Just an idea from JustJono..

[JustJono]

What I'm about to explain is.. well.. really hard to explain.

Recently I got this idea that there is no past. Meaning that a particle that has moved from point A to point B, never really was at point A in the first place; it's just at point B. It isn't called a particle that "used to be at point A". It's just considered "the particle that is currently at point B". If a particle is annihilated, then that particle never really was. If a particle is created, then that particle always existed. Only the present holds true to reality.

The reason I say this is because "past" and "memories" are a creation of the human mind. We adapted to a nature where when we see something happen, we later assume that, "Hey, that happened." When really, memories could very well be just a figment of our imagination. A past perception doesn't exist in the present, so in effect, that event does not exist at all.

The discovery of electricity never happened. We just currently know there is electricity and that it's available to us.

I did not eat this morning's breakfast. I am just currently full.

This theory really has no importance, because it doesn't prove or disprove any current theoretical ideas. It's just one of those ideas that, if true, would change the way we think of life (at both macroscopic and microscopic scales). It also just happens to be one of those ideas that can't be proven, disproven, or experimentally tested. Bummer, eh?

The only actual exception in this theory that I've found is that objects that aren't in constant motion could be traced back to a past position.

To make sure that exception doesn't disprove my idea directly, I'm going to state that this theory only applies to objects that are motionless or are in constant velocity motion (or both .. ).

Also, I've come to conclude that the future can only exist in the past. Let's say that the past DOES exist. An object at point A in the past needs a future, or else it will never reach point B; because point B is in the future.

If the future exists in the past, and the past is the equivalent to non-existance, then that thereby validates my theory, that objects in the present, are the only objects that exist.

I hope I'm not insane.

[ramonesfan]

Well, ummm without a past how is there a present? past determines present AND future, without past there is nothing because nothing was there to begin with

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by ramonesfan

Well, ummm without a past how is there a present? past determines present AND future, without past there is nothing because nothing was there to begin with

You are very closed minded. Just try to forget about all that you "know" of the laws of time and space and listen to what this man has to say.

@Jono: That made perfect sense to me. I actually argue with people over similar ideas. I love throwing out the idea that the past and future don't exist and that all that does exist is now.

There's something else I want to say, but my brain doesn't seem to be running at full capacity right now. I know there's something else I wanted to add that would disproove this theory, but I can't think of it now. I'll probably be back tommorow or something to play devil's advocate.

[JustJono]

Yes.. muahaha.. bring on the discussion. Take your time.

[ramonesfan]

afrobean I never said that that was the way it has to be I was just giving my opinion on what jono said but it does make sense to me what he was saying but i just dont think it is true

[jazzmosis]

The problem with your theory is that without a past, time can't exist - and since the base unit for everything in our own perception is time, reality cannot exist without time. The only thing that can deny time is a dream. So by saying their is no past is by saying that this is all a dream we're having, while not actually existing... see where your theory is flawed?

[Kilgamayan]

Time doesn't exist. Humans try to quantify it with numbers, but in reailty, it doesn't exist.

[AlbinoLime]

So, what you are saying is that you never wrote this post, but it has always been here? Oh yea, and when I'm done writing this post, which isnt in the past yet cause im writing it, but will be when u read it, then it would have always existed? And of course there are the people who posted before me, but we dont know who posted first because they have always been there, just like the internet.

Holy Shit, this is probably the dumbest thing I have read in this forum.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by AlbinoLime

So, what you are saying is that you never wrote this post, but it has always been here? Oh yea, and when I'm done writing this post, which isnt in the past yet cause im writing it, but will be when u read it, then it would have always existed? And of course there are the people who posted before me, but we dont know who posted first because they have always been there, just like the internet.

You missed the point. "It has always been here" is completely contradictory to his argument. If something has always been, that means it has a past. What he's saying is that it is here, not that it has been here.

Heh, Jono, this reminded me of some discussion in the CT forum where I suggested that the present doesn't actually exist due to the problem of instantaneity. Anyone care to disprove the existence of the future?

