Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

The Present and its Derivatives

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» The Present and its Derivatives

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Question: Is the past and/or future real in the same sense as the present is real?

Answer (mine): No, the past and future are ideas arising from within an endless present, ideas which are experienced in the present, and which are not real (in the sense that the present is real). In other words, the past and the future are only real in that they are a part of the present; they have no 'life of their own.'

The concept of time is not the dominant factor in the universe, but rather an incidental product of a system which reflects upon itself, which acts in reference to its own previous actions: i.e. a human being. Note that I said 'previous actions;' how can this be, you ask, if I'm claiming that the past is purely imaginary? I am not saying that things do not change, or that events do not precede and succeed one another, but rather that they do so in the present; i.e. we experience them doing this in the present.

In other words, we experience the 'present experience' (which is just the dominant experience at the moment) and also the idea of the past or future experience, which exist in the present also. We then imagine that 'this happened x years ago' or that 'this will happen in x years,' when in fact everything has occurred in the present.

All of this assumes the existential foundation for reality and discounts the reality of an 'external world,' independent of perception: at least one about which anything can be known, assuming such a world exists.

Thoughts?

@BrightNoon,

... let's see if I'm reading you right ... everything that has happened and will happen exists in the endless present - and it is only our perception that picks things out as "past", "present", and "future" ... if that's the case, is it possible that tomorrow I will meet a dinosaur? ... or perhaps my younger self?

Or are you simply saying that the only thing that is fully "real" is the present, that the "past" is nothing but traces of change left behind in the present (e.g., humans and dinosaur bones), and that the "future" is purely an evolved capacity for mental projection/prediction by remembering beings?

@paulhanke,

So you go from saying the past and future is nothing but an endless present; to saying the external world doesnt exist and only our perceptions exist? I soo confused...

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... let's see if I'm reading you right ... everything that has happened and will happen exists in the endless present - and it is only our perception that picks things out as "past", "present", and "future" ... if that's the case, is it possible that tomorrow I will meet a dinosaur? ... or perhaps my younger self?

Or are you simply saying that the only thing that is fully "real" is the present, that the "past" is nothing but traces of change left behind in the present (e.g., humans and dinosaur bones), and that the "future" is purely an evolved capacity for mental projection/prediction by remembering beings?

Making the assumption that I admittedly made, that an external world does not exist independent of perception, dinosaurs never existed; rather, the idea of dinosaurs exists, as a part of human experience. To say that 'the past is nothing but traces of change left behind in the present' is correct but with one caveat; as far as we know (i.e without making the assumption that our present experience of our own thoughts assures that those thoughts correspond to a previous reality: e.g. that our thoughts about the jurassic period assure that a real jurassic period existed) there is only the idea of the past, existing, like all ideas, in the present. My point coul be reduced to this statement; no one has ever experienced the past or the future, but rather an endless present, in which are contained, among others, the ideas of past and future and all ideas which include those ideas.

In other words;
(1) The past and future, unlike the present, are purely ideological.
(2) The basis for reality, per the assumption we've made, is individual experience/perception/consciousness
(3) It is reasonable to assume that an idea that in not experienced does not exist, no?
(4) It therefore follows that all existent ideas are experienced, and, as everything is experienceded only in the present, the past and the future exist only as a subset of present experience.

Note: There is one obvious problem with this theory; if the past and present exist as a subset of present experience, as nothing but a certain kind of present experience, how does one know what is the present experience. The obvious solution to this problem is to say that everything that one experiences is present experience, but then the premise becomes the conclusion. However, I'm of the opinion that no philosophical system of any sort can be proven and that every assertion rests either on a baseless assumption or a tautology, or both. So, I admit that this theory is not definative, proved or proavble. It's supposed to be a hypothesis that representes a certain vision of 'the way the world works.'

Note: Your second paragraph adressed my point better, so that is what I dealt with above, but in the second one you brought up a good point: about whether or not tommorow you might meet a dinosaur. You might. Some people tommorow will speak to jesus, elvis or santa claus, while others will, confident in their ability to read minds, escape a world-wide conspiracy against them, while others will build tin foil anti-mind reading hats. I think wr can all agree that sanity is relative. Making the assumptions that I have made already, re the reality of the external world (lack thereof), thinking you see a dinosaur tommorow is as good as seeing one, and may be exactly the same operation. My hypothesis holds good for one perspective, it cannot take into account various conflicting perspectives, because I recognize no absolute standard by which to compare them. If the past is imaginary and nothing but a type of present experience, an idea among other ideas of which we are aware in the present, then the past has no life of its own. In other words, it would not be at all controversial for you to see a dinosaur tommorow. I might laugh but I couldn't call your experience innacurate.

