Proving the Existence of a Future

[baywax]

We have a certain amount of proof that the past happened. We have fossils, architecture, artifacts, culturally modified trees - caves and earth. But strangely enough we don't have any evidence that there is a future.

There are certainly indications that there is a future. We have predictions and calculations that assume there will be activities taking place beyond the present and sometimes the predictions and assumptions do take place. However, they always take place in the present. In fact, fossils and artifacts etc... can only be observed in the present as well and so can only be identified as being from the past by calculations and assumptions made from where they are found in the strata (etc..).

Can someone present evidence that proves, without a doubt, that there is a future?

 

[Andre]

Something like: today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.

 

[vanesch]

Can someone present evidence that proves, without a doubt, that there is a future?

Nope. In fact, you don't even have a proof of the past. You only have an awareness of a present, that makes you think that there was a past...

 

[DaveC426913]

Can someone present evidence that proves, without a doubt, that there is a future?

Nope. Impossible. There might not be.

Robert J. Sawyer wrote a novel called Flash Forward where some sort of particle accelerator malfunction caused a "temporal bridge" causing everyone in the world to Flash Forward and see the world through their own eyes twenty years in the future. Most people got a glimpse of their lives in the future. Some people only saw blackness.

 

[baywax]

Something like: today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.

Or "tomorrow never comes". So that when Hitler said "Today Poland. Tomorrow the world" he basically foretold the out come of that campaign.

Thank you vanesch and DaveC426913. I didn't think there was going to be much evidence of the future actually being there.

Does this mean there is no evidence of "potential"? Or is potential a state that can exist even without proof of the future?

 

[Philomancer]

I think that potential would exist as long as there is a probability of its happening. So, potential can exist without a proof of the future.

 

[octelcogopod]

Nope. In fact, you don't even have a proof of the past. You only have an awareness of a present, that makes you think that there was a past...

But then what would you say a memory is? And further what if you have proof of that memory, like say if you come back now and read the post I am replying to?
You're obviously not writing the post right now in the present, so you must have written it at some other time. And if you didn't write it, who did? And how did it get there? Did everything in the present just pop into existence by an uncaused event?
I would say this is fair proof that the past has existed.

I understand the point that nothing really exists outside of the present, but that doesn't mean it /didn't/ exist in the past.
Saying that we can't prove the past is kind of like saying that it never happened, which is not the same as everything only existing in the present.

Also about the future, we can provide evidence that "if everything continues like it has" then the future will exist.
Of course there is a chance that it might not, maybe the universe just pops out of existence in an instant, but if that was the case then it was either a caused event or an uncaused event, and like I said in another thread, if it is uncaused then it has no scientific, physical, mental or philosophical precursor or otherwise, and as such is impossible to prove.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nope. In fact, you don't even have a proof of the past. You only have an awareness of a present, that makes you think that there was a past...

Not proof the of future but perhaps a related thought:

I am pretty rusty on this stuff, but didn't Feynman show that without the future, we have a certain integral in the present that would be in trouble?

 

[DaveC426913]

But then what would you say a memory is? And further what if you have proof of that memory, like say if you come back now and read the post I am replying to?
You're obviously not writing the post right now in the present, so you must have written it at some other time. And if you didn't write it, who did? And how did it get there? Did everything in the present just pop into existence by an uncaused event?
I would say this is fair proof that the past has existed.

We like to think our view of the past is an accurate view, but it is not. It is constructed. We also like to think that this construction process cannot be tampered with, but it can. That includes what you are reading reight now. Memories are not proof of the past, though as humans we need to live as if they are.

 

[octelcogopod]

Construction process?
How can there be any process at all if there isn't a past.
And what is the likelihood that there IS a past, namely this construction process you mention, but we do not see it, rather it is constructed by someone, as if some kind of "god" did it to control us or something.

I would rather say the more common sense theory of the past is more plausible.

 

[baywax]

We like to think our view of the past is an accurate view, but it is not. It is constructed. We also like to think that this construction process cannot be tampered with, but it can. That includes what you are reading reight now. Memories are not proof of the past, though as humans we need to live as if they are.

I'm trying to explain something that's really hard for me to explain. Its about making states and conditions the kind of events that take place only in the present.

