Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Does the past exist?

24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    Azelfafage wrote: »
    Joking aside.

    The notion of past and present and future is fundamental to the theory of General Relativity.
    A Black Hole can play havoc with "The River of Time",as seen by an outsider.
    Explained here at this link:

    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bh_whatare.htm

    Quote from the article:

    "As you get closer to a black hole, the flow of time slows down, compared to flow of time far from the hole. (According to Einstein's theory, any massive body, including the Earth, produces this effect. Earth's gravity is so weak that the slowing of time is not noticeable, but the effect has been confirmed using sensitive instruments. For example, at sea level you age one-billionth of a second less every year than you would if you lived on top of Mt. Everest.) Near a black hole, the slowing of time is extreme. From the viewpoint of an observer outside the black hole, time stops. For example, an object falling into the hole would appear frozen in time at the edge of the hole."

    Eezy Peezy.

    interesting article. Any idea where one could check out that study about aging slower under the ocean that on Mt.Everest?

    The thing about black holes is that they are, by their very definition, unobservable and cannot be investigated. Almost God like if you will.

    The mathematics that supports their existence is also reliant on Dark Matter and to an even greater extent Dark Energy in order to balance the equations - if I understand correctly.

    Now Dark Energy is supposed to make up 70%+ of the mass (is it mass) of the universe, but that also is pretty difficult to detect is it, and can only be implied by its absence. Again, not sure if I have that fully correct.

    This of course then is reconciled with Quantum Mechanics on the basis of String theory (of which there were 5), which was then unified under M theory, which lead to the postulation that the universe actually exists on a floating membrane, along with potential other parallell universes, the collision of which could potentially negate the need for a singularity, or source of a big bang.

    The questions that appear to remain however, is what exactly is the floating membrane upon which we live made of, how many potential other universes are there? What are they floating in.

    But I suppose, the first question that can be asked is what exactly has been observed at the subatomic level? Have Quarks ever been observed?


    I apologise, I just read over the post and it comes across as a little incredulous, but as an outside observer - and it could in large part be due to a lack of understanding - it appears like a house of cards.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    Azelfafage wrote: »
    At the risk of hogging this thread I can point you to the operation of your Sat-Nav. gadget.

    The satellites on which a Sat Nav depend HAVE to take into account Einsten's "Time Dilation".

    GPS technology Explained here:

    http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

    Quote:

    "To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.
    Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion."

    "Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away".

    Won't hog this thread again...I promise
    .

    cheers for the posts. i'll check out those links. Is the Special relativity lecture very mathsy? I hope it isn't because I would love to understand it all better.

    Do you know any other links to lectures and the like that would be accessible for a lay person, or documentaries that explain it relatively accurately (pun unavoidable)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭Azelfafage


    Gravity B satellite.

    Still trying to beat Einstein.

    Einstein wins.......so far.

    See link:

    http://einstein.stanford.edu/MISSION/mission1.html

    .

    .


  • Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭VinnyTGM


    If you think about it, everything is made of molecule's. Time is just a way of expressing when one molecule did something to another molecule. Time is nothing else, obviously human's use time to run their live's but time is not real.

    So say you boiled the kettle half an hour ago, all that happaned there was that h2o got heated up to a certain temperature, there is no specific time attached to that in reality. But human's give a time to it for , as above it make's it easier to plan thing's. (How would you plan an appointment if there was no such way of measuring of when you wanted it to happen).

    All that's happening in the universe is that molecule's are interacting with eachother in different way's.

    Time is a man made item that is not real, only used to express when thing's happened.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,399 ✭✭✭✭r3nu4l


    I just deleted some drivel a few moments ago, you know, in the past! ;)

    Back on topic please. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    r3nu4l wrote: »
    I just deleted some drivel a few moments ago, you know, in the past! ;)

    Back on topic please. :)

    I'd be willing to bet that when you deleted it, you were in the present. Not "the present moment in time", but the present tense if you like.

    I would have to say that the past does not exist, because all that ever exists is "the now", so that means, what we perceive as the "past" was at one stage "the now", and what we perceive as "the future", will [never really match our perception but will] materialise as "the now".


