Past, PRESENT--future?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:34 am
Age wrote:
worrying about or wanting to gain MORE knowledge of what I call just meaningless stuff to me is of NO real concern

discovering or learning the most basic simple and just plain fundamental meaningful stuff provides the REAL and TRUE Answers that ALL have
been seeking and LOOKING FOR since coming into this thing we call Existence . This is the Truly simple and easy stuff to learn and understand
As you REALLY ALREADY KNOW IT you just do NOT yet KNOW that you do
I dont worry about wanting to gain knowledge as it is just something that I like to do
I do NOT know of any human being who "worries about wanting any thing".

Why did you inform us readers that you do not "worry about wanting" some thing?
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:34 amSimply learning for the sake of learning and that is all there is to it - no more no less

I am simply passing through Existence and my own existence in this mind and and body is therefore temporary
Contradictory IF 'you', "surreptituous57", come to realize and KNOW what that 'I' actually IS, BEFORE that body stops breathing and stops pumping blood, then you will also SEE, RECOGNIZE and UNDERSTAND actually HOW that 'I' 's Existence is NOT at all temporary.
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:34 amThis does not bother me because I am not at all afraid of death .
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to fear, especially when the 'you' discovers AND KNOWS who thee 'I' actually IS.
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:34 amI dont know if the fundamental truth you are
referring to here will have been discovered by me before I die . For only time will tell
A Truly WISE thing to consider, and wonder about.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:52 am
Age wrote:
What is time to you exactly
Time is the temporal measurement of change within a thing or between things
When you say "temporal" what does that actually mean, to you?
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:52 amTime is the temporal difference between any two points within physical space

Time is the passing of an event or events or the passing of a thought or thoughts
None of these, to me, explains what 'time' IS, exactly
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:05 am
Skepdick wrote:
What is the reason which causes you to spend any of your time worrying about unknowable things
Not all future events are unknowable - some are definitely going to happen
For example I know that I am going to die and that might cause me to worry
I hate to disappoint your already ASSUME conclusion here, but thee actual Truth of things might be somewhat different to what you say "are DEFINITELY going to happen".
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:05 amNow I dont actually have a fear of death but if I did then its absolute certainty could not stop me from worrying about it if I was so inclined
The real problem here is not whether worrying about the future is justified or not but why human beings do worry so much about the future
The real answer, to the real question why human beings do worry so much about the future, is; For the EXACT SAME reason WHY ALL human beings do things, which are unnecessary.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Why do human beings have this unique ability to project the future and to do it so very elaborately

we can actually make reality behave after some of the future images we project in our brains
The future that we create within our own imagination and the actual future that then comes to pass are not the same
Obviously NOT ALWAYS. But also just as OBVIOUS is they CAN BE.

Absolute EVERY human made invention/creation CAME FROM human being's own imagination.

Human being's imagination has OBVIOUSLY created a part of what IS reality today.
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:23 amWe cannot make reality at all as what happens is that reality imposes upon us and we simply have to accept it as it is
But 'you', human beings, CAN make reality.

'you' could decide to make some thing, like a pollution free world, and then start making things less polluted, until what happens is there is NO pollution, and so instead of just accepting things as though you have NO control over this so called "world", you could make what it is that you want to happen - A REALITY. After all that is HOW EVERY other human made creation came to be A REALITY.
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:23 amWe therefore dont do anything to reality as reality does everything to us
Maybe 'you' and 'I' have different definitions for the word 'reality'?

Do you do define the word 'reality'?
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:23 amSo we are not the masters of our destiny as the future cannot be known
The future can not be know may well be True. For example, the sun may have exploded less than eight minutes ago before reading this 'now' and so in the relatively very near future, which can NOT be known, 'you', human beings, existing on earth will not be, for much longer at all.

However, in saying that, 'you', human beings, CAN BE the Masters of your destiny. That is; If you so CHOOSE to be.

