@I am question,
I am question;157788 wrote:
Pagan I would like to add a little more of my thought on this, as before I had almost half-baked ideas you might say. I don't understand if your are in need of experimental evidence for 'now' subjectively which would be impossible. But can we say that our evidence for 'now' would be us breathing? Because if your involving the present moment as a separate physical entity, then that object would be the evidence it self. But involving present tense, or the now, would be to involve the illusion of time. So therefore observing and actuality would be flawed. So let us run our minds on a hamster wheel, its going to be loud, annoying and going in circles.
My need to know if there is an experimental basis for the existence of 'now' is really a challenge to those who have faith that science can prove (by its own terms) that the now exists or not. I am interested, and if there is an objective scientific demonstration of the now i am very interested to hear it.
Personally as someone who has studied science, i can't see how it is possible for science to prove the now does or does not exist. This for me demonstrates something critical re the narrative of science. The now is ultra important to our lives (not exclusively of course) even to a scientist and an objectivist. So if it is impossible for science and logic to demonstrate its existence or not, then thats a huge example of incompleteness of that narrative.
But looking deeper, existence itself is commonly held by scientists as 'physical and in the now'. Much more emphasis is placed upon physicality, with great success. (i am using physicality in its widest possible meaning, to include space and energy). So physical composition and how physicality relates to itself is the prize and gift of the scientific narrative. A great gift.
(Incidentally, in other threads i have questioned the scientific assumptions of space and shown how objectivity breaks down here too. Reapeatability for universality of objective truth is another assumption within science too. I think we can learn a great deal philosophically from deconstructing science.)
If we notice that science has sort of bypassed a definition of existence as 'physical and in the now' to just physical, then suddenly the whole concept of time which is written into science necessarily becomes problematic. Does the past present and future co exist? Is it fixed? If not fixed then what is change? On the other hand is existence the same as being in the now exclusively? If so then how do we recognise this truth as fundamental to an objective science, without being able to prove it scientifically?
Science is now very seriously considering the multi universe theory. What on earth (or elsewhere) does that do to the concept of the now?
With regards to semantics, well again i see physical science as necessarily (in its present form) as the generating of the ultimate fixed text. This is the faith of many scientists. Despite a text that has constantly changed, people have faith that one day fundamental physics will be 'completed'. It may assume that the now exists, as an axiom for example, but can it prove it? You cannot prove an axiom, and if the now is axiomatic to science, then what inspired it?
But can we say that our evidence for 'now' would be us breathing? Because if your involving the present moment as a separate physical entity, then that object would be the evidence it self. But involving present tense, or the now, would be to involve the illusion of time.
I think i understand where you are coming from. If only the now exists, then memory and thought and desire create the illusion of time? 'Now as the only physicality' can only refer to the past and future in terms of language within that 'now physicality', and as such creates something to relate to that doesn't exist (anymore or yet). ie past and future are language illusions within the now.
Yes, and of course science cannot function without that illusion (reference between 'times') because in order to be the truth about physicality it sets up to describe how the now changes. (if only the now exists that is). You cannot describe without a language, and if the now is all that exists, then the language has to come from the now. That language however, in science, cannot progress without creating the illusion of the past and future in order to chart the change of the now.
ie in such a scenario, the illusions created by science (past and future time imagined) reveal a great gift in understanding the now. The problem philosophically of course, is that it grounds science in language, narrative and imagination. What of the claim of 'objectivity' under such circumstances?