Immediate future exists otherwise change is not possible

[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.

[seeds]

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.

Let's say X is an illogical proposition.

While, on the other hand, Y is a logical refutation of X.

In which case, Y is simply an "emergent" outcome of X and did not exist prior to X.

In quantum terms, Y would merely be in a state of superposition (unreal probabilities) that only exists in the "now," and only emerges in a future now once Y is explicated from its state of potential and thus made real in that future now.

Neither the future nor the past exist. There is only the "now."

Indeed, quantum superposition is a direct refutation of the following line from your OP...

X and Y cannot lay at the same point otherwise they would be simultaneous.

_______

[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.

Let's say X is an illogical proposition.

While, on the other hand, Y is a logical refutation of X.

In which case, Y is simply an "emergent" outcome of X and did not exist prior to X.

In quantum terms, Y would merely be in a state of superposition (unreal probabilities) that only exists in the "now," and only emerges in a future now once Y is explicated from its state of potential and thus made real in that future now.

Neither the future nor the past exist. There is only the "now."

Indeed, quantum superposition is a direct refutation of the following line from your OP...

X and Y cannot lay at the same point otherwise they would be simultaneous.

_______

X and Y are states of the system by state I mean a set of properties that define the system at any given moment. By the way, what do you mean by future now?

[seeds]

X and Y are states of the system by state I mean a set of properties that define the system at any given moment. By the way, what do you mean by future now?

Other than in the form of "potential," the attributes of the system that you call "X" did not contain any existent future "Y."

By the way, what do you mean by future now?

""Now"".... no, ""now"".... no ""now"" ---> ad infinitum, is (was) a "future now" relative to the "past now" moment in which your OP was conceived and posted.

If we wanted to assign a vaguely visualizable rate by which each instant of the "now" is passing by, then perhaps we could use Planck time.

According to Wiktionary, Planck time is...

A natural unit of time, equivalent to the time it takes light to traverse one Planck length; it is the smallest duration of time that has physical meaning.

And according to Space.com:

How long is a Planck time?
The U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology gives the value of the Planck time as 5.391247 × 10^-44 seconds. In other sources, including Planck's original paper, you may find a slightly bigger value around 1.35 × 10^-43 seconds.

The point is that the future does not exist - not even in one unit of Planck time beyond the "now."
_______

[bahman]

X and Y are states of the system by state I mean a set of properties that define the system at any given moment. By the way, what do you mean by future now?

Other than in the form of "potential," the attributes of the system that you call "X" did not contain any existent future "Y."

By the way, what do you mean by future now?

""Now"".... no, ""now"".... no ""now"" ---> ad infinitum, is (was) a "future now" relative to the "past now" moment in which your OP was conceived and posted.

If we wanted to assign a vaguely visualizable rate by which each instant of the "now" is passing by, then perhaps we could use Planck time.

According to Wiktionary, Planck time is...

A natural unit of time, equivalent to the time it takes light to traverse one Planck length; it is the smallest duration of time that has physical meaning.

And according to Space.com:

How long is a Planck time?
The U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology gives the value of the Planck time as 5.391247 × 10^-44 seconds. In other sources, including Planck's original paper, you may find a slightly bigger value around 1.35 × 10^-43 seconds.

The point is that the future does not exist - not even in one unit of Planck time beyond the "now."
_______

How time can change if it only exists at now?

[seeds]

How time can change if it only exists at now?

Entropy, for one, causes the attributes of a phenomenal system to change via heat loss or some other factors that occur in a cascading sequence, all of which takes place in what we refer to as "time" in which a system evolves from one state (e.g., hot) to another state (e.g., less hot).

Clearly, logic insists that the "less hot" state of the system did not literally already exist sometime in the future, and only came about as a result of the changes that transpired (evolved) in the "now" of the hotter state of the system.

You already know all of this stuff, bahman.

Are you trying to prove (or give credence to) the "Block Universe" theory?
_______

[Cerveny]

A minimal time difference (layer / sediment) must exist (in reality) because the behavior of the system (forces…) depends on the rate of changes, on the differences of the following states…

[bahman]

How time can change if it only exists at now?

Entropy, for one, causes the attributes of a phenomenal system to change via heat loss or some other factors that occur in a cascading sequence, all of which takes place in what we refer to as "time" in which a system evolves from one state (e.g., hot) to another state (e.g., less hot).

Clearly, logic insists that the "less hot" state of the system did not literally already exist sometime in the future, and only came about as a result of the changes that transpired (evolved) in the "now" of the hotter state of the system.

You already know all of this stuff, bahman.

Yes, I know this stuff. For example, I know that time is not a thermodynamic variable.

Are you trying to prove (or give credence to) the "Block Universe" theory?
_______

No, the block universe is a model that tells that future events exist.

[seeds]

Are you trying to prove (or give credence to) the "Block Universe" theory?

No, the block universe is a model that tells that future events exist.

I was going to leave this thread alone in the hope that the irony in your answer would be obvious to everyone.

However, bahman, I began to suspect that it was not obvious to you.

So, take your time and see if you notice any problem in the following three (slightly enhanced for emphasis) quotes...

"Are you trying to prove (or give credence to) the "Block Universe" theory?"

"No, the block universe is a model that tells that future events exist."

The "Immediate future exists otherwise change is not possible" - bahman's OP title

_______

[Impenitent]

no matter how immediate, the future is never here

it is always now

besides, coins exist so change is not only possible- but it is a near certainty

-Imp

[bahman]

Are you trying to prove (or give credence to) the "Block Universe" theory?

No, the block universe is a model that tells that future events exist.

I was going to leave this thread alone in the hope that the irony in your answer would be obvious to everyone.

However, bahman, I began to suspect that it was not obvious to you.

So, take your time and see if you notice any problem in the following three (slightly enhanced for emphasis) quotes...

"Are you trying to prove (or give credence to) the "Block Universe" theory?"

"No, the block universe is a model that tells that future events exist."

The "Immediate future exists otherwise change is not possible" - bahman's OP title

_______

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

[Agent Smith]

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

[seeds]

No, the block universe is a model that tells that future events exist.

I was going to leave this thread alone in the hope that the irony in your answer would be obvious to everyone.

However, bahman, I began to suspect that it was not obvious to you.

So, take your time and see if you notice any problem in the following three (slightly enhanced for emphasis) quotes...

"Are you trying to prove (or give credence to) the "Block Universe" theory?"

"No, the block universe is a model that tells that future events exist."

The "Immediate future exists otherwise change is not possible" - bahman's OP title

_______

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?

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."
_______

[bahman]

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

What is ambiguous in my conclusion?

[bahman]

I was going to leave this thread alone in the hope that the irony in your answer would be obvious to everyone.

However, bahman, I began to suspect that it was not obvious to you.

So, take your time and see if you notice any problem in the following three (slightly enhanced for emphasis) quotes...



_______

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.

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.