For example, if 'you' decided that you wanted to live in a much cleaner 'world', then you could decide that tomorrow after I wake up 'I WILL clean up my 'world', and by doing so, (if you do), then 'you' have BECOME the Master of your destiny. If you wake up and start cleaning up your home, then you have just PROVE that you surely can become the Master of your destiny.

How much you choose to do and how much you actually do, is SOLELY up to YOU. That is; BECAUSE 'you' are absolutely FREE to choose to do whatever you want to do. WHY? BECAUSE you are literally thee Master of your OWN DESTINY.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9530
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:01 pm The relationship between what we imagine will happen and what really does happen is most definitely not a causal one
Oh, I think that's obviously not so.

And I'll bet even you think this isn't so, because you act as if it's so. You write this message in the prospect of convincing somebody, don't you? Well, if you thought it was never going to come about, why bother? :shock:
...it is not correlative but merely coincidental for one cannot be guaranteed of any plan being successful
If this were true, there'd be no reason to plan at all...because planning would not produce any success at all. But it does.

Of course there is nothing so extreme as a "guarantee." But so what? What there definitely is, is a higher probability that someone who plans will get something relevant to what they planned to get. A person who plans nothing gets nothing he planned.

And that's as certain an axiom as you will ever find. :wink:
surreptitious57
Posts: 4222
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Immanuel Can wrote:
You write this message in the prospect of convincing somebody
You could not be more wrong as I write so that others more wiser than I can correct any flaws in whatever I say
I therefore have zero intention of convincing anyone of anything I write for I lack both certainty and arrogance
surreptitious57
Posts: 4222
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Age wrote:
Maybe you and I have different definitions for the word reality

How you do define the word reality
For me there are words whose definitions are exactly the same in relation to your question
These words are Reality - Universe - Existence and I define them simply as ALL THAT EXISTS

You said you and I may have different definitions for reality and so therefore what is your definition of reality
Do you agree that the three words I cited all have the same definition or do you have different ones for them
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9530
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:54 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
You write this message in the prospect of convincing somebody
I write so that others more wiser than I can correct any flaws in whatever I say
You can't "correct" you. They can't have a goal or plan in doing anything at all. It won't work, you say. And you won't "change," unless you were fated to, by forces that predetermined that outcome...so what difference does it make? It can't make any difference at all.

They were the inevitable products of the Determinist universe. So were you. All were what they were, and that's the end of the story. :wink:
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jayjacobus
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by jayjacobus »

Age wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:54 pm
Age wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:54 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 pm

Time is defined as a series of states. If there is only one state, then there is no time because everything is frozen.
Why does it HAVE TO BE necessarily "frozen".

Why can one state NOT be in constant-motion?

Also, that is the point of one state, there can be one state of constant-change AND there is NO time, which is exactly how what appears to be happening, to me.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 pmNow is only the current state (or a sequence of deduced states that give now a duration).
What do you mean by "current state" exactly?

A point in time is either a past state (which is remembered), a future state (which is expected) or the present state (which is perceived).
Agreed that that is how 'a point in time' is referred to.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 pmThe memory exists now and the expectation exists now but no past state exists now nor does any future state exist now. Only the present state exists now
When you say 'present state', what do you actually mean?

Are you saying the 'present state' is different to some 'other state'?

If yes, then HOW are these 'states' actually different?

The current state I observe is in a current state of constant-motion or constant-change. So, what do these so called "other states" LOOK LIKE to you? And, how do those "states" actually behave?
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 pmbut our brain extends our perception over a sequence of states making now appear to have a duration (of unknown length).
Only because you are talking about a human brain of some years that has grown up with watches and clocks and "others" telling that brain that there are separate and different states of duration.

The human brain is very easy to fall victim to these types of illusions and beliefs.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 pmWithout memory time would not be perceived.
But what is being perceived actually?

'Time' or just a 'change'?

If it is 'time', then as I said earlier what is 'time', exactly?

