Past, Present and Future - do they exist?

Physicists might argue that time is a psychological construct but if I take my usual definition of "existence" to be "a concept with which we (as laymen) have a relationship" then clearly the answer is "yes". Physicists have a particular relationship with "time" couched within the coherence of equations. Similarly meditational adepts in the detached observer mode have by definition altered temporal relationships.

Within this definition the nature of the relationship can obviously vary, but if the "past" or "the future" in any way influence present action or thought they are deemed to be "real". (It might be worth comparing this with the "existence of God"....for the believer "God" influences thought and behavior....for the non-believer, no...but the non-believer makes the futile mistake of arguing about "existence" instead of about "relationship".

0 Replies

I'm not a physicist, which will probably become apparent. However, the existance of past/future for those existing in the present is really a non-argument.

The past existed. You cannot say that it never existed when there is at least partial physical evidence that it did. The future exists as well. There will be a tomorrow, and since you are not living it now, and most likely will live it, it is the future.

The word games are quaint, the philosophies are entertaining, but they change nothing.

0 Replies

Time can be thought of as a dimension like space. As you move through space, some objects recede in the distance and are no longer visible, but they still exist. You cannot see or touch space that is still far ahead of you, but it exists nevertheless. Time is the same.

"Now" does not have a definite size any more than "here" does and can range from the half a second it takes the brain to perceive something to several seconds, perhaps minutes. It is not an infinitesimal point.

We happen to be experiencing a particular place in time because of the way our minds work, but it might theoretically be possible to travel to another time. If so, the past would become the present, not just for the traveler but for everyone alive at that time. If this is possible, then all points in time must be real. Time might even have more than one dimension, which would give us imaginary time and complex dates.

0 Replies

imhv

0 Replies

An interesting way to put ut, twyvel. And accurate if you ask me.

questioner wrote:

Quote:

There will be a tomorrow, and since you are not living it now, and most likely will live it, it is the future.

But... by the time the sun rises tomorrow it is the present again. Get it? Nothing happens in the future, only in the present.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

An interesting way to put ut, twyvel. And accurate if you ask me.

questioner wrote:

Quote:
There will be a tomorrow, and since you are not living it now, and most likely will live it, it is the future.

But... by the time the sun rises tomorrow it is the present again. Get it? Nothing happens in the future, only in the present.

Nothing happens in the future, but that does not mean that the future, by it's definition, doesn't exist. It is something that will be experienced by someone, until everyone dies at least.

0 Replies

Questioner, now you're just confusing yourself with this:

Quote:

Nothing happens in the future, but that does not mean that the future, by it's definition, doesn't exist. It is something that will be experienced by someone, until everyone dies at least.

Something that will be experienced... when was that? In the future? Or in the present next monday? Do you not understand that the expectation you have that you will go skiing on thursday, for example, is nothing but just that. You aren't going to ski in the future. You're going to ski in the present, only not right now. It will be experienced, but not in the future.

This is all very confusing until you think of past as memories and future as hopes and dreams. That is all they are, and as such their only place is in the present.

0 Replies

There's nothing really confusing about it. People that argue against the existence of a future and a past are the ones that bring confusion into the picture.

Ok, so the future doesn't exist NOW. Yes, I understand that. However the concept and definition of 'future' does exist, and is measurable. Do you know what it will bring? No. But you do know that it will come.

What's confusing about that?

0 Replies

You got it backwards. The future ONLY exists in the now. It's in your head. My precence will continue, and all that hasn't happened yet I call future, yet it is only in my head.

0 Replies

Mmkay. I disagree, but don't care to smother the point again.

0 Replies

yeah, we do seem to be going in circles... Smile

0 Replies

Everyone should go off and read more about theories of time - the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good place to start - then come back and revive this thread. I suspect people will be less confident with their own beliefs about time after they've read more about the different arguments.

0 Replies

Twyvel notes that:
"No memory no time." and
"Time is a trick, and so is change."

I would add that without memory there is no meaning--we flow within an "empty" process of Reality.
And if time is a trick, it is a trick we pull on ourselves in order to generate meaning. It is the same with "thingness", a fiction required for us to relate to (fictional) "objects" among which we include ourselves.
Similarly, past, present and future are constructed "things."

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Twyvel notes that:
"No memory no time." and
"Time is a trick, and so is change."

I would add that without memory there is no meaning--we flow within an "empty" process of Reality.
And if time is a trick, it is a trick we pull on ourselves in order to generate meaning. It is the same with "thingness", a fiction required for us to relate to (fictional) "objects" among which we include ourselves.
Similarly, past, present and future are constructed "things."

Interesting theory. But what's your reasonign behind it? Why do you believe this?

0 Replies

Krekel wrote:

It's true that we are always trapped in an 'eternal Now'.

folk singer utah phillips had this to say about the past

I have a good friend in the East. A good singer, and a good folksinger, a good
song collector, who comes and listens to my shows and says, "You sing a lot
about the past. You always sing about the past; you can't live in the past,
you know." And I say to him, "I can go outside and pick up a rock that's older
than the oldest song you know and bring it back here and drop it on your foot."
Now, the past didn't go anywhere, did it? It's right here, right now - I
always thought that anybody who told me I couldn't live in the past was trying
to get me to forget something that if I remembered it would get 'em in serious
trouble.

john prine, another folk singer of sorts had this to say about the future

We are living in the future
I'll tell you how I know
I read it in the paper
Fifteen years ago
We're all driving rocket ships
And talking with our minds
And wearing turquoise jewelry
And standing in soup lines
We are standing in soup lines

as for the present, i only know it's yesterdays tomorrow, if that helps any

0 Replies

agrote

JLN writes from a nondualist position where "oberver" and "observed" are inseparable. To ask "what is the reasoning behind this" is perhaps to misunderstand the essence of the position i.e. that "reasoning" assumes an objectivity of "things", but such objectivity is being denied. To get a feel for this position consider whether "a tree" exists for a bird...does a bird see our "thing" or merely "perchness" ?..thus "thingness" depends on the needs of the "thinger"...and cognitive "selves" need "time".

(Apologies to JLN).

0 Replies

Fresco, no apologies needed; you elucidated my position better than I could have. Thanks. I appreciate your neologism, "thinger."

0 Replies

Quote:

fresco wrote:

Within this definition the nature of the relationship can obviously vary, but if the "past" or "the future" in any way influence present action or thought they are deemed to be "real".

How can the present be influenced?

0 Replies

JLNobody writes:

Quote:

I would add that without memory there is no meaning--we flow within an "empty" process of Reality.And if time is a trick, it is a trick we pull on ourselves in order to generate meaning. It is the same with "thingness", a fiction required for us to relate to (fictional) "objects" among which we include ourselves. Similarly, past, present and future are constructed "things."

Right, and there's this little addition of the excessively overlooked, overlooked, oddly, by the looking. Nothing overlooking itself as nothing.

That is probably the only thing (that is not a thing) that is not a construct, not temporal. Atemporality observing temporality, non-meaning observing meaning.

What we call memory is just another object/idea in awareness. Is this memory, this appearance in awareness, a representation of an event that happened? Or does it just appear that way?

0 Replies

"I" can't "recall" ("it").

0 Replies

Past, Present and Future - do they exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know