Proving the Existence of a Future

[John Richard]

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!

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[John Richard]

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?

 

[baywax]

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".

 

[oliverswanshu]

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.

 

[Noone]

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 -.-

 

[FlowerPUA]

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"?

 

[epenguin]

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.

 

[FlowerPUA]

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...

 

[JoeDawg]

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?

 

[epenguin]

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.

 

[baywax]

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".

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[baywax]

Turns out there was.

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.(?)

 

[FlowerPUA]

“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.

 

[baywax]

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.

 

[FlowerPUA]

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.

 

[epenguin]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

“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.

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.

 

[RetardedBastard]

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?

 

[ZapperZ]

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

Nope.

While we respect these great physicists, we don't revere them like gods where their words are commandments. I disagree with many things other important physicists have said.

Furthermore, there is a difference between their physics work and their pop-science work. Many people misinterpret things that they have written. Einstein's often quoted "Imagination is more important than knowledge" is a prime example. People often forgot who he was intending that statement too, and crackpots often use that as justification for them to promote their own ideas without having the need to study any physics.

So don't get me started on this...

Zz.

 

[RetardedBastard]

Nope.

While we respect these great physicists, we don't revere them like gods where their words are commandments. I disagree with many things other important physicists have said.

Wow, I really had no idea that you respected Michio Kaku so much to bestow him a "great physicists" crown! It just took you this long to say it.

Furthermore, there is a difference between their physics work and their pop-science work. Many people misinterpret things that they have written.

I think you are being too hard on the interested laymen. It's the physics community that takes the brunt of the blame, I think.
People without the proper physics background cannot tell when a well-known physicist like Kaku with all the proper credentials tells them about the wonders of accepted, and counter-intuitive, science and in the next sentence, the same physicist tells them the wonders of another theory, even more breathtaking than QM or GR, but neglects to tell them that it's not accepted science. You can't blame them for being ignorant... they are, afterall, trying to learn... and Kaku is their teacher. Where is J. Sixpack supposed to draw the line between QM and strings? Now, do you think if an organization like the APS sent a letter to the people who are incharge of the Discovery Channel about how *&^% their talking head is, don't you think they would listen? I mean, either it's crap or it isn't. Why doesn't a prominent physics organization just come out one way or the other? Maybe Kaku would stop selling pipe dreams when he isn't being booked on tv shows anymore. But as long as he's teaching physics to a guy with tv, a guy who is TRYING to learn, what can he do?

Einstein's often quoted "Imagination is more important than knowledge" is a prime example. People often forgot who he was intending that statement too, and crackpots often use that as justification for them to promote their own ideas without having the need to study any physics.

Zz.

Yeah, crackpots needs to learn physics. Scientific advances aren't made by people who don't value knowledge. But crackpots are totally different from some casual tv viewer who is receiving incorrect information about physics by a well known physicist, because unlike a crackpot, he's trying to learn.

 

[a2tha3]

A post to the original question

How can there be no proof of the future, if the present itself is not presented with some sort of danger? If the present is not in peril, then surely the future will come without any reasonable doubt. I guess there is the possibility of the peril coming in 1/100th of a second, and then everything obliterates to nothing...but the possibility is so low it shouldn't even be considered..

 

[Echart Tolle]

The Now - Past, Present and Future

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

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

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

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

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

Echart Tolle

 

[Mk]

(Don't feed the trolls!™)

 

[RetardedBastard]

I think this is the first time I've ever been spam'd by philosophy!

 

[RetardedBastard]

(Don't feed the trolls!™)

I think you misspelled his name!

 

[ZapperZ]

Wow, I really had no idea that you respected Michio Kaku so much to bestow him a "great physicists" crown! It just took you this long to say it.

No, I was being generic. If you've read the thread on Kaku in the GD forum, you would have seen clearly my opinion of him, which isn't very high.

I think you are being too hard on the interested laymen. It's the physics community that takes the brunt of the blame, I think.
People without the proper physics background cannot tell when a well-known physicist like Kaku with all the proper credentials tells them about the wonders of accepted, and counter-intuitive, science and in the next sentence, the same physicist tells them the wonders of another theory, even more breathtaking than QM or GR, but neglects to tell them that it's not accepted science. You can't blame them for being ignorant... they are, afterall, trying to learn... and Kaku is their teacher. Where is J. Sixpack supposed to draw the line between QM and strings? Now, do you think if an organization like the APS sent a letter to the people who are incharge of the Discovery Channel about how *&^% their talking head is, don't you think they would listen? I mean, either it's crap or it isn't. Why doesn't a prominent physics organization just come out one way or the other? Maybe Kaku would stop selling pipe dreams when he isn't being booked on tv shows anymore. But as long as he's teaching physics to a guy with tv, a guy who is TRYING to learn, what can he do?