@BrightNoon,

The past is a subjective understanding. The only thing that holds the concept of the past as a thing in itself is memory. As long as there is memory the past exists as something. As to the future as long as beings can deliberate then they can plan for the future. The future becomes necessary when beings consider what should be done. Without subjective experience the past and future are rather meaningless. Thus, I would say that the present is an intrinsic feature of the past and the future.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Making the assumption that I admittedly made, that an external world does not exist independent of perception, dinosaurs never existed; rather, the idea of dinosaurs exists, as a part of human experience.

... is the underlying implication here then that Aristotle never existed, Newton never existed, and so on; rather, only the ideas of Aristotle and Newton exist as part of human experience? ...

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

The only thing that holds the concept of the past as a thing in itself is memory. As long as there is memory the past exists as something. As to the future as long as beings can deliberate then they can plan for the future. Without subjective experience the past and future are rather meaningless.

... this kind of sounds like a very sophisticated re-asking of the question "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no-one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" ... the undeniable answer here is that it did not make a sound because "sound" is interpreter-relative - "sound" requires a listener ... however, is it not also undeniable that something happened that is the physical basis for "sound"?

So let's apply the analogy ... "If a tree begins to fall in the forest and there's no-one there to remember it, does it have a past? - and if there's no-one there to predict where it will fall, does it have a future?" ... that is, does "past" require a remember? - does "future" require a predictor? ... as far as "past" goes, this does not seem to be the case ... someone can come along later, look at the fallen tree, look at the broken stump, and say "This tree fell" ... as far as "future" goes, does the fact that there is no predictor present mean that the tree will not land where a predictor would have predicted it would fall? ... so, just like the "sound" version of this question, it is undeniable that something happened - but unlike the "sound" version of this question, it seems that it may be the case that "past" and "future" do not require the presence of a "remember" nor a "predictor" ... but then again, maybe this first attempt at applying the analogy needs a little work Wink

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... this kind of sounds like a very sophisticated re-asking of the question "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no-one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" ... the undeniable answer here is that it did not make a sound because "sound" is interpreter-relative - "sound" requires a listener ... however, is it not also undeniable that something happened that is the physical basis for "sound"?

So let's apply the analogy ... "If a tree begins to fall in the forest and there's no-one there to remember it, does it have a past? - and if there's no-one there to predict where it will fall, does it have a future?" ... that is, does "past" require a remember? - does "future" require a predictor? ... as far as "past" goes, this does not seem to be the case ... someone can come along later, look at the fallen tree, look at the broken stump, and say "This tree fell" ... as far as "future" goes, does the fact that there is no predictor present mean that the tree will not land where a predictor would have predicted it would fall? ... so, just like the "sound" version of this question, it is undeniable that something happened - but unlike the "sound" version of this question, it seems that it may be the case that "past" and "future" do not require the presence of a "remember" nor a "predictor" ... but then again, maybe this first attempt at applying the analogy needs a little work

What you are describing is cause and effect, which can only happen in the present. The objective universe does not care what happened before or what will happen later. It is subjects that are capable of remembering and deliberating that give these features of time meaning.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

What you are describing is cause and effect, which can only happen in the present. The objective universe does not care what happened before or what will happen later. It is subjects that are capable of remembering and deliberating that give these features of time meaning.

... but aren't subjects integral parts of the objective universe? ... in which case, these features of time have meaning for the objective universe through its subjects ... to say that "The objective universe does not care what happened before or what will happen later" is to completely disregard and devalue the twelve-or-so billion years of ceaseless creativity of the universe ... the universe created life - and in so doing, created meaning ... and it did not do so by creating something that stands apart from the universe - life and meaning are integral parts of the universe ... so while it may have been true to say that the universe did not care at the Big Bang, it is an entirely untrue statement in the present ...

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... is the underlying implication here then that Aristotle never existed, Newton never existed, and so on; rather, only the ideas of Aristotle and Newton exist as part of human experience? ...