    What we perceive as the past used to exist, but it no longer exists.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 211 ✭✭imstrongerthanu


    Wouldn't the past be the future?
    If as they say everything will end up with an increase in entropy isn't the universe going backwards?Or would it be like a gas filling a box which gets more organised and thus is going forwards in time?Increasing in entropy.Can both happen at once?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11 UCDEamon


    The past does not exist. The past existed. The present exists. The future will exist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11 UCDEamon


    UCDEamon wrote: »
    The past does not exist. The past existed. The present exists. The future does not exist. The future will exist.


    When you conjugare the verb "to exist" in the present tense as in "Does the past exist?" definition of the work exist in that context is to exist in the present, the past is not the present so the answer is no. If however you asked "Did the past exist?" The exist there refers to the past tense so the answer would be yes. Same thing applies to the future. Except its a bit more intuitive to realise that the future does not exist right now.

    Makes you think that one. I mean what is the difference between the past and the present? :eek:


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    UCDEamon wrote: »
    When you conjugare the verb "to exist" in the present tense as in "Does the past exist?" definition of the work exist in that context is to exist in the present, the past is not the present so the answer is no. If however you asked "Did the past exist?" The exist there refers to the past tense so the answer would be yes. Same thing applies to the future. Except its a bit more intuitive to realise that the future does not exist right now.

    Makes you think that one. I mean what is the difference between the past and the present? :eek:

    just with regard to that [I think they are related], when the past existed it was the present, and when the future comes to be it will also be the present.


    When we use the word past, we are talking about reality as it was, but no longer is, and so therefore no longer existing. Therefore the past does not exist.

    Similarly, the word future refers to reality as it will be, not what it is now, and so therefore, the future does not exist either, nor will it ever, as it will always be the present.


    So, the past never existed, as it always was and always will be the present.


    Past and future are only human constructs, they exist only in the mind as a memory of a passed present, and anticipation of the coming present.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    just with regard to that [I think they are related], when the past existed it was the present, and when the future comes to be it will also be the present.


    When we use the word past, we are talking about reality as it was, but no longer is, and so therefore no longer existing. Therefore the past does not exist.

    Similarly, the word future refers to reality as it will be, not what it is now, and so therefore, the future does not exist either, nor will it ever, as it will always be the present.


    So, the past never existed, as it always was and always will be the present.


    Past and future are only human constructs, they exist only in the mind as a memory of a passed present, and anticipation of the coming present.

    Are you making an argument from science or are you making an argument from philosophy?:confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Are you making an argument from science or are you making an argument from philosophy?:confused:

    It was in response to the post above, and in keeping with the pre-ceding post, I felt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,399 ✭✭✭✭r3nu4l


    Science and Philosophy are closely linked. Both make excellent use of Logic and we should remember what a PhD is too ;)

    However, I'd like to leave the English grammar and tense rules out of it and stick to more scientific arguments on time and the perception thereof.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    r3nu4l wrote: »
    Science and Philosophy are closely linked. Both make excellent use of Logic and we should remember what a PhD is too ;)

    However, I'd like to leave the English grammar and tense rules out of it and stick to more scientific arguments on time and the perception thereof.


    safe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,615 ✭✭✭maninasia


    UCDEamon wrote: »
    When you conjugare the verb "to exist" in the present tense as in "Does the past exist?" definition of the work exist in that context is to exist in the present, the past is not the present so the answer is no. If however you asked "Did the past exist?" The exist there refers to the past tense so the answer would be yes. Same thing applies to the future. Except its a bit more intuitive to realise that the future does not exist right now.

    Makes you think that one. I mean what is the difference between the past and the present? :eek:

    The past can exist in many different ways depending on what is the definition of the past. For instance in some theories it is possible to visit the past but only after the invention of a time machine, time being relative so you can only go back to the point that 'time' diverged.

    You can look at the past in a different light also i.e. reversing entropy or the direction of reactions which currently points to disorder e.g. how your room progressively gets messier over the weak, not tidier unless you put in energy. If you reversed entropy perfectly you could go back in the past i.e. reverse each reaction perfectly. There is a problem with this as many reactions cannot be reversed predictably due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle..cannot predict exactly what position an electron will take.