So you would make "the past" a state or condition that is inherent to the present just as the "future" is a state or condition that is inherent with the present. Other states and conditions would number in the gagillions but they all only prove themselves in the present. To tell you the truth, the present is the only proof that there is the future or the past. It is our main trunk of a state that allows for any other state.

I know there is a huge debate over whether there is a present as well, but I'd like to ignore the solipsistic and other self-centred points of view and really try to unravel how we arrived at a concept like the future and the past when all indications of these conditions are only available in the present... now.

A lot depends on point of view and scale. (excuse the repeating example)

If you are next to a river... you can see what's coming toward you... in your event horizon... and you can see what's right with you and you can see where things that were with you have gone... all at the same instant. But there is this coming and going phenomenon going on... next to the river.

Your next position is 80 miles above the river. The water doesn't seem to be moving and it appears as a line you can follow wtih your eye in about .0023 seconds. Nothing more.

The feeling of the "past" along the river and the feeling of the future along the river have all but dissappeared. It is a simple condition that is present in the now... with you.

Is there a parallel here or do I need a nice new condition of beer in my event horizon?

 

[out of whack]

Can someone present evidence that proves, without a doubt, that there is a future?

All I have is a side note. If there is no future then nothing will change. If nothing will change then your quest for a proof is irrelevant, it will not change anything.

 

[DaveC426913]

Construction process?
How can there be any process at all if there isn't a past.
And what is the likelihood that there IS a past, namely this construction process you mention, but we do not see it, rather it is constructed by someone, as if some kind of "god" did it to control us or something.

We weren't asked for "likelihoods", we were asked for proof.

The point is, your memory can be falsified (in principle). What you are convinced is the past, could be wholly fictitious and placed there at the very same moment you are remembering it. You would not be able to distinguish it from a "real" memory.

Resorting to a sci-fi reference: it is essentially the premise of Blade Runner.

 

[baywax]

Not proof the of future but perhaps a related thought:

I am pretty rusty on this stuff, but didn't Feynman show that without the future, we have a certain integral in the present that would be in trouble?

I tried to find this and there's another gazillion possible entries to read.

There must be a formula that proves the future. Perhaps it has to do with uncertainty? Uncertainty couldn't survive as a factor in an equation without the future

 

[DaveC426913]

I tried to find this and there's another gazillion possible entries to read.

There must be a formula that proves the future. Perhaps it has to do with uncertainty? Uncertainty couldn't survive as a factor in an equation without the future

"Entropy" and the "arrow of time" might yield more fruitful results.

 

[Shooting Star]

This post is meant mainly for the OP, and is mainly a Physicist’s view.

The initial question, in essence, was, why can we remember the past but not the future?

The very fact that this has come to somebody’s mind shows that probably he/she is asking a deeper but a not so very old question – why is the Universe not time-symmetric?

The t-symmetric idea of the Universe came into existence with the development and establishment of what is now called Classical Physics. According to the laws of microphysics, all motion could be reversed and still there wouldn’t be anything wrong with the working of the Universe. The only problem was caused by the “empirical” law that cold things don’t get hot by themselves, which is called the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. This law lends an arrow to the direction of time.

After that, the CP symmetry of the CPT theorem was found to be experimentally violated, and so t-symmetry must be violated, and everybody expected that this ultimately will explain why the Universe goes forward, and it’ll also tie up with the 2nd law. I don’t know how much has happened in the last decade or more, since there have been so much progress in all kinds of theories of the universe.

But the CP symmetry is violated and so the t-symmetry has to be violated in order to restore CPT, which means that the time does not go the same way forward as backward. We ALL know that, anyway. The problem is to tie it up with basic Physics, and answer questions like the OP asked.

As DaveC has just pointed out, entropy and similar stuff like the violation of t-symmetry would be more fruitful ways of thinking.

 

[DaveC426913]

All I have is a side note. If there is no future then nothing will change. If nothing will change then your quest for a proof is irrelevant, it will not change anything.

There are theories of the universe wherein things do not change - wherein the universe is a fixed, 4 dimensional volume, but that it is our limited perception of one of those dimensions that creates in us an illusion that it happens "over time".

 

[baywax]

There are theories of the universe wherein things do not change - wherein the universe is a fixed, 4 dimensional volume, but that it is our limited perception of one of those dimensions that creates in us an illusion that it happens "over time".