If it is 'change', then I agree.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 pm We would be stuck in the present without a clue as to how to deal with the present.
This seems rather far fetched and very unrealistic.

What do you mean by "stuck in the present"?

If there is NO change, thus EVERY thing is frozen completely, then you certainly will NOT have to worry about "having a clue or not, about what to do", as you obviously will NOT be doing any thing at all anyway.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 pmIf you are on a boat, the instantaneous position is now, the evidence of the past is in the wake and the evidence of the future is in the heading.
If you think that I do not yet understand this, then I think you have completely MISSED what I am talking about.

By the way, do you remember the quote of my that you are responding to you here?

If yes, then you did NOT answer my question, which was, What is 'time', to you, exactly?

To me, the word 'time' is just a word used in reference to change, and 'time' is NOT some actual thing itself.
In order for there to be change, there must be more than one state. One state is a constant state. There can't be movement if there is a constant state.

Object A is in one position and one orientation. To change, it must go to another state. In the second state the position of object A can be different and the orientation of A can be different. But if A is in one state, it must always be in the same position and the same orientation.

Time is t1, t2, t3, etc. t1 corresponds to state 1, t2 corresponds to state 2, t3 corresponds to state 3, etc.

The sequence of time is a sequence of states. If there aren't a sequence of states, then there is no time.

Thinking of time as a sequence of dimension is not correct. The sequence of dimensions must be a sequence of states otherwise there can't be change.

Every space has a state but the states must be in equilibrium. This can only happen when the change in state1 is in sync with the change in all surrounding states. If that were not true then the surrounding states would not be connected and the universe would diverge into a chaos of states.

Space must be discrete because, if it isn't, there would be only one state that all spaces would be held in a constant state and the constant state would exist across the universe. One continuous space implies one continuous time and that would mean no changes.

Time has more than one definition but it's basic definition is "Time is a sequence of states." and that answers your question.
Last edited by jayjacobus on Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:08 pm
Age wrote:
Maybe you and I have different definitions for the word reality

How you do define the word reality
For me there are words whose definitions are exactly the same in relation to your question
These words are Reality - Universe - Existence and I define them simply as ALL THAT EXISTS
Okay.
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:08 pmYou said you and I may have different definitions for reality and so therefore what is your definition of reality
'reality' is 'that', what is really wanted, when achieved.

To me, there is a difference being what 'really happened', what is 'really happening', and what is 'really going to happen'.

'reality' is NOT, for example, a life where people were called "witches" and then burned at the stakes to death, although that is exactly what really happened.

'reality' is NOT, for example, a life where people are called "christians", who kill "other" people called "muslims", and vice-versa, although that is exactly what is really happening right now, when this is written.

These life's are NOT 'reality'.

'reality' IS, for example, a life where ALL people are known as equals, with NO separatist views at all, and where ALL people are living in peace and harmony together as One. That is; Living a life that ALL people have always Truly, or really, wanted anyway. When this type of life has been achieved and is existing and being lived, then that is what 'reality' IS.

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:08 pmDo you agree that the three words I cited all have the same definition or do you have different ones for them
To me the three words, like just about EVERY word, have different definitions.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by Age »

jayjacobus wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:31 pm
Age wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:54 pm
Age wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:54 pm

Why does it HAVE TO BE necessarily "frozen".

Why can one state NOT be in constant-motion?

Also, that is the point of one state, there can be one state of constant-change AND there is NO time, which is exactly how what appears to be happening, to me.



What do you mean by "current state" exactly?

A point in time is either a past state (which is remembered), a future state (which is expected) or the present state (which is perceived).
Agreed that that is how 'a point in time' is referred to.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 pmThe memory exists now and the expectation exists now but no past state exists now nor does any future state exist now. Only the present state exists now
When you say 'present state', what do you actually mean?

Are you saying the 'present state' is different to some 'other state'?

If yes, then HOW are these 'states' actually different?