    In another case you could imagine that the universe is a collection of data that is running in a giant supercomputer. If so and if there is a central database then you could rewind the program to whatever point that you needed to go back to in the past. The problem with this idea is that you it seems you would need many times more matter in the universe to do the calculations and store the memory than actually exists.

    In a further development of this idea you could copy your segment of the universe into a computer and relive the past virtually, you wouldn't know the difference (ala Star Trek Enterprise).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 211 ✭✭imstrongerthanu


    What if the past, present and furure are all non concious events?Surely that would be much easier to contemplate or figure out?How much does the world around us change?
    Without conciousness present;wouldn't things be easier to predict?I mean the weather is changing; the trees are growing; that can all be sorted out.
    Will there be a future? Or will there just be increasing;decreasing entropy; if no conciousness was present?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭Azelfafage


    Tiger Woods wishes that the past does not exist!

    Along with a lot more.

    .


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,399 ✭✭✭✭r3nu4l


    Azelfafage wrote: »
    Tiger Woods wishes that the past does not exist!

    Along with a lot more.

    .

    Last warning. Stay on-topic or don't post.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Perhaps the most interesting fact about the universe in my opinion is that we can look at the past through a telescope as, relative to the size of the universe, light travels slowly. As far as I know this image:

    500px-Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit1.jpg

    was taken at the start of this decade, yet is actually a snapshot of what a part of the Universe looked like 13 billion years ago. Those Galaxies dont look like that now, assuming they even exist! Similarly, when one sees an event in the sky such as a sun exploding, its likely you are looking at something that happened when the Romans were in Britain. Because we are millions and billions of light years away from these places, we can see what they looked like then. Its quite fascinating.

    Wiki source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field

    Incidentally, a Kurt Vonnegut novel is based on the premise that you shouldt care about people dying because they are only dead in this current moment, and they are still alive in moments passed. Another interesting thought.
    The most important thing I learned on Tralfamadore was that when a person dies he only appears to die. He is still very much alive in the past, so it is very silly for people to cry at his funeral. All moments, past, present and future, always have existed, always will exist. The Tralfamadorians can look at all the different moments just that way we can look at a stretch of the Rocky Mountains, for instance. They can see how permanent all the moments are, and they can look at any moment that interests them. It is just an illusion we have here on Earth that one moment follows another one, like beads on a string, and that once a moment is gone it is gone forever.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    Does the past exist?


    Well you posted this in July, I can read it now, so yes, it does / did (depending on your opinion of 'exist'.

    If you look at the sky at night, or even during the day, you're looking at things that are from the past - even the sun, 8 minutes ago.

    The past MUST exist, because we have records that it exists that we can clearly see and understand. Be it a fossil, a cave writing, or the stars in the sky - all are things from the past that we can see.

    What the question should be is this: Does the future exist?
    Similarly, when one sees an event in the sky such as a sun exploding, its likely you are looking at something that happened when the Romans were in Britain. Because we are millions and billions of light years away from these places, we can see what they looked like then

    AFAIK the Romans weren't in Britain billions of years ago ;):p
    "Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away".

    I think what this also means is, time is only relative to the observer at a particular location. I cannot measure your time, I can only measure my own.

    However, if we both set our amazingly accurate atomic clocks at a synchronous time, and we are separated by a great distance (1 close to a large gravitational field, one of us further away), we will see that when we are brought together again our time pieces are no longer synchronised.

    This experiment has been done by synchronising a clock on Earth, and one taken into orbit via a space shuttle, when the astronauts returned, their time piece was faster than the one on Earth.

    In fact, GPS satellites have to take this phenomenon into account when deciphering a location on Earth.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 45,535 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    Does the past exist?


    Well you posted this in July, I can read it now, so yes, it does / did (depending on your opinion of 'exist'.

    If you look at the sky at night, or even during the day, you're looking at things that are from the past - even the sun, 8 minutes ago.

    The past MUST exist, because we have records that it exists that we can clearly see and understand. Be it a fossil, a cave writing, or the stars in the sky - all are things from the past that we can see.

