Does the Present Truly Exist?

[JD]

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 occured.
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?

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is the exact place for such thoughts. The idea that the present moment is just a "cut" between the future and the past, and yet it is the only one of the three that we experience directly, has motivated a lot of physics. For example in their very different ways, Dennet and Heidegger.

 

[JD]

This is the exact place for such thoughts. The idea that the present moment is just a "cut" between the future and the past, and yet it is the only one of the three that we experience directly, has motivated a lot of physics. For example in their very different ways, Dennet and Heidegger.

Do you think that 'now' is actually 'just a very very short time ago' matters?
My thought is that we are constantly living slightly in the past. I wonder whether, in order to perceive the actual present, we would need to be of a form that could not perceive (I'm trying not to sound too mad here) the present moment, but was merely 'in it'. In other words, inanimate.

 

[Kerrie]

how do you mean living slightly in the past? i think we are totally in the present, although we remember the recent past that forms our decisions and thoughts of what we do presently and influences our future...

 

[JD]

how do you mean living slightly in the past? i think we are totally in the present, although we remember the recent past that forms our decisions and thoughts of what we do presently and influences our future...

There is a lag between touching something, for example, and your brain processing the message to inform you that you have touched it.

 

[europium]

but you still touched it. You touched it in the present... and then when you thought about it, that touch was in the past, but the thought is now the present

K_

 

[JD]

but you still touched it. You touched it in the present... and then when you thought about it, that touch was in the past, but the thought is now the present

K_

But the action and the thought are in two different times?

 

[Mentat]

but you still touched it. You touched it in the present... and then when you thought about it, that touch was in the past, but the thought is now the present

K_

"Touching it" took a certain amount of time too. Also, it is important that we not fall into the illusion that there is a final result of the processing that occurs after the touch. The brain continues to process, remember, and re-draft the experience (the set of stimuli), and so there is no final product (which is why Dennett created the Multiple Drafts model). Thus, not only is there no exact present (unless you count the smallest incriments of time which are unimaginably small and unnoticeable) but the specious present (the perceived "now") is actually a period of numerous milliseconds, where many parts of the brain are processing many different things, and perhaps (at some juncture) uttering the word "now" (which utterance also takes a certain amount of time to accomplish).

 

[JD]

Any processing involved takes time. Everything that we perceive is slightly after the event. 'Now' is not actually the present time, unless we make 'now' a length of time to include the processing.

 

[Mentat]

Any processing involved takes time. Everything that we perceive is slightly after the event. 'Now' is not actually the present time, unless we make 'now' a length of time to include the processing.

"Smear" the present, so to speak? That's what the concept of "specious present" is, and it's the only real frame of reference we have (being incapable of percieving fundamental incriments of time).

 

[JD]

"Smear" the present, so to speak? That's what the concept of "specious present" is, and it's the only real frame of reference we have (being incapable of percieving fundamental incriments of time).

I'm just taking a look at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-experience/
There is talk of a period from 'a few seconds to not more than a minute' but also 'the interval of time such that events occurring within that interval are experienced as present'. The latter is considered more viable rather than William James' 'rather vague characterisation'. Perhaps he'd been on the mushrooms.

 

[Moonbear]

Of course everything I do occurs instantaneously in the present moment it happens in. Just because I may process it ever so slightly later doesn't mean it didn't happen in the present when I did it. It is just now a different present than the present when I typed the first letter of this post. And it will be a different present when you read this post, a whole series of present moments actually. And in the present, I can think about what I've done in the past or what I plan to do in the future, but that doesn't mean it never happened in a time considered the present, just that particular present moment has passed. Confused yet? Everything happens in the present, the present is just an instantaneous state between past and future.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Certainly. As Moonbear stated, things are happening instantaneously, but of course our perceptions are always lagging a bit behind.
As you are reading this - I am already gone.

 

[TheGuyInTheShadows]

Present may not exist. Time is always split into past and future. let's say we have a time period of one second. Also that we are exactly half way through the second. We do not have a present time, we have a half a second passed and a future half second. It can be divided infinately that way.

 

[THANOS]

Time does not exist.

There is no beginning and there is no end.

I came to the conclusion that time can not exist. After the "big bang" should i say or the "beginning" What happend? we do not know for certian. But look at "now" Do we create anything? no! all we do is convert. So since forever and infinite amount of "time" we haven't been in time or a part of time. We are and have always been in a state of conversion. Even our physical bodies as of now are in the state of conversion. part of us leaves through sweat, urin, stool, dead skin, hair and so on in a constant state. We are always changing/converting.

Hope i made sense.

 

[omin]

No. I can prove it.

We are in Yesterday and Tomorrow at the same time. There is no Present.

 

[mikesvenson]

yes, within every divisibly measurable amount of "time", there is a relative past and future. To say that we are in the "present" is stating that we are at the end of a series of infinitly divisible amount of time, which is a self-contradiction.

If time has no end or beggining, then there is no present, past or future. There is only constant change and conversion. Infinite perpetual motion.

If time has a definable beggining and end, then there is in fact a past, present and future. The concievable existence of infinity concepts contradicts this kind of reasoning.

I believe there is no past or future unless you consider states of motion relative to other states of motion. There is no present since you cannot define it, it is infinitly divisible. There is only infinity, the true nature of existence.

