Proving the Existence of a Future

[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.

 

[baywax]

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.

This is getting very interesting.

How do we distribute an observer?

 

[baywax]

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

What I meant when I said successive states is that we perceive states to take place in a sequence. The balloon is empty of air then we perceive it to expand with air then we perceive it to burst. Each of these states, however, takes place in the present and, for all intensive purposes, at the same time... because they all take place in the present. We only have a memory of the "sequence". I would argue that memory is an adaptive development of the brain that facilitates our survival a little longer than, say, algae, which has only instinct which may or may not be based on its own genetic information.

 

[jdg812]

How do we distribute an observer?

I'm very sorry, but "we" do not distribute an observer. An ant cannot play with an elephant. (But an elephant can play with ant )

PS
OK, well...

There are observers distributed along commonly known in special relativity world lines. We call them T-distributed observers. (Actually they have a limited distribution in space as well... about a few feet, or about billions of light years, but this is not important) They have practically unlimited ability to reach past and future, but space only within their world lines or world cylinders.

And there is the observer distributed for example over whole (3 + 1) space. You understand that in a given (3 + 1) space there is only one such observer. In another (m + n) space there is another (m + n) distributed observer.

 

[baywax]

I'm very sorry, but "we" do not distribute an observer. An ant cannot play with an elephant. (But an elephant can play with ant )

PS
OK, well...

There are observers distributed along commonly known in special relativity world lines. We call them T-distributed observers. (Actually they have a limited distribution in space as well... about a few feet, or about billions of light years, but this is not important) They have practically unlimited ability to reach past and future, but space only within their world lines or world cylinders.

And there is the observer distributed for example over whole (3 + 1) space. You understand that in a given (3 + 1) space there is only one such observer. In another (m + n) space there is another (m + n) distributed observer.

How about just setting up cameras along the path of action/motion? The observer can be anywhere as long as they have a multi-monitor strapped to their head, receiving every phase of the motion for the observer. This set-up would closely simulate the type of "present" I'm trying to explain... where there is no sequence but only a probable "state of sequence" which is one of an infinite number of other states.

 

[jdg812]

How about just setting up cameras along the path of action/motion? The observer can be anywhere as long as they have a multi-monitor strapped to their head, receiving every phase of the motion for the observer. This set-up would closely simulate the type of "present" I'm trying to explain... where there is no sequence but only a probable "state of sequence" which is one of an infinite number of other states.

I like your model. It may be considered as a first step in understanding (if that is possible for human to understand different creature) what a T_distributed observer may feel about time.

But there are differences between the simulated_by_you and the real T_distributed observers.

1. The real T_distributed observer may reach ALL values of parameter "t" from minus to plus infinity. Your observer only from "T_when_cameras_installed" to "T_now".

2. There is a natural parametrization of external (from monitors) events. For example, let it be dates of January 1,2,3,... 29, 30, 31. Your observer may change the order what watch first, what watch next, like 29, 15, 7, 10, 12, 5...5, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 2 (note repetitions of "5"). That means he escaped from external "past_present_future" jail. But instead of external time_jail he created his own internl time_jail, which is his new parametrization. In this new time_jail he has:
The Past: 29, 15, 7, 10, 12, 5...5, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5,
The Present: 2
The Future: Any possible combination, he may wish, from the set 1 to 31.

So, until your observers with monitors has human_like sequence of perceptions (one by one), he cannot actually escape from "past_present_future" time_jail. He may just reorganize it by reparametrization. He may destroy EXTERNAL jail, but he still has his own INTERNAL "past_present_future" jail.

 

[baywax]

I like your model. It may be considered as a first step in understanding (if that is possible for human to understand different creature) what a T_distributed observer may feel about time.

But there are differences between the simulated_by_you and the real T_distributed observers.

1. The real T_distributed observer may reach ALL values of parameter "t" from minus to plus infinity. Your observer only from "T_when_cameras_installed" to "T_now".

2. There is a natural parametrization of external (from monitors) events. For example, let it be dates of January 1,2,3,... 29, 30, 31. Your observer may change the order what watch first, what watch next, like 29, 15, 7, 10, 12, 5...5, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 2 (note repetitions of "5"). That means he escaped from external "past_present_future" jail. But instead of external time_jail he created his own internl time_jail, which is his new parametrization. In this new time_jail he has:
The Past: 29, 15, 7, 10, 12, 5...5, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5,
The Present: 2
The Future: Any possible combination, he may wish, from the set 1 to 31.

So, until your observers with monitors has human_like sequence of perceptions (one by one), he cannot actually escape from "past_present_future" time_jail. He may just reorganize it by reparametrization. He may destroy EXTERNAL jail, but he still has his own INTERNAL "past_present_future" jail.

True.

The Cubist movement of artists got around this by springing their paintings from the "jail" of time, distance or positioning coordinates. They used vantage points from 360 degrees around their subject and combined them all on the canvas. So here, the subject is shown from every POV at the same time. This could apply to the perceived transition of time between birth and death as well. As with any painting, their presence is immortalized in imagery. In Marcel Du Champes' "Nude Descending the Staircase" you see each position of the model depicted at intervals in the piece:

http://www.udel.edu/psych/johnmcl/nude.jpg

If you add distance to the method of diminishing sequence etc... you can see another method of transending past and future. Take, for instance, two different points of view separated by great distance.

In one POV the person is in the centre of a city with no idea of where streets lead or what is where. The other POV is in space and the city is one dot on the planet. The dot represents large amounts of time, space, activity, energy etc... but the representation is severely diminished at a distance. It is, in reality from that POV, a dot with no motion, no sequences, no distance, no passage of time... on a spherical dot in a vast ocean of space.

 

[jdg812]

The Cubist movement of artists got around this by springing their paintings from the "jail" of time, distance or positioning coordinates.

Regular Case:
Human brain, which may process perceptions only one by one, receives perceptions one by one

Cubism:
The same brain receives all the perceptions at once.

T-distributed observer:
? receives all the perceptions at once.

 

[Hillary88]

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

No, there is no proof for potential. While we can make extremely educated guesses, there is always that damn uncertainty principle.

 

[baywax]

No, there is no proof for potential. While we can make extremely educated guesses, there is always that damn uncertainty principle.

How probable do you think it is that uncertainty is simply a symptom of a limited perception?

 

[DaveC426913]

How probable do you think it is that uncertainty is simply a symptom of a limited perception?

Zero. HUP is not a symptom of limited means, it is a property of the universe. (But you know that.)