Yes, limited perception is one of the things I was going to mention. If every event is a state, such as "change" or "gravity", "future", "past" or "entropy" or any event you can think of... and all states (or events) take place in the present (which can be proven) then we have this field of states or events taking place simultaneously.

We are a state or event ourselves, as well, and we "take place" in this field of states at the same time as everything else. Our limited ability to view the entire "field of events" renders each event to appear as though its in sequence in relation to the other rather than allowing us to see the complete set of states that lead up to and continue from that one event that we can observe.

For instance, all the stages of a rock being well balanced then falling down a hill are only revealed to us in sequence. This is may be because our brain is programed to perceive events in this way in order to support our rather frail physical body as it is occurring in the "field of states".

In other words, the state of our living organism must see all events in sequence in order to survive. Similarly, our eyes actually feed our brains the world in reverse (up side down) and our brain reverses that reversal for us so that we can function according to the way we are physically positioned on the planet.

Shooting star

You have some great stuff there to work with. Thank you. Although I'm not asking anything about memory here. Memory is what I'd call a "state", one of many that take place in the present. It may be that a limited perception developed memory as a partial clue to the the breadth of what DaveC426913 is calling a "4 dimensional volume".

I'm not sure that entropy, which is a certainty as far as we know, will work to prove the future exists. I am more convinced that uncertainty or "the unknown" is the face of the future and, for now, that is all we can see of her.

 

[out of whack]

A point of view that denies change either confirms that finding a proof of the future will not change anything (since change is denied) or, more sensibly, it fails because it does not account for the changing state of the alleged illusion we are experiencing. I think therefore I change.

 

[Shooting Star]

Shooting star

You have some great stuff there to work with. Thank you. Although I'm not asking anything about memory here. Memory is what I'd call a "state", one of many that take place in the present.

Note my phrasing -- in essence.

I'm not sure that entropy, which is a certainty as far as we know, will work to prove the future exists. I am more convinced that uncertainty or "the unknown" is the face of the future and, for now, that is all we can see of her.

Maybe not, but does distinguish between past and future.

Can you me a reference on 'uncertainty indicating existence of future', or a brief write-up yourself?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was thinking of an integral done by Feynman which he is somewhat famous for, that requires that we integrate over all future time in order to arrive at the proper solution for I think an electron in motion.

The point being that the existence of the future is implicity required in order to obtain the correct answer.

 

[nabki]

Personaly i think of time as annother axis with two directions, past and future. if i was to say the coordinates of an object i would say for instance (2) on the x axis, (18) on the y axis, (105) o the z axis which defines where the object is, then i would add to those three (12:09pm, 13/12/2008) to define when it is. i could add a velocity and acceleration 'arrow' that can change, and a time arrow that doesn't change and is always in the same direction: the future. That way time is a direction, so asking if the future exists is the same as asking does up or left or right exist.
Or I am I just going over the top?

 

[Shooting Star]

> same as asking does up or left or right exist.

Till 1957, your words would have been considered very right. However, we have learned since then that in our Universe, left and right are different, and it is intimately connected with the labeling of the time arrow.

However, I feel I am not in tune with the others in this thread.

 

[nabki]

could you please clarify for me?

 

[baywax]

Note my phrasing -- in essence.



Maybe not, but does distinguish between past and future.

Can you me a reference on 'uncertainty indicating existence of future', or a brief write-up yourself?

Entropy does indicate that there was a "time" when a state was in one condition... then... "over time" it has transformed into another state. The transformation is documented by sensitive instruments. I don't know the physics involved in Radio Carbon 14 dating I do know that we are able to deduce a passage of time from when the carbon was in one state as compared to the state we find it. The difference between the "like-new" state of carbon 14 and the "time worn" state of carbon 14 gives us the ability to show "passage of time". However, the passage of time or... the state of "the passage of time" is a condition that has rendered these results. We didn't observe them... we deduced that they have happened, in a sequence, the way we perceive everything else to be taking place.

While compiling evidence of the past, it still becomes more difficult to show that there will be a continued "passage of time", except by way of circumstantial evidence, based on what we believe has already taken place (by way of our present understanding of decay, entropy and the transformations of energy we are able to observe in the present).