    What the question should be is this: Does the future exist?

    Does this not though just prove that the past existed? It doesn't quite prove that it still exists right?
    Incidentally, a Kurt Vonnegut novel is based on the premise that you shouldt care about people dying because they are only dead in this current moment, and they are still alive in moments passed. Another interesting thought.

    Quote:
    The most important thing I learned on Tralfamadore was that when a person dies he only appears to die. He is still very much alive in the past, so it is very silly for people to cry at his funeral. All moments, past, present and future, always have existed, always will exist. The Tralfamadorians can look at all the different moments just that way we can look at a stretch of the Rocky Mountains, for instance. They can see how permanent all the moments are, and they can look at any moment that interests them. It is just an illusion we have here on Earth that one moment follows another one, like beads on a string, and that once a moment is gone it is gone forever.

    That's pretty much what I was getting at in my original post. The people and moments of the past, will they always exist? I know they existed once in what they perceived as their present but somewhere in the universe are they still existing or, as some have pointed out, is there no past but the present and is it all to do with perception...

    Incidentally could you tell me the novel with that quote as it sounds quite interesting. :cool:

    'It is better to walk alone in the right direction than follow the herd walking in the wrong direction.'



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    Perhaps the most interesting fact about the universe in my opinion is that we can look at the past through a telescope as, relative to the size of the universe, light travels slowly. As far as I know this image:

    500px-Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit1.jpg

    was taken at the start of this decade, yet is actually a snapshot of what a part of the Universe looked like 13 billion years ago. Those Galaxies dont look like that now, assuming they even exist! Similarly, when one sees an event in the sky such as a sun exploding, its likely you are looking at something that happened when the Romans were in Britain. Because we are millions and billions of light years away from these places, we can see what they looked like then. Its quite fascinating.

    Wiki source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field

    Incidentally, a Kurt Vonnegut novel is based on the premise that you shouldt care about people dying because they are only dead in this current moment, and they are still alive in moments passed. Another interesting thought.

    It is pretty class in fairness, but it must be remembered that what we are actually looking at, is the rays of light from those objects as they reach us in the present.

    Just as the sun's rays take 8mins to reach us, we are not actually seeing the sun, as it was 8mins ago, what we are seeing are the suns rays, that left the sun 8mins previously, as they reach the sun at the present moment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    Does the past exist?


    Well you posted this in July, I can read it now, so yes, it does / did (depending on your opinion of 'exist'.

    If you look at the sky at night, or even during the day, you're looking at things that are from the past - even the sun, 8 minutes ago.

    apologies for re-iterating, but, we are not actually looking at something from the past, what we are seeing is the rays of light as they reach the earth in the present moment.
    The past MUST exist, because we have records that it exists that we can clearly see and understand. Be it a fossil, a cave writing, or the stars in the sky - all are things from the past that we can see.

    Something of confusion could be the meaning of the word exist. It means that it exists right now, as opposed to it used to exist, but no longer exists.

    It must of course be remembered that when it did exist, it existed as the present or the Now. This means that technically the past never existed, it is only a term to describe the present as it used to be, but no longer is.

    As for fossils, cave writing, etc. they all exist in the present moment. When they were made, it would have been the present (not "this present moment in time"). Also, whenever they have been observed, it has also been the present.

    What the question should be is this: Does the future exist?

    That is indeed a very good question, and indeed the answer is the same.





    I think what this also means is, time is only relative to the observer at a particular location. I cannot measure your time, I can only measure my own.

    However, if we both set our amazingly accurate atomic clocks at a synchronous time, and we are separated by a great distance (1 close to a large gravitational field, one of us further away), we will see that when we are brought together again our time pieces are no longer synchronised.

    This experiment has been done by synchronising a clock on Earth, and one taken into orbit via a space shuttle, when the astronauts returned, their time piece was faster than the one on Earth.

    In fact, GPS satellites have to take this phenomenon into account when deciphering a location on Earth.

    Time dilation is often cited as evidence for the existence of time, however, there is an incorrect assumption upon which it is based, and that is the assumption that a clock measures something called time.

