Proving the Existence of a Future

[baywax]

The problem here, as is the common case here in this sub-forum, is that the question itself is undefined, at least to me when I compare it to the questions I ask in physics. What does it mean to have "proof of the future"? What is meant as a "future" and in what form is there such a proof?

Note that something that is more well-defined, such as F=ma, has no "proof". One can say that there's and overwhelming and compelling evidence that it is valid (such as your house) when used within the region of its validity, but in the strictest sense, there is no "proof" for it the way you can come up with proofs in mathematics.

So think about it. If something that is so well-defined and so well-verified in physics does not actually have a "proof", what does that leave you with something less well-defined as "the future"? Does the fact that I can often predict, with uncanny accuracy, of what's going to occur in the future somehow is a "proof" that the future exist? I dunno. I have no idea what the criteria is to prove something like this. It isn't science.

Zz.

Agh... thanks Zapper Z... sorry to hear its not science.

How to more definitively ask the question... hmmmm

It should be as easy as proving 1+1 = 2. But I can only do that if the person I'm proving it to uses the same numerical value system.

As this thread progressed, from the initial idea, I realized that the question might be of some interest to the scientific community because so much of that work is based on the potential of a "future".

I wondered if the idea of "the future is now" might speed things up.

 

[rewebster]

A very bold follower of mine has quoted me in this present text and has asked me to comment upon the ideas put forward here.

All I can say is that this argument will never end... I do not say "will go on forever" as that implies a future for the argument to fold out into... where, simply, the argument, as we are also, is stuck within the present and cannot leave it.

The past that has been referred to as being necessary for creating one’s self is in actuality quite the opposite; one’s self is needed to create the past. And not so much one’s self, it is ones self's ego which leads him or her to believe that for this to be there must have once been a past, not recognising that in the so called "past" there was only this and nothing else but this. This is the same for our concept of "future", our egoic mindset states that for there to be us, there must have been a past, and for there to be a past, there must therefore be a future for ourselves to go into for when the present becomes the past. This though, can be easily shown for its absurdity.

Take our concept of energy for example, it is quite well known that energy cannot be created or destroyed but merely transformed from 1 state to another. Everything has energy, and I use the term 'has' very loosely, which means that nothing can be created or destroyed, showing that in the egoic "past" there is no more or less than in the egoic "future". Therefore, the present state can be shown to run between them, showing that what we define as future and past are just concepts created by our egoic mind to conceptualise the present moment. Instead of living in the moment that is now, our super ego* (*reference to "The Ego and The Id by Sigmund Freud) creates these ideas to allow us to function in society more easily. Without the ego to create such a falsity we would all be happier within ourselves, of course any argument against this is your super ego trying not to let go because its job is to make you fit into society, whereas we all know that when looking at society as a whole, it is generally not happy indeed.

I bid you all good day; in fact, I bid you all a good now!

Echart Tolle

I think a better title for his book would have been:

"Dianetics!-----PARAPHRASED!"​

---------------------------

One quote (paraphrased) from L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Dianetics, "If you want to get rich (make money, make a million), start your own religion."

 

[baywax]

(Don't feed the trolls!™)

:-)



The motivation for science is usually the hope of a better understanding of nature and a more efficient way to interact with nature. To achieve these goals science goes about using stringent methods of verification with the faith that there will be an understanding of nature reached at some point in the future. This is the motivation for this endeavor and its based on the idea that there is a future to begin with. Does this make science faith-based or is there really a future?

Another question is that when you look down a road in the direction your traveling are you seeing your future or are you seeing the present and calculating your relative position in the present?

 

[baywax]

I think a better title for his book would have been:

"Dianetics!-----PARAPHRASED!"​

---------------------------

One quote (paraphrased) from L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Dianetics, "If you want to get rich (make money, make a million), start your own religion."

Join the Once And Future Anti-Pragmatics. Only $29.99 down and 0% financing for the remainder.

 

[DaveC426913]

I've always said that most of us here always have to come in and clean up after the mess he has created. And I lump "Elegant Universe" in the same basket.

Really? Are you saying that Greene is considered a purveyor of "junky" science?