The current state I observe is in a current state of constant-motion or constant-change. So, what do these so called "other states" LOOK LIKE to you? And, how do those "states" actually behave?
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 pmbut our brain extends our perception over a sequence of states making now appear to have a duration (of unknown length).
Only because you are talking about a human brain of some years that has grown up with watches and clocks and "others" telling that brain that there are separate and different states of duration.

The human brain is very easy to fall victim to these types of illusions and beliefs.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 pmWithout memory time would not be perceived.
But what is being perceived actually?

'Time' or just a 'change'?

If it is 'time', then as I said earlier what is 'time', exactly?

If it is 'change', then I agree.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 pm We would be stuck in the present without a clue as to how to deal with the present.
This seems rather far fetched and very unrealistic.

What do you mean by "stuck in the present"?

If there is NO change, thus EVERY thing is frozen completely, then you certainly will NOT have to worry about "having a clue or not, about what to do", as you obviously will NOT be doing any thing at all anyway.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:01 pmIf you are on a boat, the instantaneous position is now, the evidence of the past is in the wake and the evidence of the future is in the heading.
If you think that I do not yet understand this, then I think you have completely MISSED what I am talking about.

By the way, do you remember the quote of my that you are responding to you here?

If yes, then you did NOT answer my question, which was, What is 'time', to you, exactly?

To me, the word 'time' is just a word used in reference to change, and 'time' is NOT some actual thing itself.
In order for there to be change, there must be more than one state. One state is a constant state. There can't be movement if there is a constant state.
I sometimes write in a very paradoxical way. I do this because of the way the actual Truth of things actually ARE.

I commonly write in a way that seems contradictory or absurd, but express a truth. For example, I say the Universe is in a constant state, which, at first glance, appears very contradictory or absurd. Besides me doing this just to highlight and SHOW just HOW quickly human beings will make ASSUMPTIONS, based solely on past experiences, and then just as quickly jump to CONCLUSIONS, even though the ASSUMPTION they made in the beginning could be completely and utterly WRONG or partly wrong, anyway besides writing paradoxically for that reason I also write paradoxically because that is how Life very much appears from 'time to time'.

Life, CAN BE, forever, in one state and there still be movement. In fact there can be a constant state and still be movement.

Life IS in a 'constant state' of 'change'.

The Universe is in one state ALWAYS.
The Universe is constantly-changing.
Therefore, the Universe is in the One state of 'constant-change'.

If the Universe was NOT in that one state of 'constant-change', then It would be in another state, which means It would then have to be in a state of 'NOT changing', and THEN there would NOT be movement. So, the Universe, paradoxically, has to be in thee One constant state of change. Otherwise It would just be frozen or still.

Although the term 'constant-change' is an oxymoron and is a paradox it actually is the Truth of things.
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:31 pm Object A is in one position and one orientation. To change, it must go to another state.
For an 'object' that is NOT thee Universe, Itself, this may well be true. But the Universe can NOT go from one position and one orientation to another position, another orientation, nor another state.
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:31 pm In the second state the position of object A can be different and the orientation of A can be different.
Very true, for ALL objects other than the object 'Universe'.
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:31 pm But if A is in one state, it must always be in the same position and the same orientation.
Very true. If the one state of A is 'change', then A MUST ALWAYS be in the same position and the same orientation, which the object 'Universe' ALWAYS IS in. The Universe is ALWAYS in the constant state of 'change'.

Time is t1, t2, t3, etc. t1 corresponds to state 1, t2 corresponds to state 2, t3 corresponds to state 3, etc.
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:31 pm The sequence of time is a sequence of states. If there aren't a sequence of states, then there is no time.
The change of the One state, which the Universe, Itself, is in, is separated conceptually only, and it is these conceived of "different" sequence of states, which is what is measured, or gets measured against each other.

Thinking of time as a sequence of dimension is not correct. The sequence of dimensions must be a sequence of states otherwise there can't be change.

