Immediate future exists otherwise change is not possible

[seeds]

I think I made it clear that I am talking about immediate future time rather than future events.

So then, you are reifying time in such a way that allows it to literally exist in the future.

How?

How does time exist in the future?

Read OP and let me know what is wrong with it.

I already let you know what was wrong with your OP in the posts I made in response to it.

The idea is so silly that I'm having a difficult "time" formulating questions.

And, no, simply reasserting your claim that X and Y cannot exist simultaneously to each other isn't going to cut it, for it ignores the concept of quantum "superposition."

I am talking about actual X and Y when I am arguing that they cannot exist at the same point.

You didn't answer my question, bahman, so, here it is again:

How does time exist in the future?
_______

[Agent Smith]

You may need to disambiguate the conclusion. There are some points of interest worth exploring.

What is ambiguous in my conclusion?

The future, what exactly do you mean by it?

[Iwannaplato]

To show this consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot lay at the same point otherwise they would be simultaneous. Therefore, X and Y must lay at different points, lets call these points, x and y, where y comes after x and x is now. But the change is not possible if y does not exist. Therefore immdeidate future exists otherwise change is not possiple.

That's our word 'change'. Perhaps it's just difference. Now it is X. Now it is Y. We call that 'change' which gives the illusion of overlap, but really Joe is dead now (bullet) and there's difference at different points.

[Agent Smith]

Apologies OP, it seems I'm mistaken. There's no ambiguity at all in your argument. However, what does it all amount to? There's a future and there, ergo, hasta be a past. The present, obviously, exists.

[bahman]

So then, you are reifying time in such a way that allows it to literally exist in the future.

How?

How does time exist in the future?

Read OP and let me know what is wrong with it.

I already let you know what was wrong with your OP in the posts I made in response to it.

The idea is so silly that I'm having a difficult "time" formulating questions.

And, no, simply reasserting your claim that X and Y cannot exist simultaneously to each other isn't going to cut it, for it ignores the concept of quantum "superposition."

I am talking about actual X and Y when I am arguing that they cannot exist at the same point.

You didn't answer my question, bahman, so, here it is again:

How does time exist in the future?
_______

Could we agree that the distance between two points is either zero or non-zero?

[bahman]

To show this consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot lay at the same point otherwise they would be simultaneous. Therefore, X and Y must lay at different points, lets call these points, x and y, where y comes after x and x is now. But the change is not possible if y does not exist. Therefore immdeidate future exists otherwise change is not possiple.

That's our word 'change'. Perhaps it's just difference. Now it is X. Now it is Y. We call that 'change' which gives the illusion of overlap, but really Joe is dead now (bullet) and there's difference at different points.

It seems that you believe in the continuum. I however have an argument against it: The distance between two immediate points in an entity is either nonzero or zero. We are dealing with the discrete entity in the first case. The only candidate for the continuous entity is the second case. The position of two immediate points in the continuous entity is the same. Therefore, the continuous regime is undefinable.

[bahman]

Apologies OP, it seems I'm mistaken. There's no ambiguity at all in your argument. However, what does it all amount to? There's a future and there, ergo, hasta be a past. The present, obviously, exists.

What does this argument amount to? It is against the belief that only now exists.

[seeds]

Could we agree that the distance between two points is either zero or non-zero?

Well, in the theoretically proposed context of what physicists call "non-local" reality where two points (let's say, two electrons) are allegedly in "superposition," then the distance between those two points is, indeed, zero.

However, in the context of what physicists call "local" reality where the two points (again, the two electrons) are found to be in different positions...

(let's say, on the phosphorescent screen of the double slit experiment)

...then, obviously, the distance between those two points is non-zero.

That being said, I find it difficult to imagine what any of that has to do with your claim that future time already exists.

So, again, bahman, how does time already exist in the future?
_______

[bahman]

Could we agree that the distance between two points is either zero or non-zero?

Well, in the theoretically proposed context of what physicists call "non-local" reality where two points (let's say, two electrons) are allegedly in "superposition," then the distance between those two points is, indeed, zero.

However, in the context of what physicists call "local" reality where the two points (again, the two electrons) are found to be in different positions...

(let's say, on the phosphorescent screen of the double slit experiment)

...then, obviously, the distance between those two points is non-zero.

Sorry, my question should be what is the distance between two immediate points, zero or non-zero?

That being said, I find it difficult to imagine what any of that has to do with your claim that future time already exists.

That is important to agree since if the distance between two immediate points is non-zero then your continuous approach is not valid.

So, again, bahman, how does time already exist in the future?
_______

Let, see what is your answer to my question.

[seeds]

Sorry, my question should be what is the distance between two immediate points, zero or non-zero?

Good grief, bahman, is this going to be another situation like in your "There is no emergence" thread where you finally admitted that what you actually meant to say is that there is no such thing as "strong" emergence?

If so, then you need to be more careful in how you phrase your statements and questions, for I can only respond to what you write in these posts.

However, it doesn't matter, because like in that other thread, you are also wrong in this one.

That being said, I find it difficult to imagine what any of that has to do with your claim that future time already exists.

That is important to agree since if the distance between two immediate points is non-zero then your continuous approach is not valid.

So, again, bahman, how does time already exist in the future?

Let, see what is your answer to my question.

It's becoming pretty obvious that you're simply going to keep dodging my question.

In which case, let me try a different approach.

The following gif represents the gradual build-up of electron impacts on the phosphorescent screen of the double slit experiment...



