Proving the Existence of a Future

  • Thread starter Thread starter baywax
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Future Proof
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the philosophical inquiry into the existence of the past and future, emphasizing that while we have tangible evidence of the past through fossils and artifacts, there is no definitive proof of the future. Predictions about future events are based on present observations and assumptions, leading to the conclusion that everything exists only in the present moment. The notion of memory is debated, with some arguing that memories do not serve as proof of the past, as they can be constructed or falsified. The conversation also touches on concepts from physics, such as entropy and time symmetry, suggesting that our understanding of time may be limited by perception. Ultimately, the thread raises profound questions about the nature of existence and the reliability of our perceptions of time.
  • #61
DaveC426913 said:
Zero. HUP is not a symptom of limited means, it is a property of the universe. (But you know that.)

Just trying to stay unbiased by 50 years of research and results:-)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
“What do you consider the future …. Its just a word and a feeling an uncertainty. The future is what you make that’s of life I am responding to something you rote in the past . You can travel to the future you do it every second we are doing it now as I type this I am on my way to the future and the next word I type will be in the future one could assume that you could travel to the future by preserving your body and waking up in the future but then it would be the present and you would feel know different someone who sees the future is just someone who can see what's gowning to happen next

Once there was a book written from a church steeple looking down on a village the man could see things before they happened a man and a woman walking there dogs down two different streets that met at a corner he knew that they would meet and the dogs would bark but they didn’t . is this seeing the future its for u to decide but let's just travel time this way come join me on my time machine we move constantly towards the future and have fun on the way come one come all I will watch you gather from the roof of my house seeing the future as you come.”

Robbieternal said that

Sorry I didn’t put punctuation I was copying it and its late
 
  • #63
DaveC426913 said:
Zero. HUP is not a symptom of limited means, it is a property of the universe. (But you know that.)

DaveC426913, I know it is uncertain whether or not you will ever want to venture back to this thread, but, does this mean that what I said about the property of "uncertainty being a proof of the future" could be correct and perhaps used as proof?
 
  • #64
We don't even know* that entropy will continue to increase forever. The universe is currently moving towards thermodynamic equilibrium from the Big Bang, and it's possible that one day it will start moving away from equilibrium again towards a Big Crunch.

What will happen if the Second Law reverses? Well, all our biology would fail, we wouldn't be able to think or record memories, and time as we know it would end.

So the end of humanity, in theory, could be like a lightswitch clicking off when we least expect it.

*=Hawking thinks he knows entropy will always increase. But it seems theoretically possible that it won't, so I won't be convinced unless he can put across a good argument.
 
  • #65
baywax said:
DaveC426913, I know it is uncertain whether or not you will ever want to venture back to this thread, but, does this mean that what I said about the property of "uncertainty being a proof of the future" could be correct and perhaps used as proof?
Oops. You caught me - I did a drive-by. I guess I didn't follow that part of the convo. I'll have to revisit it.
 
  • #66
baywax, end of post 45 you replied ...

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.

Well, late last night, coming back home during a 3 hour drive, I was thinking about lots of things and a kind of revelation came to me about this particular thread and your quest for a proof that future exists...


You are quite right in saying that the present holds the proof... I'll try to be as succinct as possible and maybe post again on it, but for now, here it goes...


Life on Earth IS proof that the future exists and as humans we stand in an utmost privileged position, being witnesses of, as well as part of, this proof.


Everyday we can observe our world being bathed by the Sun's life-sustaining radiation coming from the past, after about an eight and a half minute journey, finding its future in Earth’s present.



Now, it’s interesting to apply this thought to a beautiful star lit night sky… but no guarantees being provided, we can hope to have at least an eight and a half minute future and, if predictions hold, humanity can push for about 5 billion years on top of it.



VE
 
Last edited:
  • #67
DaveC426913 said:
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.

Would a box score from a game in 1944 be an inaccurate view of sports history?
 
  • #68
ValenceE said:
baywax, end of post 45 you replied ...



Well, late last night, coming back home during a 3 hour drive, I was thinking about lots of things and a kind of revelation came to me about this particular thread and your quest for a proof that future exists...


You are quite right in saying that the present holds the proof... I'll try to be as succinct as possible and maybe post again on it, but for now, here it goes...


