What If There's No Present?

[gracer]

I've been pondering about this thought for a long time now. I was thinking, what if there's really no such thing as the present time? What if we are just merely the past or the future? If there is indeed a present time, what if this is not the real present time? Well, if you jumble it all we actually end up in all 3 timelines. We are indeed the past of the future and the future of the past. So where is the real present time? This may seem confusing which only logic could seem to answer but I would like to know your thoughts on this.

 

 

[CallipygianGamine]

You usually hear that “all we have is the present,” at least from a philosophical standpoint, which makes this an interesting theory. I’ve actually been more inclined to think that all we have is the past and the future, as the present is fleeting and ever-changing - more of a philosophical construct. That said, we can often remember the past inaccurately… which can make one wonder about how we perceive this thing called time.

 

 

[sunflogun]

That is a good question and the word that comes to my mind is illusion. We are all living an illusion, our senses and mind are limited and until we manage to overcome that limitation those questions will remain unanswered. Time for me is an illusion and those who managed to understand that become time travelers.

 

 

[Gpa]

I can't find it right now but, I believe it was Darby that explained how we live in the past... by the few milliseconds it takes for your brain to become aware of each passing moment. (Or something close to that)

 

 

[ScornedTramp]

The Inca's had a belief system similar to this. I don't remember the details but it was interesting how even today, the culture has a compleatly different view on what time is and how p/p/f interact. It's not a linear view if I remember correctly.

 

 

[sunflogun]

I can't find it right now but, I believe it was Darby that explained how we live in the past... by the few milliseconds it takes for your brain to become aware of each passing moment. (Or something close to that)

Now we are discussing a physical question that talks about the a matter of seconds, but I was going beyond that. It's undeniable that we have fantastic bodies and the fact that we only exist for an average of 80 years it's very strange to say the least. How can we go around time though?

 

 

[mr_paradox]

An interesting idea. People usually seem to spend too much time living in the past or living in the future. Whether or not it is an illusion I do not know know. But in my opinion it is better to live in the present and by making decisions now attempt to change what happens in the future. Time itself is an illusion, because it is impossible to define the word time without indirectly using the word time to define it.

 

 

[vegito12]

I think it is going to be hard to understand, as we humans don't understand the basics of time travel yet even though we have advanced in technology and also it is hard for the brain to understand and too many possibilities can happen. We do look for the future mostly, and try and change for that time when we will enjoy life more better than what is happening at the moment which is the present time which is sad at times. We need to enjoy what we have now, and also we need to see what can we do to make our life better now than thinking about the future too much which can be a good thing sometimes.

 

 

[AgiTitor]

The present exists in a constant state of flux. Even our second-to-second existence changes based solely on our own perception, which (for humans) is the only means of understanding the universe around us. Existence only exists so far as we've defined it, and since we push the boundaries every day there's no real way to say for sure what is or isn't.

 

It's like growing up, and finding out on your 18th birthday that you're adopted. The past is more or less intact, but it changed simply because the way you perceived it did. And since the future is in the same state of flux the present is, there's no way to know for sure what will be, even if you did theoretically have a time machine.

 

 

[aboleth_lich]

Time is a continuous variable. The present would be a specific, infinitesimally small moment of time that is a few milliseconds prior to what our brain is actually registering as the immediate now (as an above post states). Anytime prior to that infinitesimally small moment of time, exclusive, is broadly referred to as the past, and anytime after that infinitesimally small moment of time, exclusive, is broadly referred to as the future. (As such, we are technically living a few milliseconds in the past, as the aforementioned above post states.)

 

As time is a continuous variable, and making an analogy to a continuous probability density function: stating that something happens at an absolutely precise moment of time is quite iffy--it is better to speak of something happening within a range of times, even an exceedingly narrow range. (Mathematically, in terms of a continuous probability density function: one cannot attribute a non-zero probability to a specific event corresponding to a specific value of that continuous variable as you would be integrating an area of zero: e.g. "what is the probability that the next bus will arrive in precisely 12 mins and 5.897 865 235 892 125 258 685 256 895 258... seconds?" One can only speak of the probability corresponding to a range of the continuous variable: e.g. "what is the probability of the next bus arriving within the next 17 mins?" The narrower the range, the smaller the probability of the event occurring within the range--and that probability goes to zero as the range shrinks to the infinitesimal.)