Yes. Newton existed in the same sense that the dinosaur existed; i.e. as an idea experienced in the present. You have never experienced something that wasn't presently occuring, but you have experienced, in the present, the idea of things that have had occured, apparently*. That is the most important point; we have to assume that our present experience of the idea of X is the result of or corresponds to X in the past. Given only what we know, i.e. the facts of immediate experience, there is no way to determine whether or not our memories or ideas of non-present events/things are actually the record of real events, which occured independently of our perception of them.

In terms of how we experience them, how do the ideas of past and of future differ? In my view, there is no essential difference, as both exist in present experience and have no life of their own, as far as we know*. A vivid hallucination of 'things to come' can be as powerful and real-seeming as a 'legimate' memory of something you did yesterday.

paulhanke wrote:

... this kind of sounds like a very sophisticated re-asking of the question "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no-one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" ... the undeniable answer here is that it did not make a sound because "sound" is interpreter-relative - "sound" requires a listener ... however, is it not also undeniable that something happened that is the physical basis for "sound"?

If one can say that there was no sound because sound requires a listener, dosen't it follow that for 'something to happen' there has to be a witness? Why would we be unaware of sound because of our absence from the forest yet somehow be aware of 'the event happening?' Events, as the word has any meaning to us at all, consist of patterns of sensual impressions: experiences. An 'event without experience of the event' is a meaningless concept.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Yes. Newton existed in the same sense that the dinosaur existed; i.e. as an idea experienced in the present. You have never experienced something that wasn't presently occuring, but you have experienced, in the present, the idea of things that have had occured, apparently*.

... I would perhaps rephrase that as "but you have experienced, in the present, things to which you attribute past occurrences" ... with your current phrasing, it sounds like you're saying that all that we experience are ideas ...

BrightNoon wrote:

A vivid hallucination of 'things to come' can be as powerful and real-seeming as a 'legimate' memory of something you did yesterday.

... but can't a vivid hallucination be rejected in the face of a lack of intersubjective corroboration? ...

BrightNoon wrote:

If one can say that there was no sound because sound requires a listener, dosen't it follow that for 'something to happen' there has to be a witness?

... it seems to me that something can happen without a witness ... a tree falls and causes pressure waves to flow through the atmosphere ... but this is not sound - sound is simply an interpretation by an ear of those pressure waves ... bring in a deaf person, and they will interpret the pressure waves differently - they will feel them ... bring in yet another being with highly attuned eyes, and it will be able to see the pressure waves ... sound requires a listener; touch requires a feeler; sight requires a seer ... but falling simply requires a faller Wink

BrightNoon wrote:

Events, as the word has any meaning to us at all, consist of patterns of sensual impressions: experiences. An 'event without experience of the event' is a meaningless concept.

... certainly ... but are events merely invented ideas, or do they have a physical, intersubjective basis which humans happen to interpret as events? ...

@BrightNoon,

So the past and the future dont exist right?

What would you say to Sergei Krikalev...

So the external world doesnt exist?

Why do you move out of the way of an incoming car then...

Im sorry but I cannot see any good reasoning or proof or anything as to why people deny everything but themselves. Solipsism doesnt even justify this type of egocentrism. No offense, I just dont see the logic behind such autoimmune tendencies.

@Kielicious,

What is the purpose of philosophy? Has anyone ever needed a complex philosophical system to know that stepping into traffic will end badly? Philosophy is not a practical pursuit. If we criticize a philosophical theory based on 'common sense' assertions like you've made, no philosophy would ever stand. The idea, at least my idea, is to make the fewest and simplest assumptions and from that foundation produce a system that logically follows. As I said earlier, which I think is hard to deny, beleifs can be essential to survival and yet false.

Your criticism of what I've said about the past and future amounts to: 'Nuh-uh...that's silly" :sarcastic:

Your criticism of what I've said about the external world or lack thereof is simply wrong. You have miisunderstood me. I am not suggesting that there is no external world; how could I know that? I am claiming vigorously that it is impossible to prove that there is.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Your criticism of what I've said about the past and future amounts to: 'Nuh-uh...that's silly" :sarcastic:

Really? where did I say that? or are you just assuming... hmmmm thought so.

BrightNoon wrote:

Your criticism of what I've said about the external world or lack thereof is simply wrong. You have miisunderstood me. I am not suggesting that there is no external world; how could I know that? I am claiming vigorously that it is impossible to prove that there is.