Life on Earth IS proof that the future exists and as humans we stand in an utmost privileged position, being witnesses of, as well as part of, this proof.


Everyday we can observe our world being bathed by the Sun's life-sustaining radiation coming from the past, after about an eight and a half minute journey, finding its future in Earth’s present.



Now, it’s interesting to apply this thought to a beautiful star lit night sky… but no guarantees being provided, we can hope to have at least an eight and a half minute future and, if predictions hold, humanity can push for about 5 billion years on top of it.



VE

That's the romantic way to put it! There's a lot of faith involved in the view of "living in the now" because you must have faith it won't end and you must imagine it "unfolding", like a flower etc...

On a dryer note, I came up with something along the same line...

The present is, as so many have observed, the "crossroads of the past and the future". They say this because they believe there is a future and because they're propped up on the bones and garbage of the past.

The truth in the "crossroads" statement is that the present is proof of the future because it represents that very "unfolding" of the romantics. The present is the manifestation, the representation and the actualization of the future, however long or short it may be. And the proof is that we are experiencing the future...now.

But I have neglected a large portion of thoughts about the future and so on... and that's the "Eastern" frame of reference when it comes to "time' and past and future.

I'd like anyone with some time to further educate us on those "Eastern" thoughts about the future. Do they have proof of the future... do they believe there is a future. Or are they blissfully only aware of "the now"?
 
  • #69
ValenceE said:
Now, it’s interesting to apply this thought to a beautiful star lit night sky… but no guarantees being provided, we can hope to have at least an eight and a half minute future and, if predictions hold, humanity can push for about 5 billion years on top of it.
I'm going to bypass the more philosophical comments, since I think they don't really accomplish much, but the above is worthy of note:

We know that nothing with mass can travel as fast as light and that nothing without mass travels faster than light.

This would include the event of oblivion. By oblivion, I don't mean something metaphysical, I mean the actual, physical cessation of matter and energy from the universe.

It can't travel faster than c. so even if the universe somehow ended, it could only propogate across the universe at best at the speed of light.
 
  • #70
Hello Dave,

exactly, and that would take a lot longer than our Sun's projected end of life at 5 billion years.

But then again maybe the universe has already terminated and we'll see the result before the sun shuts off ... maybe not...

By the way, could we 'see' this end coming at us, with any means we have to scan the universe, or would it be sudden ?


VE
 
  • #71
DaveC426913 said:
I'm going to bypass the more philosophical comments, since I think they don't really accomplish much, but the above is worthy of note:

We know that nothing with mass can travel as fast as light and that nothing without mass travels faster than light.

This would include the event of oblivion. By oblivion, I don't mean something metaphysical, I mean the actual, physical cessation of matter and energy from the universe.

It can't travel faster than c. so even if the universe somehow ended, it could only propogate across the universe at best at the speed of light.

Doesn't this assume some form of centralised starting point to the decay. Are we not at liberty to postulate an instantaneous universal sessation not requiring propagation. Every thing just stops all at once?

The point about star light might be a possible proof of the existence of the past for it is the history of the stars we see at night, not there present. But we cannot extrapolate a future for us from that!

None of this helps in anyway with the original posts question of a proof for the existence of the future.

Perhaps we should go back to the old question of determinism and free will. If we believe we have free will, then the future has to be pure open potential because if it exists, then free will is not viable. Our future will already have been set. Perhaps the elusive nature of a proof in favour of the future raises the odds in favour of free will.

An endless string of causes reaches up to us from the past and effects us. Our conditioning might trend us to a certain responce in relation to those effects. But if we could be certain that we where totally free of conditioning, could we not decide to ignore those effects and choose instead, to propagate an unrelated cause into the future.

Does not the existence of decision suggest that a future exists, but that it is empty. As one post already said, the probabilty wave for the future collapses when the decision is taken and the action commenced.

Liking the thread, hope you don't mind a newby on the block!
 
Last edited:
  • #72
John Richard said:
Doesn't this assume some form of centralised starting point to the decay. Are we not at liberty to postulate an instantaneous universal sessation not requiring propagation. Every thing just stops all at once?
The one thing I think we have to hold to is that this is still a rational discussion that is based upon what we know already. If we speculate too wildly, we might as well just allow the "omnipotent god" play and be done with it. So, I'm limiting my argument to within the bounds of the laws of the universe as we know it.
 