 

Although it is rather iffy to attribute an event and its probability to an absolutely precise value of a continuous variable like time, that in no way means that the said value does not actually exist! It is simply an infinitesimal small part of the broader overall continuum.

 

And unlike physical quantities like energy, charge, and mass: time is a metric for measurement, like length. The former quantities are in truth discretized in to fine quanta, but with a step-size so fine that we do not perceive it on our macroscopic scale of perception and instead experience the quantity as a continuum. I don't think that metrics like time and length will similarly break down into a discretized quanta at even finer scale beyond our detection as of yet.

 

 

[AgiTitor]

s

 

Time is a continuous variable. The present would be a specific, infinitesimally small moment of time that is a few milliseconds prior to what our brain is actually registering as the immediate now (as an above post states). Anytime prior to that infinitesimally small moment of time, exclusive, is broadly referred to as the past, and anytime after that infinitesimally small moment of time, exclusive, is broadly referred to as the future. (As such, we are technically living a few milliseconds in the past, as the aforementioned above post states.)-snipped a bit for shortening purposes-

I completely agree. Some of that made my brain go numb, but I feel my stance on the subject fits the general outline of what you're saying. It's ever changing (especially so if space itself is expanding) and thus we are unable to do more than guess at its nature even as we come to terms with the fact we may be never able to understand it anyways. And if we guess right, it could reasonably be thought that we'll never be able to prove it. Somehow we're so minute but so macroscopic at the same time, and it's just going to confound us for a long time.

 

 

[sunflogun]

That is why time travel is a reality, that is why we need to know more precisely because the present is just a small part of the big picture and so are our lives. We need to find the tools to take us further.

 

 

[gracer]

Time is a continuous variable. The present would be a specific, infinitesimally small moment of time that is a few milliseconds prior to what our brain is actually registering as the immediate now (as an above post states). Anytime prior to that infinitesimally small moment of time, exclusive, is broadly referred to as the past, and anytime after that infinitesimally small moment of time, exclusive, is broadly referred to as the future. (As such, we are technically living a few milliseconds in the past, as the aforementioned above post states.)As time is a continuous variable, and making an analogy to a continuous probability density function: stating that something happens at an absolutely precise moment of time is quite iffy--it is better to speak of something happening within a range of times, even an exceedingly narrow range. (Mathematically, in terms of a continuous probability density function: one cannot attribute a non-zero probability to a specific event corresponding to a specific value of that continuous variable as you would be integrating an area of zero: e.g. "what is the probability that the next bus will arrive in precisely 12 mins and 5.897 865 235 892 125 258 685 256 895 258... seconds?" One can only speak of the probability corresponding to a range of the continuous variable: e.g. "what is the probability of the next bus arriving within the next 17 mins?" The narrower the range, the smaller the probability of the event occurring within the range--and that probability goes to zero as the range shrinks to the infinitesimal.)

Although it is rather iffy to attribute an event and its probability to an absolutely precise value of a continuous variable like time, that in no way means that the said value does not actually exist! It is simply an infinitesimal small part of the broader overall continuum.

 

And unlike physical quantities like energy, charge, and mass: time is a metric for measurement, like length. The former quantities are in truth discretized in to fine quanta, but with a step-size so fine that we do not perceive it on our macroscopic scale of perception and instead experience the quantity as a continuum. I don't think that metrics like time and length will similarly break down into a discretized quanta at even finer scale beyond our detection as of yet.

Wow! What a mind twisting idea. I had to slowly and repeatedly read your reply to be able to effectively process it in my mind. It actually makes a lot of sense. Come to think of it, we shift from the present to becoming the past and from the future to becoming the present in such a short span of time even faster than the blink of an eye. You gave me something to ponder upon again for a period of time. :-)

 

 

[Valkyrie]

The present exists in a constant state of flux. Even our second-to-second existence changes based solely on our own perception, which (for humans) is the only means of understanding the universe around us. Existence only exists so far as we've defined it, and since we push the boundaries every day there's no real way to say for sure what is or isn't.

