Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Present vs. Future (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=10823)

Auranceus 05-25-2004 06:15 PM

Present vs. Future
 
Something new to think about...

Will the present be the future or will the future be the present?

My stand is that the present will be the future, because if the present is the current, and the future will be the current, then by transitive properties the present will be the future.

here is a timeline to help you think about it

Past------------------------------Present------------------------------Future

Now, think and give me an answer!

RuhielRaptor 05-25-2004 07:24 PM

Hmmm... It appears to me like you are ttrying to use the following math formula with present as 'A', current as 'B', and future as 'C'.

If A=B
and C=B
then A=C

I don't think that can be applied to time because then there is no future, it's merely another way to express the present at the time of present, not the present that will occur later in time (the future)

Here are my thoughts:

What is happening as you read this was the future before you read it. You just didn't know that you, at the time before reading this, would be reading these words at this point in time, the present. Basically, the present comes from the future but only if viewed that what will happen in the future becomes the present as you experience it.

But the present could be the future if you think that what you are doing at the present was laid out in advance so your present was ahead of you, you just had to catch up to it.

This whole argument though seems to be a more of a matter of opinion to me. You know, one of those "Is the glass half-full or half-empty" kinda things but not as deep.

Looking back at what I wrote I think Im either contradicting myself when I talked about how the future becomes the present or I just repeated myself and disguised it with long sentences. But I do still think this question is a matter of opinion.

Auranceus 05-25-2004 07:27 PM

ya, you did, so whats your answer?

RuhielRaptor 05-25-2004 07:41 PM

It's an opinion based on a person's point of view, i can see how someone could take it either way.

The future becoming the present makes more sense to me though. I can't as easily see the present becoming the future.

xObserveRx 05-25-2004 09:40 PM

Simple. We're in the present. We look forward to a date in the future. That date remains the future until it, inevitable becomes the present. At least one things for sure, everything will eventually become the past! :P

GuidoHunter 05-25-2004 10:12 PM

Re: Present vs. Future
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Auranceus
My stand is that the present will be the future, because if the present is the current, and the future will be the current, then by transitive properties the present will be the future.

It does seem that you used the formulas that Ruhiel laid out, but there's a problem: the past, present, and future (for the sake of argument) are constants, while the current is a variable. Therefore, you can say the past was once the current, the present is the current, and the future will be the current, but that doesn't mean the three are equivalent.

Think back to any time in the past. Is it exactly the same as what is right now? No, and the same applies for the future.

As far as my thoughts, I believe only the past really exists, and it is constantly being augmented. The future doesn't really exist because I don't agree with determinism, and the present doesn't actually exist because the concept of instantaneity isn't real. We just dub what happened in the very recent past the present.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Thingy 05-25-2004 11:16 PM

Aww... man Guido, maybe Im just out of it right now... but that last paragraph of yours just made me think... like WHOA... mostly it was your comment about the present not really existing. I never really thought about it like that.

perfect_fat 05-26-2004 01:41 AM

I think we can agree, the past is over

-George W. Bush

Jam930 05-26-2004 04:00 AM

I dont think "time" exists. I think real "time" is just the rate certain items change...or atoms are rearranged.

Our "time" is actually based upon the rising/falling of the sun...which wouldn't really apply anywhere else in the universe, making it fairly invalid in a universal perspective not based upon our planet and sun alone.

Let's try this on something active...like...the Skyline is traveling at 230 Miles Per Hour. [[ Miles = distance [[ Per= for every [[ Hour = 1/24th of a "rising" to "falling" that occurs of the Sun from a single point on earth's equator.

So this car is travels 230 units of a set distance for every 1/24th of a "day".

It's all relative.
=/

perfect_fat 05-26-2004 04:20 AM



Seriously Jam. WTF?

Jam930 05-27-2004 05:23 AM

I'm saying "time" is just based on the rate at which something happens. For example, the rising/falling of the sun.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution