is the correct area within which to post this thread but here goes.

We perceive things slightly after the point at which they have occurred.
Is there any such thing as the present time, or is what we call the present time actually always slightly in the past?
In other words, does 'now' actually exist?

The only way to be in the 'REAL PRESENT' is to violate Einstein's UNIVERSAL CONSTANT in a new mathematics derived from the 'STANDARD UNIVERSAL NOW' (SUN). Well, this is physically ruled out within the Physics community...so they belief. The priniciple of the SUN forces a PRIME MOVER or a 'SUPERSTRUCTURED ENTITY' to think and act in a manner which at least in principle violates Einstein's universal constant. SUN is simply a 'SUPERCRITICAL NOW' that if attained, even in principle, reduces space itself (regardless of its size) into a 'SUPERCRITCAL HERE'. In this state, the Prime Mover could be said to be GENUINELY in the pressent. Oherwise, your doubts about the notion of the present remains.

 

[Amir]

I'm not certain that this is the correct area within which to post this thread but here goes.

We perceive things slightly after the point at which they have occurred.
Is there any such thing as the present time, or is what we call the present time actually always slightly in the past?
In other words, does 'now' actually exist?

I think we live in relative “now”, point of touch is “now”, then point of perception for that touch is “now”, the delay is constant so symphony plays without a jerky motion and thus now is now.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There is research that shows our brain begins to respond to an event about half a second before we become aware of it.

 

[Rothiemurchus]

Until we have a grand unified theory of all the forces of nature,
we will not know if our preferred description of time - relativity theory - is
the right description.And this is part of the problem of asking if
something happens "now."

 

[hypnagogue]

Until we have a grand unified theory of all the forces of nature,
we will not know if our preferred description of time - relativity theory - is
the right description.And this is part of the problem of asking if
something happens "now."

While current physical theories aren't the final word on the nature of reality, we have to have some confidence that they are heading in the right direction. Newtonian mechanics wasn't overthrown; it was demonstrated to be a special case. Likewise, any further refinement on our notion of time and space is not likely to overthrow relativity, but to place it in a wider context. That is, our understanding of time will not be crumpled up and thrown in the trash can, but rather refined, edited, fine-tuned. And for mid-level organisms existing in relatively banal physical circumstances such as ourselves (let alone any arbitrary physical system), instantaneous information transfer would indeed require a complete rewrite of the rules, contradicting everything we know about physical reality, including what has been experimentally confirmed to many, many decimal places. Something like that is just not going to happen, no matter what form the prospective GUT could take.

 

[4newton]

Hypnagogue:
Special relativity does not preclude all actions of the universe occurring at the same time. In fact AE used simultaneous occurring light signals to demonstrate relativity. If you deny simultaneity then you must invalidate SR.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hypnagogue:
Special relativity does not preclude all actions of the universe occurring at the same time. In fact AE used simultaneous occurring light signals to demonstrate relativity. If you deny simultaneity then you must invalidate SR.

Einstein noted that what was simultaneous to one observer was not to other observers. THAT is the essence of relativity; it's called relativity of simultaneity, and it means that being simultaneous is a frame dependent thing like length and time flow. There is no absolute simultaneity.

 

[4newton]

Hi selfAdjoint:

Einstein noted that what was simultaneous to one observer was not to other observers. THAT is the essence of relativity; it's called relativity of simultaneity, and it means that being simultaneous is a frame dependent thing like length and time flow. There is no absolute simultaneity.

Observation has nothing to do with simultaneity. Einstein states in his mind experiment that two flashes of light are simultaneous if the light from the two sources reaches the observer at the same time. According to your interpretation of SR if I as an observer move two feet toward or away from the either source they are no longer simultaneous. No longer flash at the same time. If that is so then you must explain how my movement moved their time frame.

 

[quantumdude]

Observation has nothing to do with simultaneity.

Sure it does, insofar as observations may or may not be simultaneous.

Einstein states in his mind experiment that two flashes of light are simultaneous if the light from the two sources reaches the observer at the same time.

You need to be more specific. The idea is that the detection[/color] of the pulses is simultaneous if the light from two sources reaches the observer at the same time. The simultaneity of the emission is a different matter altogether.

According to your interpretation of SR if I as an observer move two feet toward or away from the either source they are no longer simultaneous. No longer flash at the same time.

Nope. You're confusing the emission and the detection, which are two distinct events.

 

[4newton]

Hello Tom Mattson:
In keeping with the topic of the thread. “Are we ever in the present time?” we need to understand the idea of present time, NOW.
All actions in our universe must occur at some point of time. I think that everyone will agree that the point of time that the smallest detectable action takes place is NOW, or present time.

The statement I made

Originally Posted by 4Newton
Observation has nothing to do with simultaneity.

is in reference to this topic and applies to actions and not observations. An action taking place in the present time, Now, is not dependent on any observation. Observation always comes after the action (limit of the speed of light) and can not affect the action.

Extending the question of Now, the present time, to a general understanding. The question becomes “is Now local or global”.

If Now is global then Now is the same everywhere in the universe and all things occur simultaneously everywhere in the universe.

I used Einstein’s experiment, which is accepted by almost everyone, to provide the definition for simultaneity.

Quote 4Newton

Einstein states in his mind experiment that two flashes of light are simultaneous if the light from the two sources reaches the observer at the same time.

Quote Tom Mattson

You need to be more specific. The idea is that the detection of the pulses is simultaneous if the light from two sources reaches the observer at the same time. The simultaneity of the emission is a different matter altogether.

My statement was in reference to the experiment of Einstein. Einstein was very specific about the light sources being simultaneous. I thought it was sufficient to refer to His thought experiment without repeating the details of His conditions.

Quote 4Newton

According to your interpretation of SR if I as an observer move two feet toward or away from the either source they are no longer simultaneous. No longer flash at the same time.

Quote Tom Mattson

Nope. You're confusing the emission and the detection, which are two distinct events.

That was the whole point of that statement. This statement is meant to show as stated at the beginning of this post that emission or the simultaneity of the emission has nothing to do with observation or detection.

If you accept Einstein’s idea then all points equal distant from an observer have actions that occur at the same time, or are points of Now, and whenever you move your position all points equal distant from you are again Now points. Therefore all possible points must be Now and all actions are in the present, Now, throughout the universe.

 

[Netme]

I believe our concept of time may not be correct . I believe the past, future and present may be one, occurring at the same time or THE time. The more future there is, the more past there is vice versa. If you were to watch a video in reverse, would you not say there is a pattern there also? Imagine if we could only view our world in reverse, where coming into being were things such as flowers turning into seedlings or lakes that slowly drive back into the sea through rivers. The laws of physics we believe in today I imagine would just be reversed or maybe even a new form of physics completely. But there must be a physics to it as there is a continuous flowing pattern to be seen. So then what are we? What is it we experience? We may be the only real “time” that exists, the present. The area of existence that lies right after the past and right before the future. We experience the future and the past simultaneously. The present is neither moving foward nor backwards, it is at a stand still. What we are experiencing as movement is much like photographs in motion, yet there is no way to know which direction this motion is taking or if it is even taking any direction at all! This convergence of future and past may even be reason to why we are conscious, so that we are able to see and react to the past and the future. what we have done in the past effects our future, what is being done in the future, effects our past. We are merely the experience of it all, which then brings up question, do we have free will?
Ability to see the past has been mastered.
"Psychics" ability to see the future, evolution.