  • #73
DaveC426913 said:
The one thing I think we have to hold to is that this is still a rational discussion that is based upon what we know already. If we speculate too wildly, we might as well just allow the "omnipotent god" play and be done with it. So, I'm limiting my argument to within the bounds of the laws of the universe as we know it.

I am new to the forum so I will gladly accept being put right about this, but isn't this a philosophy section? Wasn't the original question of proof in favour of the existence of the future already a challenge to what we know already.

Furthermore, don't stars come and go in a rather random way throughout the known universe? Don't huge commets smash planets to pieces occasionally? Are there not already plenty of examples of random cosmic disaters that don't require the nice predicatable state of a gradually propagated demise?
 
  • #74
We are all aware of the random nature of the universe and that's why I asked Dave about using uncertainty as a proof of the future.

I am still slightly more convinced that the present is our best proof of the future.

But, if we asked someone in India if the present was "the future unfolding" they would probably say... "no, now is now, man".
 
  • #75
baywax said:
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?

The future physically does not exist at present- in the now. Nor does the past. Because we remember the past or see evidence of events in the past, we therefore anticipate the future. Imagine trying to explain the concept of the future to someone who, let's imagine, was born with an unfortunate condition where he/she has no ability to remember anything. He/she would function, mentally- emotionally (as well as physically- like everyone else- like everything) in the now.
 
  • #76
baywax said:
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?

The future is what you say or make for that is what it is...that simple... communication create's a past present and future its the 3-state's of perception from one point in preceivable time that we are thinking in. so that would prove that there is a future, but it is only what we say it is or make it... for we can't travel to the future because it would have not been made yet, we may only use are thought to create speculation on the outcome of are action's within the present -.-
 
  • #77
heres a mind bender...

the only time there will ever be is the now, you will never live in the future, you never lived in the past... who you were in the past and who you will be in the future are not you, they thought/will think acted/will act differently to you... essentially they are different people... 9 years from now there will not be an atom in your body that is part of you now... so how do you define "you"?
 
  • #78
FlowerPUA said:
heres a mind bender...

the only time there will ever be is the now, you will never live in the future, you never lived in the past... who you were in the past and who you will be in the future are not you, they thought/will think acted/will act differently to you... essentially they are different people... 9 years from now there will not be an atom in your body that is part of you now... so how do you define "you"?
That must be missing some essetial point because if I was not me I was far far more like me than anybody else.
 
  • #79
epenguin said:
That must be missing some essetial point because if I was not me I was far far more like me than anybody else.

pherhaps this is more true for me than anyone else, i am never the same person for more than a few months...

ive changed from anachist to communist to objectivist and then back to not caring anymore, i used to be very religious, now i just don't believe at all, i used to so shy it was untrue, now i can talk to anyone without the need for alcohol...

it doenst matter how similar you are, it still isn't completely you...
 
  • #80
FlowerPUA said:
it doenst matter how similar you are, it still isn't completely you...

This assumes what constitutes 'you' can be reduced to a moment in time.

One could just as easily say that 'you' is what you amount to, or you is all that you ever do.

Fact is, any type of conscious self-reflection involves the past. You can't even have a concept of self without reflecting on it first.

Am I the thing that reflects, that which is reflected on, neither, or both?
 
  • #81
FlowerPUA said:
pherhaps this is more true for me than anyone else, i am never the same person for more than a few months...

ive changed from anachist to communist to objectivist and then back to not caring anymore, i used to be very religious, now i just don't believe at all, i used to so shy it was untrue, now i can talk to anyone without the need for alcohol...

it doenst matter how similar you are, it still isn't completely you...

But you are probably the only one who knows all that.
 
  • #82
epenguin said:
But you are probably the only one who knows all that.

The uncertainty is whether "you' will know all that in the next 5 minutes, if there is a "next 5 minutes".
 