Exactly the way I think of it, imagine existence to be fluid in motion, grains of sand in the wind, swirling, falling and changing every second. They are grains only in as much as they relate to the the things happening at that moment. Whether they are in the air, bumping on another grain or fallen to the ground they are all still grains caught up in that moment in time.

It's like growing up, and finding out on your 18th birthday that you're adopted. The past is more or less intact, but it changed simply because the way you perceived it did.

I don't know if I totally agree with this sentiment, what you experienced in the past does not change what it had been at that moment when it was experienced, if additional information is offered in the future it could make us consider thoughts and possibilities about the past we did not know then, but it does not alter the experience itself- outside of perception at the present. Therefore to me, the new information is just a new perception that involves a previous experience, it is a present state. It is just consideration of the experience from the past in a different light, maybe this is what learning is, considering all the tangents of a single moment known and unknown but probable.

[AgiTitor]

I don't know if I totally agree with this sentiment, what you experienced in the past does not change what it had been at that moment when it was experienced, if additional information is offered in the future it could make us consider thoughts and possibilities about the past we did not know then, but it does not alter the experience itself- outside of perception at the present. Therefore to me, the new information is just a new perception that involves a previous experience, it is a present state. It is just consideration of the experience from the past in a different light, maybe this is what learning is, considering all the tangents of a single moment known and unknown but probable.

Actually, that was just an example. I've had a very normal, traditional life. xD

I just mean, that while the past has happened, has run its course from one point to the next, it is what it is. But human perception of the past can be altered with new information, and that altered perception of reality is just as valid as the original course of events until proven otherwise. So time is even more confusing because we're experiencing it through a faulty biological lens.

 

 

[sunflogun]

That it our major flaw, our perception. We have extremely limited means of perception and according to that we assume that we are viewing reality, but it's not the case. We should develop our senses and only after that we are capable of seeing reality.

 

 

[thomas pendrake]

The present is a subjective concept, a construct of our consciousness. I really don't see much sense in trying to sort out chronons, Planck time, divergent time lines, quantum entanglement, or any other such concepts with regards to the meaning of "the present", unless we are discussing a specific event. Of course, if there is no present at Christmas I may be a bit depressed, and don't forget a present on your anniversary or your 3 year old's birthday.

 

 

[MyDigitalpoint]

Sometimes I have a recurring dream in which I see an interplanetary spacecraft approaching to my home and I am in the roof with my mom and sister somewhat scary to see it is coming above us.

 

Once over our heads, I feel being abducted and desperate because I don't want to go away because of my family. I never see the inside of the spacecraft nor remember to have been going anywhere, just feel the abduction and then feel released in a different planet.

 

However once with feet on the ground, I realize to be still on Earth, but is a parallel time, my mother is there so my sister is, but time and sensation is different, then I wake up with the sensation (and conviction) that real time is that one of my dream in an alternate world, and this present time is the real dream I'm having all of these days.

 

 

[CallipygianGamine]

Of course, if there is no present at Christmas I may be a bit depressed, and don't forget a present on your anniversary or your 3 year old's birthday.

Oh no you di'int

Incidentally we hold similar views, you just stated them much more eloquently than I could.

 

 

[mr_paradox]

Time is a continuous variable. The present would be a specific, infinitesimally small moment of time that is a few milliseconds prior to what our brain is actually registering as the immediate now (as an above post states). Anytime prior to that infinitesimally small moment of time, exclusive, is broadly referred to as the past, and anytime after that infinitesimally small moment of time, exclusive, is broadly referred to as the future. (As such, we are technically living a few milliseconds in the past, as the aforementioned above post states.)

Interesting. If I observe something right this moment, there is a delay between the even actually happening, the speed of light when I see it, and then the delay as my brain processes the information. So by the time I already know about the present it already is in the past.

So that means I can not follow my own advice and live in the present, because I will always be living in the past. I didn't really get the idea till it was explained like this.

