Proving the Existence of a Future

[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.)

 

[baywax]

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:-)

 

[TomMac321]

“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

 

[baywax]

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?

 

[Lord Ping]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[ValenceE]

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

 

[LightbulbSun]

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?

 

[baywax]

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"?

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[ValenceE]

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

 

[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.