Past, Present and Future - do they exist?

Quote:

Quex, by my comment, "logic is 'impossible' in terms of the exactness of philosophical inquiry", I was referring to the ontological reality that there are no "things", no "beings" standing in absolute static relationships that we can "grasp" by means of logic. Logic IS a way of keeping our propositions non-contradictory, but it is not an instrument for the investigation of the world, per se, in the sense that microscopes or telescopes are. We investigate the world by means of experience (and its extensions, e.g., microscopes), but the inferences we make regarding such experiences must be clear of contradictions which are evaded by means of logical condums.

What do you mean by '...standing in absolute static relationships'?

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

I think we're taking about the non-existence of existence. This awake, observing - Nothing - has presence but not existence. It is too obvious to no one.

Space is nothing but what I am.

Space is nothing less than what is.

The last statement in the first paragraph is stimulating. :wink:

0 Replies

Quex, by "...standing in absolute static relationships?" I refer to the charactgeristic of logic that it addresses permanent conditions of relations between unchanging "things", i.e., abstract entities.

0 Replies

JLN and quex,

I've lust lifted this from one of my answers on another thread. It concerns Wittgensteins rejection of Russell's Platonic view of logic, and contemporary developments.

Based on Wittgenstein's dictum that "the meaning of a word is its use" it is not hard to infer that W thought there was no such thing as a Platonic idea such as "tree". The concept did not constitute a static set of ideal properties embodying "treeness". Instead the meaning of the word lay in its dynamic relational context with other words and was subject to modification over time.

Godel showed that any system relies on at least one axiom that cannot be derived from the system itself. Binary logic is a relatively consistent system which relies on the axiom of discrete static set membership, but it has been superceded somewhat by "fuzzy" or "many valued logic" where degrees of set membership are seen to more accurately reflect "reality".

0 Replies

JL, I simply mean presence as in "being present". It is the core of my rebellion against the notion of a time that passes. Things pass, as in "he passed away". Sometimes we say that "his time ran out", but what ended, him or time?

Maybe it's just semantics, but when the debate is over terms that are not defined or properly understood semantics is all we have.

twyvel wrote:

Quote:

I think we're taking about the non-existence of existence. This awake, observing - Nothing - has presence but not existence. It is too obvious to no one.

Space is nothing but what I am.

I don't know precicely what you're on about, but I like it.

0 Replies

Fresco, that's helpful. To me it seems self-evident that words are constructs we have collectively invented for their USE value. As such, there do exist IDEAS of trees and WORDS for the category, "trees," existing as referents in our individual and collective heads (as psycho-cultural phenomena) but in neither a world of absolute objective things nor a platonic realm of ideals.

0 Replies

In other words, we mustn't be caught in our own conceptual webs.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

ktrocky

but surely you could then argue that existence is only physical in the now?

No "physical" implies sensual (via the senses) interaction or the expectancy of interaction due to past experiences and public confirmation thereof. We already have aspects of "time" involved. The difference between physical and non-physical existence lies mainly with public agreement. Theists concur "God" exists and for them "He" does as a positive form of relationship. Atheists such as myself may be obliged to interact with theists in a similar manner to adults interacting with children over "Santa Claus"...but this interaction itself constitutes acknowledgement of a "positive" relationship for others and a "negative" relationship for self. Both relationships are contingent on the "existence" of the concept named "God". I do not distinguish between "concepts" and "things" because this begs the question of "physical reality".

surely to not define between concepts and things is illogical. things are physical, concepts are created by the human mind therefore very different. time is a concept, now is physical - yes i have shot myself in the foot by saying that but by physical i meant 'the now' (obviously) not the implications that you have gained from it previously. the flow of time so to speak is a result of causation, things never happen in the past or in the future, only now.
yes it can be said that, that is a result of the past (causation) but when it happened it happened in the future and has subsequently 'vanished' for want of a better word, it is no longer there, only the effect of the cause is left

0 Replies

ktrocky

You argue from a dualistic perspective whereas I argue from a non dualistic one. (See above exchanges) For me "mind" and "matter" are continuous within "cognition" as another name for the interactive processes of life.
My position has the advantage of expressing the dynamic aspects of interaction wheras a dualistic one ultimately reverts to static set theory and binary logic. Hence your conclusions regarding "time".