Every space has a state but the states must be in equilibrium. This can only happen when the change in state1 is in sync with the change in all surrounding states. If that were not true then the surrounding states would not be connected and the universe would diverge into a chaos of states.
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:31 pm Space must be discrete because, if it isn't, there would be only one state that all spaces would be held in and a constant state would exist across the universe. One continuous space implies one continuous time and that would mean no changes.
What does 'space' mean, to you?
jayjacobus wrote: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:31 pm Time has more than one definition but it's basic definition is "Time is a sequence of states." and that answers your question.
No.

One thing I found very helpful in learning how to UNDERSTAND things FULLY, is to NEVER put nor use the word being defined, in the definition, itself.

What I found is this leads more towards confusion than it does towards understanding.
jayjacobus
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by jayjacobus »

Age wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:22 am

One thing I found very helpful in learning how to UNDERSTAND things FULLY, is to NEVER put nor use the word being defined, in the definition, itself.

What I found is this leads more towards confusion than it does towards understanding.
One cannot teach without using words and words have definitions. The word "define" must have a definition to be understood. Without words there just is without any understanding. You would "understand" as an animal understands, completely unable to convey meaning except by showing.

But when I move, do you understand time?

No you don't and you are confused by any explanation whatsoever no matter how simple the explanation is.
Age
Posts: 5280
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by Age »

jayjacobus wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:57 am
Age wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:22 am

One thing I found very helpful in learning how to UNDERSTAND things FULLY, is to NEVER put nor use the word being defined, in the definition, itself.

What I found is this leads more towards confusion than it does towards understanding.
One cannot teach without using words and words have definitions. The word "define" must have a definition to be understood. Without words there just is without any understanding. You would "understand" as an animal understands, completely unable to convey meaning except by showing.
I think you are completely off the mark and have completely missed my point. Nothing you have said he is in relation to what I wrote, and everything you have said here I agree with anyway.
jayjacobus wrote: Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:57 amBut when I move, do you understand time?

No you don't and you are confused by any explanation whatsoever no matter how simple the explanation is.
If you say so.
commonsense
Posts: 2837
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by commonsense »

Just catching up on the thread now, I notice the exclusion of unplanned/unimagined events from the discussion of future reality.

When walking about, I never plan to trip. It happens without my planning it.

I might plan FOR tripping by wearing a helmet and other protective gear, but I don’t plan TO trip.

I can imagine myself tripping, but I trip without imagining it. Tripping occurs without ever coming to mind.

Deterministic or not, things happen all the time despite or in the absence of planning or imagination.

Plans may lead to success if they are successfully executed, but the success of a plan is dependent on more than just the plan itself.

I can plan to become, or imagine becoming, a billionaire. I can plan to become a billionaire by publishing a runaway best selling book on philosophy. I can plan to publish my book by having it accepted by a large and prestigious publishing house. And so on...

However, successful implementation of my plan can be impeded by the publication of someone else’s book on philosophy, a book that is persistently more popular than mine.

The future can be the projection of many events, predetermined or random, that are outside of and more influential than my plans.

While I may not have proved conclusively that the future is independent of my plans/imagination, it may be difficult to argue effectively against this point.
Last edited by commonsense on Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Richardmc
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:21 pm

Re: Past, PRESENT--future?

Post by Richardmc »

'Commonsense' and others talk about "future reality", while I have maintained that reality occurs only in the present or has occurred in the past."Real" is defined as "occurring or existing in actuality", and "actual" as "existing or occurring at the time." Time always starts now and does not yet exist in the future. There are some realities or facts that are timelessly true, such as those on which sciences are based. There are myriads of simple facts that are also timeless- all living things die, humans must breathe and eat in order to live, etc. But- manifestations of these timeless truths must happen before they exist in time. For instance, I know that I will die at some time, but I do not know when or how- that is in the unknown future, which does not yet exist. I persist in trying to get these ideas across because it gives one a logical perspective in living and reasoning, which I believe can be helpful to others. As usual, thoughtful and pertinent postings are welcome.
Post Reply