Does the Future Already Exist?

[Greenlight]

The time is now.
there is no other time.

The future is what we decide but there are inevitabilities because of the momentum of these decisions.

 

[COLGeek]

Morality (knowing difference between right and wrong and how to treat others) is not a religious upbringing thing. However, enough off topic chatter.

 

[Gibsense]

The time is now.
there is no other time.

In the context of the discussion, for us, this surely is correct. "The future just sits there until we provide the time as we roll over it" is a possible response

 

[Questioner]

'Morality' is an often a hollow veneer of ethics.
Divine edicts without reason.

Very often a licensing for psychotic barbarous glee veiled by a guase of 'divinity'.

Actual ethics takes time and effort to sort through and with absolutely no guarantee of a smug satisfying determination.

Time travel is a minefield both ethically and logically.
There may be no external frame of reference POV to evaluate outcomes.

It's easy to speculate something/someone changing something one way and then back the other way over and over (infinite loop) with no external way of detecting it.

Untraceable 'groundhog day' forever.

 

[bearwill]

Past & Future is only in Our Minds. So, the Universe is the only limit to what can be obtainable & becomes facts.
I've always asked Why.

 

[Gibsense]

Past & Future is only in Our Minds.

Who told you that?

 

[Atlan0001]

Since I was very young I have believed that all three time states may exist. Present, past and future. What if they are all happening right now?

I don't think it's unreal to suggest this. Our consciousness is here in the present but what if the past and the future are just as real as the present seems to us?

They call this the "block universe" theory. It means everything that's ever happened or will happen is already there, kind of like different scenes in a movie.

If the future is already out there, does that mean our choices are set in stone? Or do we still have free will?

Einstein said, "God does not play dice with the universe!"
Hawking answered him well much later in time, "Yes God does play dice with the universe but they're loaded!" Laws, sir, laws! Natural laws! Physics, sir, PHYSICS!!!!

If there are sixteen branching paths a particle can take, it will take them all! Each path leads to sixteen more branching paths the particle can take and it will take them all! And so on to infinities. The base set of sixteen paths is not infinite, though.

Tesseract - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Catastrophe]

IMHO, there may be an offshoot idea from my flatlander analogy posts here, in that the D+ observer might see the spheres (which might contain flatlander time) as more like another space dimension.

According to the terms of the analogy, the flatlander experiences expansion as increase in surface area (2D) of his spherical surface. To the higher, D+, being the "radius" of the flatlander sphere might be perceived as "space" dimension, but as "time" dimension to the flatlander.

I must caution most strongly against trying to tease out minutiae of detail from an analogy which, in any case, is not intended to be congruent with reality. I suggest that they should be treated more like informal little parables. Otherwise, there is a danger of losing any helpful comparative insight, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I would just like to add that, if different people have different insights, and, perhaps see more in an analogy, then that is fine by me.

The best I can suggest, is that one can complicate beyond the point of utility, for other people.

Take the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk". It would completely ruin the appeal, and any message, if one starts dissecting and criticising along the lines "How could the giant's world, including his castle, possibly be supported by a beanstalk?" "The story is just impossible. It does not make sense. It does not hang together".

The story would just degenerate into nonsense.

What happens in Jack and the Beanstalk? Teaching Wiki

https://www.twinkl.co.uk/blog/the-story-of-jack-and-the-beanstalk-activities-for-kids

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

'Gulliver's Travels' 'Giant-land' and 'lilliput', and Star Wars' base of life, life-into-the-infinitesimal 'Midichlorians' (or something like that) make sense as relative points [entangling at-a-distance] and, inversely, vice-versa. To what we see as energetic single-celled creatures, possibly made of much life in discrete quanta we don't see or realize, we are giants in our giant-land castles up the bean stalk.

To a titanic spacefaring Civilization of life, one that has a life of its own separate from its makeup, we would be energetic single-celled creatures of that makeup going about our own business separate from the larger mass genius of the massed Civilization's swarm creature.

 

[Gibsense]

According to the terms of the analogy, the flatlander experiences expansion as increase in surface area (2D) of his spherical surface. To the higher, D+, being the "radius" of the flatlander sphere might be perceived as "space" dimension, but as "time" dimension to the flatlander.

I must caution most strongly against trying to tease out minutiae of detail from an analogy which, in any case, is not intended to be congruent with reality. I suggest that they should be treated more like informal little parables. Otherwise, there is a danger of losing any helpful comparative insight, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

This is where our statements part Company. The balloon analogy is fine for your flatlander thought experiment.

Of mathematical reality is a hypersphere. There is no question of 'teasing out' as a necessary process. It leaves the balloon analogy behind for what it is: an analogy designed to show how the universe expands where separation speeds exceed 'c'.

As you quoted the analogy I thought I would show how it might help understand a hypersphere - especially using flatlanders. Any 'teasing out' is from the concept of a hypersphere. Caution is only relevant to the accuracy of the teasing process which is a step on from the simpler balloon analogy.