Ok then, if I have misunderstood then tell me why an external world couldnt exist. You seem so sure of it so please go right ahead, Im waiting...

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Question: Is the past and/or future real in the same sense as the present is real?

Answer (mine): No, the past and future are ideas arising from within an endless present, ideas which are experienced in the present, and which are not real (in the sense that the present is real). In other words, the past and the future are only real in that they are a part of the present; they have no 'life of their own.'

The concept of time is not the dominant factor in the universe, but rather an incidental product of a system which reflects upon itself, which acts in reference to its own previous actions: i.e. a human being. Note that I said 'previous actions;' how can this be, you ask, if I'm claiming that the past is purely imaginary? I am not saying that things do not change, or that events do not precede and succeed one another, but rather that they do so in the present; i.e. we experience them doing this in the present.

In other words, we experience the 'present experience' (which is just the dominant experience at the moment) and also the idea of the past or future experience, which exist in the present also. We then imagine that 'this happened x years ago' or that 'this will happen in x years,' when in fact everything has occurred in the present.

All of this assumes the existential foundation for reality and discounts the reality of an 'external world,' independent of perception: at least one about which anything can be known, assuming such a world exists.

Thoughts?

BightNoon, sorry it is hard for me to follow you. Don't feel bad, hell it's hard for me to follow most of the terminology used in philosophical discourse. I do wish you mensa munching candidates would tone it down a notch or two. Ha. Now let me offer what I think you are saying and you tell me if you agree or not.

The present is all there is and we have very little of that simply because it is so fleeting in that no sooner that it is here, it is already a part of the past and the future becomes the present and so on. So to answer your question the past did exist, the future is a non word. One did exist, the other never will. What you know of the past is logged in and when you have to retrieve anything from it, it will be made available to you. That's the way the mind works. Leave it alone and it will "tell" you what to do. Any time you find yourself in a situation in which you become "apprehensive" as to the action you are about to take, or the project you are on becomes overwhelming, or the material you attempting to learn is beyond frustration, you are "bucking your system". These are warning signs as your mind is telling you, you do not need to go there. Unfortunately, the ego, all to often, overrides those warning signs. If you become preoccupied or too apprehensive, that car is going to nail you. If your mind is at ease you are in no danger whatsoever.
What do you think. Am I missing something here? :perplexed:
William

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

... I would perhaps rephrase that as "but you have experienced, in the present, things to which you attribute past occurrences" ... with your current phrasing, it sounds like you're saying that all that we experience are ideas ...

Well, I would say that all we experience is sensation, some arranged in complexes called ideas, thoughts or memories depending on what use we put them to. That's another issue though. Your rephrasing works just fine. I think we understand one another.

Quote:

... but can't a vivid hallucination be rejected in the face of a lack of intersubjective corroboration? ...

On what basis? If reality from one perspective can be wrong, why would a statistical generalization of many potentially flawed ideas be right? According to that logic, if 99.999% of the population believe that lead floats on water, then it does.

Quote:

... it seems to me that something can happen without a witness ... a tree falls and causes pressure waves to flow through the atmosphere ... but this is not sound - sound is simply an interpretation by an ear of those pressure waves ... bring in a deaf person, and they will interpret the pressure waves differently - they will feel them ... bring in yet another being with highly attuned eyes, and it will be able to see the pressure waves ... sound requires a listener; touch requires a feeler; sight requires a seer ... but falling simply requires a faller

What is a faller? I think you mean a person able to observe, measure and record the airborne vibration, or the movement of the tree, etc. It dosen't matter that you divorce the event from the five direct senses. Any event can only be characterized or understood in terms of sensation, whether directlty or indirectly. Measurements of vibrations are meaingless until someone interprets them. The act of interpretation itself employs the senses (reading the meter e.g.), and the concept drawn from such raw data rests on sensual experience; if we had not ourselves moved around, bumped into things and lived in the sensual world, what would vibrations or pressure waves mean to us?

Quote:

... but are events merely invented ideas, or do they have a physical, intersubjective basis which humans happen to interpret as events? ...

Events may well occur independent of our perception of them (I would guess so), but the point here is that that cannot be known. On the other hand, I do know that my own experiences exist.

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

Really? where did I say that? or are you just assuming... hmmmm thought so.

Check it out. I don't see the argument, just a little sarcasm. And by the way, what does this cosmonaut have to do with anything?