    The issue is, that time is not so much something that can be measured, but rather is a system of measurement.

    Just as a centimeter cannot be measured, it is a measurement itself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    It is pretty class in fairness, but it must be remembered that what we are actually looking at, is the rays of light from those objects as they reach us in the present.

    Just as the sun's rays take 8mins to reach us, we are not actually seeing the sun, as it was 8mins ago, what we are seeing are the suns rays, that left the sun 8mins previously, as they reach the sun at the present moment.

    Thats not entirely true, if that was the case, you could never actually see anything, only the light that leaves it (which is true) but that light is emmited from the observed object, and has a distance to travel, so what you are seeing IS the object, as it was at the time the light left it.

    In the case of the sun, ~8 minutes ago.

    Even if you're standing next to someone, and looking at them, you are seeing them as they were (distance/speed of light)Time ago.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    Thats not entirely true, if that was the case, you could never actually see anything, only the light that leaves it (which is true)

    This appears to be somewhat contradictory.
    but that light is emmited from the observed object, and has a distance to travel, so what you are seeing IS the object, as it was at the time the light left it.

    In the case of the sun, ~8 minutes ago.

    Even if you're standing next to someone, and looking at them, you are seeing them as they were (distance/speed of light)Time ago.

    I may have misstated what I was trying to say, but I agree with you to a certain extent.

    What we actually see, is the rays of light as they hit the earth in the present, but it looks like the object did, in the case of the sun, 8mins ago.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    lol after reading my post, I see it was sort of not entirely clearly, and a little contradictory! What I meant was, the light leaving is an exact representation of the observed object, as it was when the light left, so though it is the light you 'see' it is, in essence the actual object you're looking at.

    I'm not sure whether thats entirely clear either - its getting late!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭m83


    lol after reading my post, I see it was sort of not entirely clearly, and a little contradictory! What I meant was, the light leaving is an exact representation of the observed object, as it was when the light left, so though it is the light you 'see' it is, in essence the actual object you're looking at.

    I'm not sure whether thats entirely clear either - its getting late!

    Makes perfect sense. One never see's an object, merely the light rays which come from it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,268 ✭✭✭Piriz


    hey,
    i havnt read much more than the first few lines of the first post in this thread, i feel its just a provocative anomaly!... So...does the past exist?
    Yea sure it does..look at any photograph as proof!
    i'd love to put on my double peaked cap and say 'case closed' like Sherlock Holmes, but for a drunk who has to spend the night on the sofa i hardly qualify for such integrity !


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 631 ✭✭✭Joycey


    Only just came across this discussion and havent read the thread so apologies if someone has already lined to this, but theres a good thread about time in the philosophy forum where someone linked to a really interesting video by a guy called Julian Barbour.

    Here it is:
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055746910


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 220 ✭✭kevcos


    I haven't time to read the previous posts, so apologies if someone has already posted a related reply.
    I am reading or in fact re-reading a book at the minute called, The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle. A lot of you may have heard of it, or maybe even read it. The book isn't a scientific text more of a spiritual guide. I have found the book a fascinating read, if not always easy to understand/accept, hence I am re-reading it.
    The author spends quite a bit of time on the concept of the past; is the past of any use to us, does it even exist, etc. Throughout the book the author tells us how he almost never thinks of pasts events or memories, and of how he has little need of the past.

    He puts it something like this.
    The past or future do not exist, all that exist's is now, there has never been a time(though the existent of time itself is another subject!) when this wasn't so.
    Anything that has ever happened, occurred in the now. The future is only a mind projected anticipation of what may occur in the now. If you think of events that happened in the (past!), they occurred in the, then, now. Try to think of a event that happened in the past?, events can only happen in the now. Nothing can occur in the past or future. Events can only happen in the now.

    Anyway I've made a terrible job of trying to explain myself. All I can add is that I would recommend this book to anyone, especially the readers of this thread, as it throws up a different way of looking at past events, and in my opinion, free's you from the rusty shackles of the past and time itself.

    I feel a warm glow and I find myself smiling to myself, each time I realise that all that exists with regard the past and future is now, this present moment. :)


Advertisement