  • #83
baywax said:
The uncertainty is whether "you' will know all that in the next 5 minutes, if there is a "next 5 minutes".
Turns out there was. :biggrin:
 
  • #84
DaveC426913 said:
Turns out there was. :biggrin:

Its funny. We have to wait for the present moment to take place, in the future, to know if we survived the last 5 minutes. But each time we take stock of our condition, and surmise that a past has been established from that assessment, each reading we're taking is in the "present present".

There is a thread that runs through all present moments. Everyone on the planet is experiencing the same moment, which is called "now".

I wonder if there is a similar condition for the future(?)... everyone will experience the future at the same time... in the future.(?)

I wonder if the past has the same attributes. Everyone's past took place at the same time.(?)
 
  • #85
“Time doesn’t exist… the only time there ever was or ever will be is the now… try to think of anything that ever happened which was not in the now… it is the only place you will ever exist” - (quoted roughly Eckhart Tolle – The Power of Now)

Time is a concept of humans… is there any scientific proof for time? We don’t even know what time is.
 
  • #86
FlowerPUA said:
Time is a concept of humans… is there any scientific proof for time? We don’t even know what time is.

I beg to differ.

If time is a concept... then it exists. Concepts exist in the form of neurophysiological activity in real physical brains. Therefore, time, even as a concept, exists and it exerts the influence of its existence upon many humans.

Time is a concept derived from the cycles of the planets, the sun and the seasons created by such cycles. These conditions are very physical and are not concepts. They would exist with or without the observation of humans.

In fact it is these very cycles and conditions that lead us to believe there is a future... because we expect a cycle to repeat itself, at some point... in the future.

We also assume that the cycles have taken place before the present and this idea bears an evidence that there is a past.
 
  • #87
Michio Kaku says no-one knows what time is… and he should know… he’s Michio Kaku.

I can see what you’re saying about time being a very real force which people experiences… just because you can’t define something doenst mean it exists e.g. love. I was saying that we don’t know what it is… similar to how we don’t have a clue what gravity is.

But physical laws apply to things happening in the now, which is the only time there is.
 
  • #88
FlowerPUA said:
But physical laws apply to things happening in the now, which is the only time there is.

Happening means there were two times at least and not just the now, plus then there is the time needed to know what happened which is not the same time as the time they happened. At most the knowledge is now. But then not, if you think about it (now) there is no knowledge without a past, I doubt the world can be experienced without the past being held present.
 
  • #89
FlowerPUA said:
“Time doesn’t exist… the only time there ever was or ever will be is the now… try to think of anything that ever happened which was not in the now… it is the only place you will ever exist” - (quoted roughly Eckhart Tolle – The Power of Now)

Time is a concept of humans… is there any scientific proof for time? We don’t even know what time is.

FlowerPUA said:
Michio Kaku says no-one knows what time is… and he should know… he’s Michio Kaku.

I can see what you’re saying about time being a very real force which people experiences… just because you can’t define something doenst mean it exists e.g. love. I was saying that we don’t know what it is… similar to how we don’t have a clue what gravity is.

But physical laws apply to things happening in the now, which is the only time there is.

Could you show an example of something you do "know"? Do you know what "space" and "energy" is? I can argue that using your criteria, that we know nothing, which leaves the question on why we are picking only on "time" and "gravity". It also begs the question on how, if we have "no clue what gravity is", that we somehow could build buildings and send vehicles to other planets with such accuracy.

Zz.
 
  • #90
ZapperZ said:
Could you show an example of something you do "know"? Do you know what "space" and "energy" is? I can argue that using your criteria, that we know nothing, which leaves the question on why we are picking only on "time" and "gravity". It also begs the question on how, if we have "no clue what gravity is", that we somehow could build buildings and send vehicles to other planets with such accuracy.

Zz.

Goodness, Zapper! *MICHIO KAKU* says so! Isn't that good enough for you?
 

Similar threads

Future market restructuring needs to be taken seriously
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Does the present moment truly exist?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
I The TSVF interpretation of quantum mechanics
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
A Can Gödel's Theorem Inform Our Understanding of Physical Reality?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
AlphaEvolve - The Future of Math?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
535
Is the Universe Expanding in the Time Dimension?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Are Quantum Mechanics Interpretations Misrepresented in Fiction?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Is mathematics invented or discovered?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
360
Paradox which questions time travel to the future
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Future Civilizations and Energy Production
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K