Quote:

So the past and the future dont exist right?
What would you say to Sergei Krikalev...

Quote:

Ok then, if I have misunderstood then tell me why an external world couldnt exist. You seem so sure of it so please go right ahead, Im waiting...

Here is what I just said on this subject five minutes ago. "You have miisunderstood me. I am not suggesting that there is no external world; how could I know that? I am claiming vigorously that it is impossible to prove that there is." So, I don't claim that an external world could not exist, nor am I sure that it does not.

@BrightNoon,

William, I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I think you might have missed my point. Or, maybe I missed yours. :bigsmile: Anyway, let me try again.

It all comes down to one thing. You never live in or experience anything but the present. So what do we mean when we talk about the past or the future? When we say 'the tree fell down yesterday' or picture that situation, are we experiencing that tree falling down? No. We are experiencing at that moment an idea, which happens to be that of 'tree falling down.'

We never experience the past or the future except as ideas in the present.

We can define the present as the experience that is most vivid at any given time, or the set of most vivid experiences. This is simple enough to imagine. At breakfast tommorow morning, the taste of your cereal will be more powerful than the memory of today's breakfast cereal.

When you experience something it is experienced in the present. Only later does it appear to have occured in the past. The experience of that past is still in the present. In other words...

The past is an illusion created by having sensations/ideas (e.g. different mornings' cereals) of different intensities at the same time: NOW!

Hope that's helpful in some way.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Check it out. I don't see the argument, just a little sarcasm. And by the way, what does this cosmonaut have to do with anything?

I figured you werent aware of it.

Sergei Krikalev is an astronaut that spent over 800 days in orbit traveling 17,000 miles an hour and is said to of traveled 1/48th of a second into the future. So I'll ask again: what do you say to this if the future and past dont exist?

BrightNoon wrote:

Here is what I just said on this subject five minutes ago. "You have miisunderstood me. I am not suggesting that there is no external world; how could I know that? I am claiming vigorously that it is impossible to prove that there is." So, I don't claim that an external world could not exist, nor am I sure that it does not.

So its impossible to prove the external world exists?

So I guess I'll ask the same question yet again: If you didnt move out of the way of an incoming car then what hit you? How did you die? Your perceptions killed you? I dont think so...

Besides the whole reason why I use this situation is because whenever someone takes solipsism seriously they always end up being hypocritical. i.e. they always move out of the way of the incoming car.

Keep in mind Im not even scratching the surface of a rebuttal. If your pecptions only exist, then where do they come from? Your brain. What is your brain encapsulated in? Your body.... need I say more or can you fill in the blanks?

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

I figured you werent aware of it.

Sergei Krikalev is an astronaut that spent over 800 days in orbit traveling 17,000 miles an hour and is said to of traveled 1/48th of a second into the future. So I'll ask again: what do you say to this if the future and past dont exist?

He is said to have travelled into the future by whom? What does that even mean? Are you serious? ...:sarcastic:

Quote:

So its impossible to prove the external world exists?

So I guess I'll ask the same question yet again: If you didnt move out of the way of an incoming car then what hit you? How did you die? Your perceptions killed you? I dont think so...

Besides the whole reason why I use this situation is because whenever someone takes solipsism seriously they always end up being hypocritical. i.e. they always move out of the way of the incoming car.

What happens when you get hit by a car? What do you definitely know about that? You know that you were walking, then you heard a screeching sound, saw some lights, flew up in the air, heard a bone crack, hit the ground, and then nothing. Now, what in that proves the existance of an external world? Everything in that event (and all events) consists of sensation.

Here is what we know for sure:
You feel those various sensations (screeching, bone breaking, etc)

Here is an unfounded assumption:
There is something outside of those sensations which caused those sensations.

It is neccessary for people to believe that if they clothe themselves in meat and hang out with lions, they will get eaten. That dosen't prove anything about the nature of the universe in general. That only proves that a certain species (us) has to hold a certain belief/act-a-certain-way in order to survive.

Quote:

Keep in mind Im not even scratching the surface of a rebuttal. If your pecptions only exist, then where do they come from? Your brain. What is your brain encapsulated in? Your body.... need I say more or can you fill in the blanks?

Exactly. That cannot be known.

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» The Present and its Derivatives

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

The Present and its Derivatives

Quick Links

My Account

able2know