Have a look at your phrase ".....things never happen....." Ask yourself whether you can distinguish between "things as objects" and "things as events". If the answer is yes, how do you account for the persistence of "things as objects" except in "time"? If the answer is no, this is a nondualistic position where "time" becomes a extant concept/thing like any other to be evoked as an aspect of the flux.

0 Replies

Time perceived "as an aspect of the flux" is interesting.

I think the notion of distance is cruicial to this. Distance between two points is percieved as space, and that between two events as time. If the sense of distance goes away, so does the sense of time, perhaps as in love. Maybe, out of love is into the time.

0 Replies

blueSky wrote:

Quote:

If the sense of distance goes away, so does the sense of time, perhaps as in love. Maybe, out of love is into the time.

Interesting

Ego love implies distance, impersonal love not? I.e. I love you not from a distance; not as one event loving another, but love-ing as/is non-distinction.

or....?

0 Replies

I think the problem comes when you apply the personal experience of time.

If all you ask is if the present and future exists as a real entity in the Universe, then i think science says yes. But

If the present and future exists in the framework of the mind....don't really want to go into that mud. But i will say that i am of the opinion that the mind has found ways to symbolically represent what the senses perceive. This symbolic way of knowing things may not be accurate and perhaps the past to our minds is a memory of the past actually in the present. So maybe you could say our minds never leave the present (roughly..thought isn't instantaneous), and therefore in relation to it (mind) the future and past do not exist as they do in science.

And now i will probably be hammered by arguments...can't wait.

0 Replies

Adeist wrote:

If all you ask is if the present and future exists as a real entity in the Universe, then i think science says yes... So maybe you could say our minds never leave the present (roughly..thought isn't instantaneous), and therefore in relation to it (mind) the future and past do not exist as they do in science.

i believe in the present soley but despite that, the argument put fourth makes little sense. If indeed science believe (/proven for sake of argumennt) in the pp+f as a real entity then they DO exist. somehting cant exist in fact and not in mentality!!! :S

but despite that science doesnt believe/proven pp+f exist thats why we are having this discussion Wink

fresco: spatial measurements are used to quantify how far apart objects are, and temporal measurements are used to quantify how far apart events occur. objects don't have temporal parts, objects persist through
time by existing wholly and completely at every time at which they exist. persistence through time is the numerical identity of a thing existing at one time with a thing existing at another time...those parts that a thing now has, it has simpliciter. Yesterday, it may have had different parts simpliciter, and likewise for tomorrow.

0 Replies

it is hard to get around the idea of presentism but does that mean it is impossible? if possiblism was true, where does all the 'past' go? where is it stored? how can one disclaim eternalism? if one thinks the past is 'floating' about then why can't the future be?

0 Replies

Forgive me, that post was very vague and had many assumptions.

I was under the impression that science believed in the past and future. Seems to me it's referred to a lot in general theory and quantum mechanics. Do you believe in space-time, at least regarding large-scale interactions? If so how can anyone make sense of cause and effect without a past as described by the space-time concept?

(but i didn't say it doesn't exist in the mind, i said it doesn't in the same way)

0 Replies

sorry! ok yeah....

isnt it an assumption that the past and future exists (made by scientists)? no proof... on the topic of causaltiy, the cause happens in the present, the effeect happens in the present

0 Replies

yes, it is an assumption. One all of science is based upon. You are right, we have no proof of it. There are probably debates on whether or not anything is proven.

Past Defined: The present is the time that is perceived directly, not as a recollection or a speculation. The idea of present cannot be separated from a position in space. That is, the present is a point in space-time.
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:present)

Do you agree with this definition? Are we arguing over a concept or a word (which can't just be redefined)?

I'm starting to think we agree if you say conception. But i won't argue over language.

0 Replies

I do think the universe can be seen as tenseless as all things existing as "is" -but past present and future are like left right and here dimensionally. Without them describing the universe becomes difficult to say the least (Relativity has shown us that space and time are infact one)

0 Replies

of course i believe we have to address them, or language would fall apart - although it is true some presentists deny that things in the past happened (!! how !!) i am not one of them! i agree in the present and agree with that definitionso yeah we are probably agreeing... the past are just things that happened in the present but for want of a better expression the present has moved on

0 Replies

right, yes we must therefore agree....i think Smile

im off to bed (it being 3.30am here over in the UK!)

0 Replies

Past, Present and Future - do they exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know