 

 

[salandme]

That it our major flaw, our perception. We have extremely limited means of perception and according to that we assume that we are viewing reality, but it's not the case. We should develop our senses and only after that we are capable of seeing reality.

A bit off the subject, but would like to comment on your perception of perception not being reality. I tend to think, my reality may not be your reality, due to different perceptions, but it is still my reality.

To answer OP question, there is a present, as explained so thoroughly by

 

aboleth_lich

 

with the present being few milliseconds, it still exists.

 

Some good reads on the subject, well at least I found interesting, are by Kant and St Augustine. So, yeah this question of time in the past, present, and future has been pondered for a long time.

 

For example, back to the subject of perception, Is space and time dependent upon the mind for existence to identify the present,led me to an article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on Kant's Views on Space and Time, but a bit over my comprehension (still need to sort through his philosophy).

 

Now, I am not inferring that space and time can not exist without my mind, but more is my or your perception of space and time dependent on our minds? St Augustine writings suggest, "knowledge" of time can basically not exist unless someone has a way to measure the passing of time.

 

"I said then even now, we measure times as they pass, in order to be able to say, this time is twice so much as that one; or, this is just so much as that; and so of any other parts of time, which be measurable. Wherefore, as I said, we measure times as they pass. And if any should ask me, "How knowest thou?" I might answer, "I know, that we do measure, nor can we measure things that are not; and things past and to come, are not." But time present how do we measure, seeing it hath no space? It is measured while passing, but when it shall have passed, it is not measured; for there will be nothing to be measured. But whence, by what way, and whither passes it while it is a measuring? whence, but from the future? Which way, but through the present? whither, but into the past? From that therefore, which is not yet, through that, which hath no space, into that, which now is not. Yet what do we measure, if not time in some space? For we do not say, single, and double, and triple, and equal, or any other like way that we speak of time, except of spaces of times. In what space then do we measure time passing? In the future, whence it passeth through? But what is not yet, we measure not. Or in the present, by which it passes? but no space, we do not measure: or in the past, to which it passes? But neither do we measure that, which now is not."

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/augconf/aug11.htm

 

So, thanks for asking such an interesting question about the present time. Enjoyed reading all the replies.

 

 

 

[Kafke]

Not sure why anyone hasn't addressed this yet, but in terms of science and related stuff, most physicists subscribe to B-Theory time. Which basically says that the 'present' is simply the perceived location along an equally existent timeline. Meaning that there's not really a present, but rather 'no' present, unless you are observing a point, which we can then call the present.

 

Personally, I think the probability thing is on key. With the current observed present simply being the perceived outcome of a probabilistic wave. That is, different outcomes can be observed from different probability waves, with every outcome being equally as real (similar to MWI). This is further supported with recent experiments on wheeler's delayed choice thought experiment. The probability waves are collapsed when they need to be, which generates a perceived present. Thus, a time machine would only need to collapse waves in an intended way. AKA, view a different "present".

 

 

[PaulaJedi]

I've been pondering about this thought for a long time now. I was thinking, what if there's really no such thing as the present time? What if we are just merely the past or the future? If there is indeed a present time, what if this is not the real present time? Well, if you jumble it all we actually end up in all 3 timelines. We are indeed the past of the future and the future of the past. So where is the real present time? This may seem confusing which only logic could seem to answer but I would like to know your thoughts on this.

Our perceived present becomes our past. Our past was someone's future once. Our future because our past eventually. It is all the same. Our consciousness compartmentalizes time and creates order out of chaos.

 

 

[A-Alph_0]

Hmm i actually think there is ONLY present ....all past or future ourselves on this and different worldlines are just our very own present existances.

 

 

[NotATimeTraveller]

We evolved our sense of the present and our sense of time. The smallest length of time is 5.39056e-44 seconds, or a single plank time, but we do not sense each individual unit of time. Instead we sense strips of time, like strips from a movie film as our present as that is being processed by our central nervous systems. The present time that I sense, is going to be different from everyone else's present, even if only slightly. Based on Einstein's theory of relativity, we all experience time slightly differently relative to movement and the speed of light.

 

In that sense, the present does not exist in the sense that we think it does, but rather as only a connection between the past and the future.