In the densest areas there will no doubt be electrons (or electron impact points) that are "immediately" next to each other (as in their boarders are touching and have no intervening space between them).

And because they are not literally on top of each other, they are separated by the distance of their own individual being. Therefore, at least in that sense, the distance between them is "non-zero," whereas, just prior to impact,...

(i.e., while the electrons were in superposition in the transitional space between the double-slitted wall and that of the screen)

...the distance between them was, indeed, "zero."

Another example of the meaning of the word "immediate" would be how the whole number 4, immediately follows the whole number 3.

And here's a short list of more examples taken from the dictionary:

immediate
adj

• 1. closest or most direct in effect or relationship: the immediate cause of his downfall.
  2. contiguous in space, time, or relationship: our immediate neighbor.

Number 2 is simply an affirmation of my electron gif example.

Now, with all of that being said, I'm still waiting for you to explain how time already exists in the "immediate" future, which is basically a reification of time in such a way that allows you to suggest that it already exists in the same way that my "immediate" next door neighbor exists - right now - relative to me.

Again, bahman, you are evoking something that resembles the "block universe" nonsense, except in this case it's worse, because instead of the pre-existence of future "material events," you are putting some big knickers...



...on the "abstract concept" of time and saying that it (future time) must be pre-existent in some way, otherwise your cockamamie theory won't work.
_______

[bahman]

Sorry, my question should be what is the distance between two immediate points, zero or non-zero?

Good grief, bahman, is this going to be another situation like in your "There is no emergence" thread where you finally admitted that what you actually meant to say is that there is no such thing as "strong" emergence?

If so, then you need to be more careful in how you phrase your statements and questions, for I can only respond to what you write in these posts.

However, it doesn't matter, because like in that other thread, you are also wrong in this one.

That being said, I find it difficult to imagine what any of that has to do with your claim that future time already exists.

That is important to agree since if the distance between two immediate points is non-zero then your continuous approach is not valid.

So, again, bahman, how does time already exist in the future?

Let, see what is your answer to my question.

It's becoming pretty obvious that you're simply going to keep dodging my question.

In which case, let me try a different approach.

The following gif represents the gradual build-up of electron impacts on the phosphorescent screen of the double slit experiment...



In the densest areas there will no doubt be electrons (or electron impact points) that are "immediately" next to each other (as in their boarders are touching and have no intervening space between them).

And because they are not literally on top of each other, they are separated by the distance of their own individual being. Therefore, at least in that sense, the distance between them is "non-zero," whereas, just prior to impact,...

(i.e., while the electrons were in superposition in the transitional space between the double-slitted wall and that of the screen)

...the distance between them was, indeed, "zero."

Another example of the meaning of the word "immediate" would be how the whole number 4, immediately follows the whole number 3.

And here's a short list of more examples taken from the dictionary:

immediate
adj

• 1. closest or most direct in effect or relationship: the immediate cause of his downfall.
  2. contiguous in space, time, or relationship: our immediate neighbor.

Number 2 is simply an affirmation of my electron gif example.

Now, with all of that being said, I'm still waiting for you to explain how time already exists in the "immediate" future, which is basically a reification of time in such a way that allows you to suggest that it already exists in the same way that my "immediate" next door neighbor exists - right now - relative to me.

Again, bahman, you are evoking something that resembles the "block universe" nonsense, except in this case it's worse, because instead of the pre-existence of future "material events," you are putting some big knickers...



...on the "abstract concept" of time and saying that it (future time) must be pre-existent in some way, otherwise your cockamamie theory won't work.
_______

For God's sake! Think of time or space, what is the distance between two immediate points in time, zero or non-zero?

[seeds]

For God's sake! Think of time or space, what is the distance between two immediate points in time, zero or non-zero?

There is only the "NOW," bahman.

Therefore, it makes no sense to ask a question that is based on the false assumption that there could exist two simultaneously existing points in time.

Stop asking me the same question over and over again and just tell me what you think the answer is.

And, no, bahman, your OP in no way proves that the "immediate future" (whatever that means) exists, so don't ask me to read it again.

And lastly, try putting a little more effort into clarifying your hypothesis.
_______

[Agent Smith]

Apologies OP, it seems I'm mistaken. There's no ambiguity at all in your argument. However, what does it all amount to? There's a future and there, ergo, hasta be a past. The present, obviously, exists.

What does this argument amount to? It is against the belief that only now exists.

So I wasn't wrong then. Anyway, it seems we lack the tools to work with this kinda material.

[bahman]

For God's sake! Think of time or space, what is the distance between two immediate points in time, zero or non-zero?

There is only the "NOW," bahman.

Therefore, it makes no sense to ask a question that is based on the false assumption that there could exist two simultaneously existing points in time.

Stop asking me the same question over and over again and just tell me what you think the answer is.

And, no, bahman, your OP in no way proves that the "immediate future" (whatever that means) exists, so don't ask me to read it again.

And lastly, try putting a little more effort into clarifying your hypothesis.
_______

Does time change?

[commonsense]

To show this consider a change in a system, X to Y. X and Y cannot lay at the same point otherwise they would be simultaneous. Therefore, X and Y must lay at different points, lets call these points, x and y, where y comes after x and x is now. But the change is not possible if y does not exist. Therefore immdeidate future exists otherwise change is not possiple.

You misunderstand the future. The future is nothing more than a collection of expectations about now. It doesn’t exist.

The future can become now without change.

The past only exists as memories of what was once now.

The distance between now and the nonexistent future cannot be measured, for they represent a difference of kind and not a difference of degree.