I have to continue on with my thoughts on how uncertainty may present evidence of the future... in the future...

but I just got stumped because how do we know that uncertainty isn't just another symptom of "limited perception"?

 

[octelcogopod]

Isn't it true that we can't really prove anything objectively, that rather since everything we know, other people, the universe, could have been just an illusion that is manufactured for us right as we experience it?

That would in theory mean that there could exist no physical proof for anything, that there is a leap of faith that these things actually happened.
In a crazy world it could be that I remember just now typing this message, but the memory of doing so is actually manufactured to exist only in the present or something.
I guess my point is I can't really prove in any way even to myself that I have typed this message, or can I?

I'm not sure what I'm hitting on or if it's even true, but it makes sense that since everything originates from the brain which is out of our control, we can't really prove anything.

 

[baywax]

Isn't it true that we can't really prove anything objectively, that rather since everything we know, other people, the universe, could have been just an illusion that is manufactured for us right as we experience it?

That would in theory mean that there could exist no physical proof for anything, that there is a leap of faith that these things actually happened.
In a crazy world it could be that I remember just now typing this message, but the memory of doing so is actually manufactured to exist only in the present or something.
I guess my point is I can't really prove in any way even to myself that I have typed this message, or can I?

I'm not sure what I'm hitting on or if it's even true, but it makes sense that since everything originates from the brain which is out of our control, we can't really prove anything.

Hi octelcogopod,

Proof (and the truth) is defined (these days) by the number of people who agree with what you say or agree with the outcome of what you demonstrate. The brain decides what to believe and what not to believe based on genetic survival instincts and on "real-time" experience.

Here's part one of the Oxford's definition of Proof

proof |proōf|
noun
1 evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement : you will be asked to give proof of your identity | this is not a proof for the existence of God.
• Law the spoken or written evidence in a trial.
• the action or process of establishing the truth of a statement : it shifts the onus of proof in convictions from the police to the public.
• archaic a test or trial.
• a series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem.

I'd like it if we could establish a series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical and philosophical problem (such as "proving the future.")

Let's say for a moment that there is a future, waiting patiently for no one to catch up to it (because that is impossible, it wouldn't be the future if we caught up to it).
I give it a call on the telephone... who would answer the phone? No one. This is because the future, by nature, must remain empty or in a state of potential of some sort.

Another thought is this. Please notice that the future collapses as soon as we can observe it... because we have enveloped in in our event horizon of the present.

Doesn't this sound uncannily similar to how wave function collapses upon observation or the "concept of decoherence"?

 

[baywax]

Arrow of time

"Entropy" and the "arrow of time" might yield more fruitful results.

Here's what I have so far on the "Wheeler/Feynman Absorber Theory and the Radiation Arrow of Time" .

What is the Arrow of Time?

The fundamental laws of physics are time symmetric. The same set of
processes which happen in the forward time direction can also happen in
the backward direction.

In the above illustration (cannon ball coming out of a cannon), Newton’s second law can be used to find the
trajectory of the cannon ball regardless of whether time is run forward or
backward.

However, playing a film backwards quickly reveals that everyday life is
clearly asymmetric. As shown below a cup, once shattered, will not
spontaneously reform.

This asymmetry and others point out a directionality of time not found in
our theories and are thus labeled ‘the arrow of time.

http://www.phys.cwru.edu/undergrad/Senior%20Projects/SeniorProjectPosters/KevinEngelPOSTER.pdf

What does "direction" have to do with "time"? The radiation arrow of time describes how all waves of energy radiate out from the source of "work" or "energy". So here the direction is "out". However, we can only observe this in "real time" or "the present". So, how do we derive "the future" from the presently observed direction of radiating waves (which radiate in every direction)? And, are we certain that the waves are not radiating "inward" as well?

However, the Arrow Of Time does appear to hold a promise of proving that there is a future because it demonstrates that there is "room" for waves to radiate or for a cup to shatter into pieces... in a direction that will not be spontaneously reversed or is "asymmetric". The "room" to propagate motion is what may be able to be seen as the "future". Or... can we call it "potential"?

 

[Shooting Star]

could you please clarify for me?

I am sorry to have taken so much time to respond to your query.

