Where is the future? Why it will never exist! Discussion.

[delmarco]

I got this from another forum I frequent.
what do ya'll think
Delmarco


This is this kids argument.

As odd as that title sounds, I can support it.


First off, the problem with the Present.


The Present is immeasurable because everything takes time to hapen.

Look outside at a tree, if they exist where you are. If there is a wind, you can see that tree move. Think about the speed of light. There is a distance between you and the tree, so the light has to travel before it reaches your eyes. To travel takes time. There is time between when the tree moves and when you see it. It is an infinitely tiny amount of time, but it is time nonetheless. You can compare this to looking at the stars. Stars are lightyears away and if you breakdown that measurement you get the following: light travels at a definite speed, the light from the star takes time to travel, therefore, you are looking into the past. A star that is 100 lightyears away will appear to your eye as it was 100 years before you veiwed it. This is difficult to comprehend, but it is the truth.

Sound acts the same way. Sound has a definite speed, and it takes time for that sound to travel.

The Present does exist, because if it didn't, nothing could happen. The Present, however, is immeasurable.


Why the Future does not exist:

Everything that happens, happens in the Present. That we can agree on, right? Unless you are a member of some sect of religion that thinks that all fate is predecided, then my entire argument is useless. Speaking scientifically, the future can't exist because nothing can happen before it does. Time is not predecided, so the Future has to be created in the Present before we can view it in the Past.

This is a circular arguement, but it makes sense when you just sit and think about it. I'm very bad with explinations, so I will continue to update this observation as questions arise, and when I get a better idea of how to explain it.

__________________

[delmarco]

This was my reply:

At any rate,, I understand that the foundation for your argument is based on the relativity of the person studying time. This minute, I'm in the future relative to my grand pa being in the past 60 yrs ago, yet I'm in the past (at the same time) relative to my unborn grand son or daughter living 60 yrs from now. I'm also in the present at the sametime...but If I assume that I have only hypothetical reference points (the past-that doesn't exist anymore) and (the future that hasn't happened yet)...so by all that is relative the present is not real since it's reference point is only hypothetical.

That is to not say that this is wrong. In Environmental Engineering we have something called dynamic systems where we have an object that is constantly changing value. That object had a value at t = 0 before it started moving and will have a final value at t = final when it comes to a rest. Now the only real values are the initial and final values. However all the values inbetween t=0 and t=final are mere functions of the final and initial values. So the object at any point in between represents the present. In that they are both in motion and not concrete.

Think of a bucket of water before you pour it out the bucket is filled with a certain amount or "value". But when you pour the water out into say another bucket the 1st bucket will be empty and the second bucket will have a value or a certain amount. Anyway the first bucket represents the past and the second bucket represents the future and the water flowing between the two buckets is the present. And you can't give the same value to the flow as you can the water in the bucket. The flow is constant and always moving, its has no measure, it's unpredicable and chaotic...at best you could measure the rate of flow, the speed of flow and calculate intermediate values on points along the flow.
In astophysics Hawking describes the first bucket as the big bang where all the current energy has flowed out of the bucket and continues to flow.
SuperString Theory or M-Theory is so far the best at decribing the flow that we are in right now. And Einstien pretty much summed up the three events that will occur in the second bucket aka the end of spacetime. He has a ratio (think of a fraction where the denominator is the amount of matter in the universe and the numerator is another quantitative measure of the universe) called lambda;

If Lambda is equal to 1 the universe will expand forever (cold death) and the second bucket has an infinate bottom. (not likely but humans will live the longest in this scenario)

If Lambda is less than 1 the universe will expand for a bit more and then contract or the flow will reverse from the second bucket into the first. (think of a syphoning hose that robbers use to steal gasoline from a gas tank)

If Lambda is greater than one then the universe will speed up expansion (hot death), or the flow will increase into the second bucket , but not only will it fill it but the flow will be more and more violent and splashy and will topple the second bucket before it fills.

This last scenario is what astromers are currently witnessing. The cause of it is something called dark matter and dark energy. These dark forces, together, out number us (Light based organisms) 97.8 to 2.3 and they will be the final say in what happens to us and the universe. Either way you slice it humans get ass raped big time.


Second Reply-Explaining the bucket scenario and lambda:

I agree with you. But If you assign "real" dates to the past and the future; say your birth and your death then you create the "2 buckets scenario" where t=0 is bucket one and t=n is bucket two.
However in theory by doing this you dissolve "the present" into the constant flow of water between the buckets so now "the present" is not a "real" place but the present is reduced to a infinite stream of actions (moments) that doesn't have a fixed time and place unless it passes into the past or is planned out to happen in the future.
The first thread is basically flawed because the dude is saying that the 2nd bucket doesn't exist. He is saying that the present is real because the water is pouring at a rate that we can measure and see (this rate is below the speed of light). So his theory is human-centric (same as saying the world and sun and moon revolves around man) In this regard he excludes the second bucket and makes "the present" or the flow of water infinitely long...so from a now perpective we will never see the water reaching the 2nd bucket. This is flawed on another count because if we can see into the past or into the first bucket when we look out at the stars (back ustream into the past)...then that fact upholds another fact that the future...whereever it is or will be (these are the people downstream or already in the 2nd bucket) MUST be able to look back and see us as well. So the future must be there to balance the equation...even if the future is an unkown variable or x...
{R(t=0)} + {R(t=n)} = 0>x>n

where 0 is the past, x is the present, and n is the future

Lambda states there is a beginning and there will be a conclusion to the current state of the universe.
It's easier to imagine is you stretch out t=0 and t=n to the extent that t=0 is the big band and t=n in the big crunch. That way you have alot of moments to study or you have a nice long flow of water to look at and see how the "present" as an ever-changing state and time works out.

It's all about the Lambda homies!!!

[delmarco]

So who do you guys think is right?




By the way i think that kid is Stephen Hawking's son!

[Hoppy]

niether the future or present exist. facts.
only the past exists.

[witeshark]

Here's an idea: never try to predict the future. Make it instead

[komodo]

Hah, essentially Zeno's Paradox applied to time rather than space.

[delmarco]

Originally Posted by komodo

Hah, essentially Zeno's Paradox applied to time rather than space.

yeah. exactly what i thought. it's like 0.99999999 to infinity is sort of like the present and the number 1 is the 2nd bucket aka the future or the end of spacetime.

BTW the rate of flow is equal to the amount of dark energy and matter in the universe. These dark forces that outnumber us 97.3% to 2.7% (whereby 2.7 is everything you can see in our universe, stars, planets, galaxies, us)
By dark forces I mean everything you can't see with the most powerful telescope or even detect with infrared, radio, any any type of sensors. These objects emmit no radiation whatsoever and do not interact with "light-based" matter (all visible matter, including us, comes from the sun).
The dark forces only make the universe heavy, and make time go a fast as it does. If there was less dark energy & matter time would go slower, if there was more time would go faster. We only know it's there because the universe is about 1,000,000 times more heavy than it should be and when scientist look up and out into space they only see darkness where there should be alot of shit floating around.
No one to this day know what it is, why it ignores us, and what its intentions are fo our universe.

String theory is saying that the darkness is actually 11 dimensions (or mini-universes) rolled up like giant fruit roll ups so whe cant see them. And that is pretty much the best description for it. So you see how little we know.

By the way Black Holes are not considered to be of the Dark Forces since they interact with matter (sucking shit down) and were once suns (matter made from light/stars) and they emit Hawking radiation...so they are not Dark.

So if we were all living in a Star Wars universe the Dark side has our arses beat 100 to 1 odds against us.