Time exists only in the future.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

duszek
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Time exists only in the future.

Post by duszek »

We measure time in order to be at a certain place in the future because other people want to be there too and so we can meet them.

To attend a lecture for example.

The present time does not exist because it is either not yet or already gone.

Past time is only relevant as experience stored in our memory which we use to make better plans for the future.
User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by WanderingLands »

duszek wrote:We measure time in order to be at a certain place in the future because other people want to be there too and so we can meet them.

To attend a lecture for example.

The present time does not exist because it is either not yet or already gone.

Past time is only relevant as experience stored in our memory which we use to make better plans for the future.
My three-point argument against this.

1. The "past", whatever it may be to others, is stored into everyone's mind; is recorded by records, and even signs of the past (ie. remnants of a past city or empire).
2. If you look at the etymological origins of time, you would see that it means "to measure or record the time of", which means that Time does include the past, as does also the present.
3. Another thing to look at is causation, and to look at it with Time at a more metaphysical sense. All things flow due to chain-reactions, whether seemingly spontaneous or by intent.
Sal Scilicet
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:12 am

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by Sal Scilicet »

duszek wrote:We measure time in order to be at a certain place in the future because other people want to be there too and so we can meet them.

To attend a lecture for example.

The present time does not exist because it is either not yet or already gone.

Past time is only relevant as experience stored in our memory which we use to make better plans for the future.
Interesting topic. Timeless, in fact. I’m sure people have been wondering about such speculations since … time began.

I was driving behind a road-maintenance truck the other day. On the back was a sign that read, “Caution! Vehicle constantly stopping.”
Impossible of course. We know what is meant, but not what it “says”.

In English, the present participle allows us to turn almost every verb into an ongoing action: turning, ticking, dripping, saying, sleeping, eating … and stopping. How often do we hear each other say, “I’m only saying”. What we mean, of course, is that we really intended (past tense) to say (future tense) something else by what we actually just said (past completed).

The trouble is that we are often conveniently unaware, as there usually isn’t time to ponder these things too closely, that a lot of actions can only occur instantaneously, not ongoing. We say that a clock is “going” when we can hear that it is ticking. The clock isn’t going anywhere. What we mean, of course, is that we have heard the most recent series of “ticks” in anticipation of the next. Whereas a single tick takes no time at all, it’s really the series of ticks we describe as “ticking”. It’s really the measurable periods of silence between each pair of ticks that we observe.

Likewise, a moving body (such as the council truck) cannot really be “constantly stopping”. In fact, ‘stopping’ is altogether a nonsense word. Like ‘dying’, ‘coming’ and ‘going’. We habitually say things like, “I think the bus is stopping.” We don’t even realise that what we really mean is that the bus is slowing down, in anticipation of coming to a halt. To stop is obviously an instantaneous event (only observed when completed), that cannot be maintained for any measurable length of time. When we say the patient is dying, we mean that the dimensionless moment of death is imminent. To die takes no time at all. Real intense suffering, on the other hand, no matter how brief, always seems to take for ever. Like waiting (ongoing) for the kettle to boil (past continuous).

This is how we have become socially and culturally accustomed to use language to create all such absurd, time-bound illusions. To which, incidentally, we have all become rather fiercely attached. And that, in particular, includes this beguiling notion of “the passage of time”.
duszek
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by duszek »

Would it be more precise if you said "Vehicle stopping again and again" ?

Or "Vehicle will stop many times before your drive behind it is over, about one time in a minute" ?

Or "Vehicle usually stops about one time in a minute" ?
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3349
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by HexHammer »

duszek wrote:We measure time in order to be at a certain place in the future because other people want to be there too and so we can meet them.

To attend a lecture for example.

The present time does not exist because it is either not yet or already gone.

Past time is only relevant as experience stored in our memory which we use to make better plans for the future.
PUre nonsense and babble!

There are endless of other reasons to use time as a measurement, like how long a work task takes, so there can be demanded a reasonable fee.

Time just "is" and has no objective purpose in itself, what you think of time seems very kuku.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by Arising_uk »

HexHammer wrote:...

Time just "is" and has no objective purpose in itself, what you think of time seems very kuku.
Just is what? I'd have thought time just the subjective measurement of change in objects?
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3349
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by HexHammer »

Arising_uk wrote:
HexHammer wrote:...