To understand what I wrote about needs a basic familiarity with modern Physics. Come to think of it, not so modern, since the results are half a century old by now. I am not an expert on it but do understand the rudiments. It’s better that I guide you to some internet sites instead of trying to write an essay here.

I would like to mention two things at this point. You had implied that there is no difference between left and right. In the way our Mathematics is constructed, or rather, the way we normally impose our mind and Mathematics on reality, there is not. But, as I’ve tried to explain, physically there is a difference found in the Universe between left and right. The implications of this are so far reaching that I sometimes wonder why people do not discuss only this. (Incidentally, it was theorized first, and then experimentally verified, and resulted in one of the fastest Nobel Prizes in Physics.) You had said that, or implied that right and left is just a way of labelling two equivalent things. Has it not occurred to you then that why the hearts in the huge majority of humans is found only on the left, and why almost every organic compound found naturally on the Earth has a handedness? (This has, or may not have, nothing to do with what I had said above. The origin of this is probably completely different.)

The next thing I wanted to mention is for member baywax, the OP. He wanted to know why there is evidence for the past but not of the future. I had phrased it in a slightly different way, but he didn’t quite get my point. As with the right and left, the past and future are not just arbitrary directions of a one-dimensional time, but they are different. It’s no wonder that we perceive them differently.

The first level speculations about time and space have long been taken away from the domain of the philosophers to that of the natural sciences.

A couple of starters for member nabki:

http://www.physics.uc.edu/~kayk/cpviol/CP_A0.html
http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/html/cpviolationtoc.htm

 

[epenguin]

Can someone present evidence that proves, without a doubt, that there is a future?

We will just have to wait and see.

 

[Shooting Star]

We will just have to wait and see.

Touché!

 

[jdg812]

Can someone present evidence that proves, without a doubt, that there is a future?

No, such evidence is impossible, because a future does not exist YET.

Can someone present evidence that proves, without a doubt, that there WILL BE a future?
No, such evidence is impossible, because a future will ALWAYS remain a future.

What is a PRESENT?
Present is all that has a time coordinate equal to our own current time coordinate.

What is a FUTURE?
Future is all that has a time coordinate equal to our own current time coordinate plus \epsilon > 0 (\epsilon is not necessarily small) That means future will never come into present, because t = t + \epsilon is impossible.

There are some EVENTS we expect to happen at time (t + a). Can someone present evidence that proves, without a doubt, that those 'future' EVENTS become 'present' events?
No, such evidence is impossible, because there is no guaranty.

Can someone watch without a doubt, that some 'future' event may become 'present' events?
Yes, of course. Everyone may watch that every day many times. But this is not proof.

Thus, future will remain future forever. But some events, which now probably belong to inreachable future, may change their status from "future and possible" to "present and actual".

"Future events" are not the same that "future". We are moving to future at speed 1 sec per sec. But the lower border of future is moving away from us at the same speed. However "future and possible" events are not moving in time, they are waiting for us.

 

[baywax]

I am sorry to have taken so much time to respond to your query.

To understand what I wrote about needs a basic familiarity with modern Physics. Come to think of it, not so modern, since the results are half a century old by now. I am not an expert on it but do understand the rudiments. It’s better that I guide you to some internet sites instead of trying to write an essay here.

I would like to mention two things at this point. You had implied that there is no difference between left and right. In the way our Mathematics is constructed, or rather, the way we normally impose our mind and Mathematics on reality, there is not. But, as I’ve tried to explain, physically there is a difference found in the Universe between left and right. The implications of this are so far reaching that I sometimes wonder why people do not discuss only this. (Incidentally, it was theorized first, and then experimentally verified, and resulted in one of the fastest Nobel Prizes in Physics.) You had said that, or implied that right and left is just a way of labelling two equivalent things. Has it not occurred to you then that why the hearts in the huge majority of humans is found only on the left, and why almost every organic compound found naturally on the Earth has a handedness? (This has, or may not have, nothing to do with what I had said above. The origin of this is probably completely different.)

The next thing I wanted to mention is for member baywax, the OP. He wanted to know why there is evidence for the past but not of the future. I had phrased it in a slightly different way, but he didn’t quite get my point. As with the right and left, the past and future are not just arbitrary directions of a one-dimensional time, but they are different. It’s no wonder that we perceive them differently.

The first level speculations about time and space have long been taken away from the domain of the philosophers to that of the natural sciences.

