A future experience has yet to happenbahman wrote:
How could we have temporal experience if future and past and present exist ?
In the present it does actually happen
And the past is it after it has happened
A future experience has yet to happenbahman wrote:
How could we have temporal experience if future and past and present exist ?
And how you only experience present if past and future exist too?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:08 pmA future experience has yet to happenbahman wrote:
How could we have temporal experience if future and past and present exist ?
In the present it does actually happen
And the past is it after it has happened
All points in time will variously be past and present and future so all get experiencedbahman wrote:
And how you only experience present if past and future exist too ?
We don't experience past and and future so they shouldn't exist.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:19 pmAll points in time will variously be past and present and future so all get experiencedbahman wrote:
And how you only experience present if past and future exist too ?
This is problematic since it cannot accommodate causality.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:19 pm Alternatively you can simply think of time as being the eternal NOW and nothing else
I think time is objectively real so it passes. We however experience time which I don't know how.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:27 pm
Do we pass through time or does time pass through us or does it actually matter ?
I think so.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:36 pm
So time is both an objective phenomenon and a subjective experience
Deny physics what? Physics has no physical existence. It's a human intellectual construct to explain the structure, function and relationships of things that actually do exist. Physicists make sound observations, theories and predictions; they also think up formulas to describe those functions and relationships through symbolic representation.
Yes, and you're still wrong. You may be able to predict what will happen, and your prediction according to a well-conceived formula may be accurate, but you cannot turn an event into a physical thing.By future exists I mean that it objectively exist and can accommodate a state of affair.
Physics is about how physical functions. Of course it doesn't exist objectively.Skip wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:21 pmDeny physics what? Physics has no physical existence. It's a human intellectual construct to explain the structure, function and relationships of things that actually do exist. Physicists make sound observations, theories and predictions; they also think up formulas to describe those functions and relationships through symbolic representation.
What is an event?Skip wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:21 pmYes, and you're still wrong. You may be able to predict what will happen, and your prediction according to a well-conceived formula may be accurate, but you cannot turn an event into a physical thing.By future exists I mean that it objectively exist and can accommodate a state of affair.
What's so hard about this?
Then how can I have denied it by saying that other concepts don't have objective, physical, independent real-world existence?
The happenings and/or processes that you're tracking with your symbolic, representations in the formula. What we refer to as "time" is an idea, not a thing, and "the passage of time" is a representation of how we experience change in physical objects, including ourselves. Every micro-second represents billions of events, though we are only aware of a tiny fraction.What is an event?
I think that the friction started from the point that you claim that the representation of reality, physics, does not objectively exist. It started in this post. I said that a symbolic formula can represent an aspect of reality. An aspect of reality could be how physical functions.
Ok. I understand what you are thinking of time and other stuff. My point was that without future, or in another word without time, causation is impossible. That is consequence of that symbolic formula.Skip wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:51 pmThe happenings and/or processes that you're tracking with your symbolic, representations in the formula. What we refer to as "time" is an idea, not a thing, and "the passage of time" is a representation of how we experience change in physical objects, including ourselves. Every micro-second represents billions of events, though we are only aware of a tiny fraction.What is an event?
No problem, you should consider analogy to certain primordial phase transition...bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:13 pmWe have a problem at the beginning of time if we use X(t-dt) to X(t) as a causal chain, t being the big bang time.Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:04 am Rather than the Future the History exists. So you can rather consider influence of “(X(t) - X(t-dt))/dt” at the development of the Universe... I personally can see the Future as (Platonic) world/empire of ideas:) If you are interested, you can read more...
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9654#p124332
And I tried to explain that a representation is not a real thing.
You had that the wrong way around the first time you said it. The future doesn't cause either time or any aspect of time.My point was that without future, or in another word without time, causation is impossible.
Formulae have no consequences.That is consequence of that symbolic formula.
We are floating on growing/rising surface of Universe (of “time”:) On phase border between History and Future...surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:27 pm
Do we pass through time or does time pass through us or does it actually matter ?