 

[Prometheus]

There is no Present.

This is an opinion with which I disagree. However, I do recognize that some people hold this opinion.

We are in Yesterday and Tomorrow at the same time.

Do you not consider this a contradiction by definiton? Yesterday is in the past at the time that tomorrow is in the future. I don't think that you can claim that these do not exist either, since you used them.

No. I can prove it.

I am sorry, but I fail to see how you have proven anything. Would you be so kind as to explain this proof to those of us for whom it is not immediately obvious?

 

[Iacchus32]

No matter what time it is it's always now. By the way, did you know that http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=159 encompasses everything, including time and space?

 

[Pergatory]

The whole confusion about the concept of present exists only when you assume that the present moment spans an infinitesimal duration. The present moment is exactly that - a moment. A snapshot. Events do not take place in moments, they take place in durations. That is why nothing can occur "in the present moment" even though the present moment truly exists. Things in a moment have only states; location, velocity, temperature, etc.

Perception, for example, is an event and cannot occur in a moment. Having been perceived is a state, and not an event. If we take that in a present moment, something has been perceived (and we are in an inertial reference frame) it must be true that the event being perceived has occurred in the (local) past. Special Relativity enforces this. This does not invalidate the idea of the present moment, in fact I would say it tends to reinforce it. By observing something in the present moment, we can determine it has occurred in the past. This is a very real connection with countless uses in every field of science, but we always take it for granted because it is so "obvious."

I have offered proof that present does exist. Now let's hear it from those who claim to prove it does not exist.

 

[Dovekie]

I think there is a "now", we only ever live in the "now". We perceive the future and we remember the past, but if you were to say that we only lived in the future that wouldn't make sense. The future refers to something that has not yet happened, or come around. If we were living in it, that definition would be wrong. Even though the "now" is forever changing and moving forward into the future, it is still the "now" - no matter how short a time that really is, it's a infinetely small amount of time, but it's still the "now" - in my opinion at the least !

Cheers.

 

[sun_universal]

You, I all things that "exist" , can only exist in the present " now". The reasoning behind this is elusive, but actually quite simple. you can never change the past,hence you do not "exist" in the past. The future has'nt occurred yet, so you can't "exist" in the future. All that is left is the present. Does this answer your Question?

 

[Enos]

There is no past, present or future. There is only constant change.

 

[Leong]

does it really matter ? what if it is considered as past? what if it is just now ?

 

[omin]

I believe there is no past or future unless you consider states of motion relative to other states of motion. There is no present since you cannot define it, it is infinitly divisible. There is only infinity, the true nature of existence.

I agree with you on that. I never was a good comedian. It's all states of motion.

Would you agree infinity is a finite concept relative to the states of motion experiences by the person assuming the infinite concept?

 

[Prometheus]

I never was a good comedian.

Would you agree infinity is a finite concept relative to the states of motion experiences by the person assuming the infinite concept?

I agree. You are not a good comedian. What does this mean?

Infinity is a cop out. There is no infinity within the universe, other than the universe as a whole.

 

[Enos]

I believe that we are not in time and time does not exist. The reason why is because I do not believe in creation. Imagine the universe as an infinite existence and think of how things form and evolve. Things are formed and evolve through change. So if there was no beginning or end to this state of changing then is should rule out time and creation. Making us in a state of changing rather then the present. So in other words making the terms for past, present, and future would probably come out as changed, changing, and changing into.

 

[wuliheron]

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 occured.
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?

This is similar to asking exactly where do our bodies end, and the environment begin? Where does the line lie between alive and dead? Etc.

Before anyone can really attempt an answer, you must define what you mean by "perceive". For example, does the north pole of a magnet "perceive" the south pole instantaneously or, at least, at the speed of light? Can perception be reduced to simple action-reaction? What exactly do you mean by "we", are you referring to human mind, body, spirit, or what?

In addition, you assert that we perceive events slightly after they occur, does that mean you believe it is impossible to perceive anything as it occurs? If so, then you have answered your own question.

 

[Royce]

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.

How could it be otherwise; if we were in the past that would me that we are not here now. If we were in the future that would mean thay we are not yet here now.

To be other than the here and now would mean that we can travel in time at will and Mentat has proven that that is impossible.

 

[wuliheron]

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.

How could it be otherwise; if we were in the past that would me that we are not here now. If we were in the future that would mean thay we are not yet here now.

To be other than the here and now would mean that we can travel in time at will and Mentat has proven that that is impossible.

Or that we can only perceive ourselves as inhabiting the present. For all I know, on tuesday I am visiting wensday and on fridays I return to mondays, but my mind cannot make sense of such jumping around and just simplifies everything. Alternatively the past, present, and future could all coexist in some kind of stasis, as relativity suggests, but again that would rule out the possibility that we could comprend such a view.

In such a case I suppose you could then label the past and future as all part of "the present", but this is just so much splitting of semantic hairs. Without a specific context, words simply have no meaning. What the heck would "the present" mean without reference to the past and future?

 

[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, dimention. 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 dimention. 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 dimention along which our plane travels as we can detect and track changes where it intersects with our plane. We call that dimention 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 dimention 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 dimention of time, if it is truly a dimention rather than merely a convention of stating it as such, be any different from any other dimention?

 

[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 occured.
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 occured.
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 occured.
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.