A couple of starters for member nabki:

http://www.physics.uc.edu/~kayk/cpviol/CP_A0.html
http://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/html/cpviolationtoc.htm

Good stuff here Shooting Star. I've been fairly negligent with this thread because there's a catch 22 that can stump you every time you get close to finding proof of the future. That stump is the nature of human perception, the genetics of it, the history and the psychology of human perception have definitely shaped our view of the universe... as have the elements of the universe shaped our perception. I think in this case our adaptation to change and to different states is based on a decidedly limited perception .

But rather than go further, just now, into the phenomenon of limited perception...

I'd like to know whether or not the Future, with no proof of its existence, is a matter of faith. Is the future another 'faith oriented" goal that people clamber after in the present. There are other unproven destinations and conditions like "heaven", "hell" or "god" that have people trying at all costs to avoid or get into.

Does this mean all the people who look to the future for hope or prosperity are doing so on faith alone? Because there really is no proof that there is a future waiting for them.

 

[JoeDawg]

Not faith, just inductive reasoning.

 

[baywax]

Not faith, just inductive reasoning.

Would this be the same inductive logic that proposes the universe was created by a superior being since there is no proof that a superior being did not create it?

David Hume ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume ) Karl Popper ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper ) and David Miller ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miller_(philosopher) ) all seem to reject the idea of using inductive reasoning or "induction" as a means of understanding the mechanisms and existence of the universe.

 

[baywax]

"Future events" are not the same that "future". We are moving to future at speed 1 sec per sec. But the lower border of future is moving away from us at the same speed. However "future and possible" events are not moving in time, they are waiting for us.

Everything you wrote here is great. Could you please explain the last bit I've quoted? In what way do future events "wait" for us. I know this is an anthropomorphic way of putting it but, perhaps you mean "future conditions" are predictably going to be the same as they are now so they will occur when we experience them in the "future present". That is, of course, if you take uncertainty out of the equation.!

 

[jdg812]

In what way do future events "wait" for us. I know this is an anthropomorphic way of putting it

Of course, if future events do not have their own soul and will, they actually do not "wait" for us. They even DO NOT EXIST, before their time come. It would be better to say: WE waiting for them or we predict them, etc.

perhaps you mean "future conditions" are predictably going to be the same as they are now so they will occur when we experience them in the "future present"

It depends...
The "future conditions" MAY BE predictably going to be the same as they are now, for example oceans, large mountains, planets.
But they may even NOT exist now. If the "future event" is COLLISION of two cars on the street, then the event (COLLISION) does not exist yet, however cars and street already exist.

Actually, everything in the last bit you've quoted is easy.

#1. There is a coordinate, time, "t"

#2. "Future event" may have coordinate, for example "Feb 15, 9:00 AM EST" This future event does not move in time.

#3. We have coordinate "t". We move in time. Yesterday our time coordinate was "Jan. 21 ...", today it's already "Jan. 22 ..." and we expect we would enjoy coordinates "Jan 23", ... "Feb. 15" etc.

#4 "Future" has coordinates from "t + epsilon" to "t + epsilon + delta". Its lower border is "t + epsilon". We are moving at unit speed, dt/dt = 1. And the lower border of future is moving at unit speed d (t + epsilon) /dt = 1

#5 We may cover a large interval in time, like 50 years. But we cannot cover interval from "t" to "t + epsilon". That means "Future" never become "Present". "Future" is always future.

 

[JoeDawg]

Would this be the same inductive logic that proposes the universe was created by a superior being since there is no proof that a superior being did not create it?

Inductive reasoning doesn't propose anything.
If you think it does, you don't know what inductive reasoning is.

 

[baywax]

Inductive reasoning doesn't propose anything.
If you think it does, you don't know what inductive reasoning is.

If you think inductive reasoning doesn't result in the proposition that a general rule can be formed by making a generalization from specific cases and "formulate a general rule after examining a pattern" then you don't know what a proposition is or you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[JoeDawg]

If you think inductive reasoning doesn't result in the proposition that a general rule can be formed by making a generalization from specific cases and "formulate a general rule after examining a pattern" then you don't know what a proposition is or you don't know what you're talking about.