Sigh, perhaps I'll come back with a more meaningful response after I finish studying for O-Chem and Linear Algebra... But good thought, Jono.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

It doesn't work that way, time still works with or without humans. Time is not an invention of the human mind.

Interesting post, though.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by chardish

It doesn't work that way, time still works with or without humans. Time is not an invention of the human mind.

Really? Time is completely relative to us. Without humans, there would be no pondering a beginning or an end (or anything time-related for that purpose), so there would be no use for time. It's meaningless to conceive of a universe without humans because it wouldn't affect us at all, so everything could be time-independent without problems. We created time to judge things in relation to us.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[GuidoHunter]

=( Frown. Double post (and I even went back to check and see if it posted!) and I can't edit it out. PC -1 plz.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Xaimus]

That seems to be a more complicated expression of "If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it, does it make any noise?"

[GuidoHunter]

For some reason the Anthropic principle keeps popping into my head, but I can't figure out how it relates very well... Maybe it's just the whole direct link between us and the universe.

As for the whole "tree falling in a forest" thing, yeah, my thought pretty much is an elaboration on that. It also supports Jono's claim.

It is meaningless to conceive of a world without us -> Things that do not concern us are meaningless -> The only things that directly concern us are things that are occurring -> The past is meaningless to us -> For the purpose of progress, the past doesn't exist.

Now, I'm not holding Jono's argument or my beliefs to this idea; I just wanted to try and illustrate a point. I know that there are some weak links in that chain of logic, and that my words don't completely get my idea across, but whatever.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[rocelahura]

You may have just been placed on Earth a minute ago with memories of the past.

[The_Q]

Ok, to clear up what we've decided in previous threads. There is no time at all. Time is the human measurement of duration (aka: **** happening and how long it is happens) There is not time without humans, but obviously, duration keeps moving even if humans aren't around. Otherwise, there'd be no dinosaurs.

And also, there is now past-present-or future, at least in my eyes. Let me explain.
The future moves so quickly into the past there's no "time" for present.

This one's more complex. It has to do with time travel so bear with me. If the future is undecided, it's impossible to go there, so time travel is a one way street. That also means that nobody can travel from the future because that means there is a definate future. I would think that works with the past to. If it's unstable and can be changed, no travel into it either. Unless there's fate. Then it's ok.

So basically, past present and future are all relative terms we use to help measure time. Duration is the pure form of the stuff time is measuring, and it all exists in different rates of duration (see theory of relativity). We feel the need to compile it all into one when it's far too complicated to do any of it at all. All "timelines" are separate but exist on the same plane.

It's all speculation.

Q

[AlbinoLime]

Originally Posted by JustJono

The discovery of electricity never happened. We just currently know there is electricity and that it's available to us.

I did not eat this morning's breakfast. I am just currently full.

OK! So he is saying that the discovery of electricity never happened, and that all of the people who think they know when and who discovered it are wrong because it was never really discovered? And maybe they are not wrong, but would't that mean that electricity was discovered, which would also mean that your "theory" is wrong? If you recorded yourself eating breakfast, you would know that you did actually eat the breakfast.
Also, all of the other video documentation in the world means nothing because none of the things recorded ever happened?

[AniamL]

I kind of disagree with your suggestion that there is no present. It's like a limit in mathematics: take the equation y = x^2/x (x squared over x... yes, this is technically different than just x, because it contains a hole at the origin.) What is the y value at x = 0? It doesn't have one... there's a hole, it's 0/0, it's undefined (indeterminate, technically.) But as x approaches zero, the value becomes closer and closer to 0. This is kind of a 3:30-in-the-morning way I see the present. You can't just say there is no present, because although it only lasts for an infinitesimal amount of time, it does last.

[JustJono]

The theory of there not being a present was Guido's idea, not mine.

@The Q and Albino,

The main idea of the theory is that matter doesn't need a past to be currently where they are. Looking at an electron, it doesn't matter where it used to be. All that matters is where it is now.

I just realized, my theory has a life moral too.