Er.. you don't have to tell me this. I've always said that most of us here always have to come in and clean up after the mess he has created. And I lump "Elegant Universe" in the same basket.

Yeah, crackpots needs to learn physics. Scientific advances aren't made by people who don't value knowledge. But crackpots are totally different from some casual tv viewer who is receiving incorrect information about physics by a well known physicist, because unlike a crackpot, he's trying to learn.

But I actually don't mind the "casual tv viewer" learning from such programs. These people aren't watching these shows or reading the pop-science books because they want to come up with the "theory of everything", or something revolutionary since sliced cheese. Most people are aware that these are nothing more than some superficial information. It is when some of them are delusional enough to think that they've learned everything that they need is when things get messy.

BTW, you may want to read this thread that I posted a while back to see my stand on this

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=149923Zz.

 

[RetardedBastard]

Er.. you don't have to tell me this. I've always said that most of us here always have to come in and clean up after the mess he has created. And I lump "Elegant Universe" in the same basket.

I'm sorry to say this but, apparently, "most of us here" isn't enough. The cause against "baloney physics" needs biggers players (like the APS for exmaple) who are willing to make an unequivocal statement about the stuff that gets sensationalized on tv and gets passed as actual physics... because, we've all known for years and years that there are people in the popular media who do this. I think until that happens, and until those people/tv shows are publicly reprimanded by big reputable, established organizations, "most of us here" will feel like we're fighting a loosing battle.

But I actually don't mind the "casual tv viewer" learning from such programs. These people aren't watching these shows or reading the pop-science books because they want to come up with the "theory of everything", or something revolutionary since sliced cheese. Most people are aware that these are nothing more than some superficial information. It is when some of them are delusional enough to think that they've learned everything that they need is when things get messy.

BTW, you may want to read this thread that I posted a while back to see my stand on this

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=149923Zz.

I agree with that. However, if someone is comming in this forum and reading your post, then they're way past the casual tv viewer stage... the people most likely to benefit from your post will never see it -- the majority of tv viewership. Therefore, it's up to reputable organizations like the APS to squach the nonsense talking heads so that the 99% of the casual tv viewers who never make it to your post will not be misinformed. In other words, I think it's better to prevent them going on tv, than to cleap up their mess.

 

[ZapperZ]

But at some point, nothing you can say or do will prevent these crackpots from doing what they want to do. History has shown this to be true no matter the circumstances. Eventually, one should one not try to save them from themselves. Like right now. People who believe everything they read out of Wikipedia deserve everything they get.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Nope.

While we respect these great physicists, we don't revere them like gods where their words are commandments. I disagree with many things other important physicists have said.

Furthermore, there is a difference between their physics work and their pop-science work. Many people misinterpret things that they have written. Einstein's often quoted "Imagination is more important than knowledge" is a prime example. People often forgot who he was intending that statement too, and crackpots often use that as justification for them to promote their own ideas without having the need to study any physics.

So don't get me started on this...

Zz.

I have to agree this once with Z about Machu Picchu, Mako Kaku, or however his name is spelled.

And as far as the 'imagination' statement, Z and I had a discussion on that once a long time ago:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=168522&page=3

I think he ended up agreeing with me (in his own way :) ) that the quote is incomplete when viewed as only 'part' of it, and CAN be easily misunderstood.

I think 'proof of the future' can be viewed as that 'one second into the future', is 'now', 'the present' in all circumstances so far; and will be the past (after about 2 seconds).

 

[rewebster]

Anybody who is not fully rebelling against this idea and has some wanting to know more should read my book "The Power of Now" where this is all explained fully to a degree where the egoic mind can be completely ignored allowing yourself to be set free from its social bounds.
I bid you all good day; in fact, I bid you all a good now!

Echart Tolle

Gee, that almost sounds like its fact rather than opinion---hmmmm

 

[baywax]

But at some point, nothing you can say or do will prevent these crackpots from doing what they want to do. History has shown this to be true no matter the circumstances. Eventually, one should one not try to save them from themselves. Like right now. People who believe everything they read out of Wikipedia deserve everything they get.

Zz.

This is great to have you here Zapper Z... (and everybody of course).

What am I doing wrong here?! Is there a definitive proof of the future? Or do I have to use my "Law of Attraction" DVD to explain probability/potential/uncertainty and quantum physics all in one foul swoop?

 

[rewebster]

What am I doing wrong here?! Is there a definitive proof of the future? Or do I have to use my "Law of Attraction" DVD to explain probability/potential/uncertainty and quantum physics all in one foul swoop?

what are you really looking for?----the future hasn't happened yet---

 

[ZapperZ]

This is great to have you here Zapper Z... (and everybody of course).

What am I doing wrong here?! Is there a definitive proof of the future? Or do I have to use my "Law of Attraction" DVD to explain probability/potential/uncertainty and quantum physics all in one foul swoop?

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

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

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

Zz.