People formulate rules using induction. The fact that Omar the crazy homeless guy down the street uses induction to show that pink unicorns exist doesn't mean that induction proposes it. Inductive reasoning is a method.

Once again, thanks for wasting my time. I should know better by now... of course.

 

[mheslep]

Here's what I have so far on the "Wheeler/Feynman Absorber Theory and the Radiation Arrow of Time" .



http://www.phys.cwru.edu/undergrad/Senior%20Projects/SeniorProjectPosters/KevinEngelPOSTER.pdf

What does "direction" have to do with "time"? The radiation arrow of time describes how all waves of energy radiate out from the source of "work" or "energy". So here the direction is "out". However, we can only observe this in "real time" or "the present". So, how do we derive "the future" from the presently observed direction of radiating waves (which radiate in every direction)? And, are we certain that the waves are not radiating "inward" as well?

However, the Arrow Of Time does appear to hold a promise of proving that there is a future because it demonstrates that there is "room" for waves to radiate or for a cup to shatter into pieces... in a direction that will not be spontaneously reversed or is "asymmetric". The "room" to propagate motion is what may be able to be seen as the "future". Or... can we call it "potential"?

Feynman discussed this in one of his Cornell lectures (used to be on the web). The point was as stated here that most all of the fundamental laws of physics hold whether time runs forward or back, but that effects that are now commonly called 'emergent' run in only the forward direction, diffusion or the coffee cup being examples of emergent behavior.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,

Again, the most interesting topic of time comes around… here’s some adlib of what comes to mind at this moment ;

As humans we are not aware of time itself, we can only experience it subjectively as the ever flowing present. We are aware of duration, from which we created an objective reference segmentation, the second, that we ‘inflate or deflate’ to use in our daily lives.

As far as proof that the future exists, it most certainly would have to be found in the present. Furthermore, in order to be complete and accepted, the validation of this proof has to be done in the presence of both our subjective and objective representations of time.

We have to start by laying out the rules of an experiment that will bring forth, from a subjective present referenced objectively as t0, a positive and reproducible solution that can be used as proof, in another subjective present, referenced objectively as t1, that future exists. And you know what, this kind of proof is experienced over and over everyday by everybody. Throw a ball in the air look at it long enough and you will see it come down and bounce. You can repeat this as many times as you want, it will happen in the same manner over and over. So you could certainly say to yourself that “if the ball comes down and bounces after I throw it up in the air, future exists …”, of course, if a bird happens to pass by and grab the ball, then you’d be out of a proof, but that’s not the point.

Here’s one possibility in a controlled environment;

We dispose of a gas source and several inflatable balloons that can be attached to the source in order to be inflated, the source’s output is at a constant flow and the balloons are identical, holding the same max pre-burst volume.

The premise of the proof is that if, after a balloon is hooked-up to the source, and that, at our subjective present t0, flow is started, we observe the balloon inflate, become larger until, at our subjective present t1, we see (and hear) the balloon burst, then future exists. End of experiment.

The burst is the proof, reproducible, both subjectively and objectively.

I mean, I know this all naïve, but what more do you want? Only the ever changing present is experienced, past and future are in the abstract realm and are contacted through our spiritual selves where there are no proofs needed.

VE

 

[baywax]

People formulate rules using induction. The fact that Omar the crazy homeless guy down the street uses induction to show that pink unicorns exist doesn't mean that induction proposes it. Inductive reasoning is a method.

Once again, thanks for wasting my time. I should know better by now... of course.

You're the one who's wasting their time, Joe. I didn't ask you to comment here.

 

[baywax]

Feynman discussed this in one of his Cornell lectures (used to be on the web). The point was as stated here that most all of the fundamental laws of physics hold whether time runs forward or back, but that effects that are now commonly called 'emergent' run in only the forward direction, diffusion or the coffee cup being examples of emergent behavior.

Forward in relation to what?

What I don't get is, sure you can have left and right, backwards and forwards and clockwise and anticlockwise but all of these conditions are relative to the observer. If you've ever been inside Big Ben (large clock in London England) you will see that it is running anti-clockwise. Then, you get outside on the street and its running clockwise. Its a typical example of relative point of view.

Similarly, forward and backward are relative to a stationary observer or to the observer that is in a specific direction of motion. The perception is that they are moving and that they are leaving something behind. The reality is that they are experiencing many different states and the perception of a succession of states evokes the sensation of motion and forward movement.