Time just "is" and has no objective purpose in itself, what you think of time seems very kuku.
Just is what? I'd have thought time just the subjective measurement of change in objects?
You haven't read the SRT explanation of time?
duszek
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by duszek »

Is it possible at all to live in the present moment, as many suggest and recommend ?

We can only try to achieve something good in the near or the less near future.

I stretch out my arm to grab a fruit and to put it in my mouth, in the near future.

I decide to make a new bite again and again, hoping for a good feeling in the near future.

Everything done with an intention aims at the future.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3349
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by HexHammer »

duszek wrote:Is it possible at all to live in the present moment, as many suggest and recommend ?

We can only try to achieve something good in the near or the less near future.

I stretch out my arm to grab a fruit and to put it in my mouth, in the near future.

I decide to make a new bite again and again, hoping for a good feeling in the near future.

Everything done with an intention aims at the future.
I think you need to see a shrink.
uwot
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by uwot »

HexHammer wrote:You haven't read the SRT explanation of time?
HexHammer, me old China, I've got just the thing for you! You may be aware that I have a blog and it just so happens that I have explained time dilation described by Special Relativity here:
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogI ... c=postname
and here:
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogI ... c=postname
As I'm sure you appreciate, these explanations don't account for time dilation due to gravity, as described by General Relativity, but heigh-ho, one thing at a time, eh?
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by mtmynd1 »

duzsek, you titled your post: "Time exists only in the future."

You have not acknowledged time exists only in your mind. All these other opinions (and that is what they boil down to) are afterthoughts. Mind's need to measure begets this concept of time we have conjured in our minds simply because mind is insistent in it's need to know. What we currently "know" about time increases with each generation as mind never is satisfied and will continue seeking answers to it's own questions. To believe or accept time 'only' exists in the future does not acknowledge this 'future' even exists. There is no future but a continuum of Now, the everlasting, infinite Now... past and future merely a device for mind to measure.
duszek
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by duszek »

Point taken.

Possibly I used the word "exist" clumsily.

I will try to think of a better way of saying what I wanted to say.

How about "The concept of time makes sense only as a concept of time ahead of us." ?
User avatar
mtmynd1
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TX, USA

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by mtmynd1 »

duszek wrote:
How about "The concept of time makes sense only as a concept of time ahead of us." ?
I'd have to say, that's close. You're still attempting to tie in this idea to some future, i.e. that which is only imaginative or what we presume from given evidence to suppose that which we call "future".

Let's start from a primal (early) idea of time and it is based upon night and day. If we accept time is an accumulation of moments, more moments equals more time, we are still in the present. It is (may be) far more complex for our mind to comprehend Now than it is understanding a past or a future. But mind continues evolving which makes our own evolutionary growth inevitable and there will be a day (future?) that acceptance in reality will supersede our insistence in dreams and drama to define our hu'manity.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3349
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by HexHammer »

uwot wrote:
HexHammer wrote:You haven't read the SRT explanation of time?
HexHammer, me old China, I've got just the thing for you! You may be aware that I have a blog and it just so happens that I have explained time dilation described by Special Relativity here:
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogI ... c=postname
and here:
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogI ... c=postname
As I'm sure you appreciate, these explanations don't account for time dilation due to gravity, as described by General Relativity, but heigh-ho, one thing at a time, eh?
You are totally missing the context.

Besides that..

You need to calculate the gravitational effect, else it will be useless for GPS.
uwot
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Time exists only in the future.

Post by uwot »

HexHammer wrote:
uwot wrote:
HexHammer wrote:You haven't read the SRT explanation of time?
HexHammer, me old China, I've got just the thing for you! You may be aware that I have a blog and it just so happens that I have explained time dilation described by Special Relativity here:
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogI ... c=postname
and here:
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogI ... c=postname
As I'm sure you appreciate, these explanations don't account for time dilation due to gravity, as described by General Relativity, but heigh-ho, one thing at a time, eh?
You are totally missing the context.
Oh. Well could you briefly explain why it is inappropriate to direct you to my blog, HexHammer?
HexHammer wrote:Besides that..

You need to calculate the gravitational effect, else it will be useless for GPS.
Good point, I shall remember that the next time I am positioning a GPS satellite.
Post Reply