 

[baywax]

Hello to all,

Again, the most interesting topic of time comes around… here’s some adlib of what comes to mind at this moment ;

As humans we are not aware of time itself, we can only experience it subjectively as the ever flowing present. We are aware of duration, from which we created an objective reference segmentation, the second, that we ‘inflate or deflate’ to use in our daily lives.

As far as proof that the future exists, it most certainly would have to be found in the present. Furthermore, in order to be complete and accepted, the validation of this proof has to be done in the presence of both our subjective and objective representations of time.

We have to start by laying out the rules of an experiment that will bring forth, from a subjective present referenced objectively as t0, a positive and reproducible solution that can be used as proof, in another subjective present, referenced objectively as t1, that future exists. And you know what, this kind of proof is experienced over and over everyday by everybody. Throw a ball in the air look at it long enough and you will see it come down and bounce. You can repeat this as many times as you want, it will happen in the same manner over and over. So you could certainly say to yourself that “if the ball comes down and bounces after I throw it up in the air, future exists …”, of course, if a bird happens to pass by and grab the ball, then you’d be out of a proof, but that’s not the point.

Here’s one possibility in a controlled environment;

We dispose of a gas source and several inflatable balloons that can be attached to the source in order to be inflated, the source’s output is at a constant flow and the balloons are identical, holding the same max pre-burst volume.

The premise of the proof is that if, after a balloon is hooked-up to the source, and that, at our subjective present t0, flow is started, we observe the balloon inflate, become larger until, at our subjective present t1, we see (and hear) the balloon burst, then future exists. End of experiment.

The burst is the proof, reproducible, both subjectively and objectively.

I mean, I know this all naïve, but what more do you want? Only the ever changing present is experienced, past and future are in the abstract realm and are contacted through our spiritual selves where there are no proofs needed.

VE

I require a definition of "spiritual self" before I can comment on your otherwise engaging definition of time etc (is the "spiritual self an induction like the "future" and "Satan"?... Also... the "t0 and t1" are arbitrary tags placed by yourself. I don't see them on the balloon or a train approaching and leaving. The multitude of states that create the phenomenon of the doppler effect or a bursting balloon are what give us all the impression of succession and sequence. The reality is that these states are all acting at the same time to give us what we call the present.

In keeping with your comment I tried to say to myself that the present is the proof we have of a future. But I'm still trying to justify this idea.

 

[jdg812]

... the perception of a succession of states ...

This succession may be parameterized by a variable "t".
"t" belongs to an open interval (T_birth, T_now).
We are at the boundary point "T_now".
There is NOTHING yet on the other side.
We extrapolate this interval and believe our extrapolation is correct.
We even do not predict exactly what will happen.
We just predict that SOMETHING will happen.
That is enough for our happiness.

 

[JoeDawg]

You're the one who's wasting their time, Joe. I didn't ask you to comment here.

Didn't realize this was an invitation only forum. Garbage in, baywax out.

 

[jdg812]

Actually, a possible THEORY OF TIME may be based on one of the postulates:

Future already exists, past still exists, but our perception is limited only to subspase t = t_our.
This is a theory of a localized observer.

OR

Future does not exist yet, past does not exist already.

OR

Future already exists, past still exist and MY perception is not limited to subspase t = t_my.
This is the theory of the distributed observer.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello baywax,

t0 and t1 are of course tags that need to be put there in order to keep track of the portion of objective elapsed time during the experiment. I forgot to mention about the clock that is used to measure the difference between t0 and t1, being the duration of the whole ‘succession of states ‘ as you put it, that lead to the bursting.

Now, it is plainly obvious that observing a succession of states gives us the perception of time flow, but could you please elaborate on your claim that they all act at the same time… I mean, how can you put ‘successive states’ and ‘at the same time’ together in the same sentence? …the train cannot be 1km away and passing me by, nor can the balloon be deflated and on the verge of bursting, all at the same time.

What do you mean by acting at the same time ?

When I use the term spiritual, it’s meant in its nonmaterial aspect, not induced and certainly not religious related.

VE

 

[baywax]

Didn't realize this was an invitation only forum. Garbage in, baywax out.

Well, you got garbage in right.