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense,

I clearly stated:

I would just like to add that, if different people have different insights, and, perhaps see more in an analogy, then that is fine by me.

I also clearly stated that my only interest in "my" analogy is to help understanding the idea of a universe ("all there is" to the relevant observer) expanding into "what". Your analogy is not the same.

You then stated:

I thought I would show how it might help understand a hypersphere - especially using flatlanders.

I made no mention of hyperspheres.

This seems to me rather like "giving a dog a bad name, and then hanging it".

I repeat, my only interest is to, perhaps, clarify, for me, the problem of a universe (all there is) expanding into what?

Cat

 

[Classical Motion]

A most valid question.

 

[Gibsense]

But there are more here with interests!

 

[Catastrophe]

But there are more here with interests!

I repeat again

I would just like to add that, if different people have different insights, and, perhaps see more in an analogy, then that is fine by me.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Cat: I would just like to add that, if different people have different insights, and, perhaps see more in an analogy, then that is fine by me.

Well, that's very kind but can I also repeat that the analogy is just a step to a more revealing picture of a Hypersphere?

 

[Questioner]

Does the future already exist?

If it did wouldn't it be part of the present?

Does the past [already] exist?

Without a theoretical framework can we prove the past exists or existed?

Maybe the past is just a theory story we tell ourselves.

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat: I would just like to add that, if different people have different insights, and, perhaps see more in an analogy, then that is fine by me.

Well, that's very kind but can I also repeat that the analogy is just a step to a more revealing picture of a Hypersphere?

Gibsense, I do not seem to be able to get myself understood.

I appreciate that you are extending the flatlander idea, beyond my original conception, but my original purpose, and still my only interest here, is to help myself understand the concept of 'extending into itself'. My only hold on this requires, based only on my analogy, that a 'higher dimensional empowered observer' sees the 'expansion' of a flatlander (observed) universe in a way unavailable to the flatlander.

For the purposes of my objective, I do not, nor do I see any need to, introduce hypersphere. Indeed, I would go further, and suggest that any introduction of hypersphere into my analogy is not only useless, but actually causes totally unnecessary confusion.

Nothing of this, of course, contradicts the rights of yourself, or anyone else, to pursue different objects, generalisations or investigations into hyperspheres. They are just not in mine.

Am I making myself clear? Please continue to mention hyperspheres if you wish, but please do not suggest that they have anything to do with my objective.

At the risk of repeating myself, My only objective here is to try to help myself understand how any (observable)) universe can be seen as expanding into anything, when a universe is supposed to be 'all there is'. I am helped by this analogy, and my objective is satisfied. That is all I care about in this matter. You can widen your thoughts on this as you please, but that has absolutely no effect on helping me in my objective. They are simply superfluous to my understanding.

I acknowledge your right to think as you please, but please do not try to force me into your way of thinking, when I am absolutely happy with my results

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Does the future already exist?

If it did wouldn't it be part of the present?

Does the past [already] exist?

Without a theoretical framework can we prove the past exists or existed?

Maybe the past is just a theory story we tell ourselves.

I most definitely do not mean any disrespect, But I have to say that, as far as I am concerned, your post just seems to be playing around with words in a not very helpful way.

Vide "The map is not the territory" Korzybski.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

This is where our statements part Company. The balloon analogy is fine for your flatlander thought experiment.

Of mathematical reality is a hypersphere. There is no question of 'teasing out' as a necessary process. It leaves the balloon analogy behind for what it is: an analogy designed to show how the universe expands where separation speeds exceed 'c'.

As you quoted the analogy I thought I would show how it might help understand a hypersphere - especially using flatlanders. Any 'teasing out' is from the concept of a hypersphere. Caution is only relevant to the accuracy of the teasing process which is a step on from the simpler balloon analogy.

Page 2 - Does the Future Already Exist?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

is my example of what I am referring to.

which is a step on from the simpler balloon analogy

No. My sphere analogy is complete in itself, and, IMHO, is not improved (actually definitely adulterated by trying to make it more complicated. Please see 'my objective' description.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

At the risk of repeating myself, My only objective here is to try to help myself understand how any (observable)) universe can be seen as expanding into anything, when a universe is supposed to be 'all there is'. I am helped by this analogy, and my objective is satisfied. That is all I care about in this matter. You can widen your thoughts on this as you please, but that has absolutely no effect on helping me in my objective. They are simply superfluous to my understanding.

That is quite clear thank you. I have done my best to assist. I hope you achieve some satisfaction in your mission.

It seems to me responses to the initial thread are about the thread; not necessarily a person. Permission for 'hypersphere' responses where appropriate is appreciated

 

[Gibsense]

No. My sphere analogy is complete in itself, and, IMHO, is not improved (actually definitely adulterated by trying to make it more complicated. Please see 'my objective' description.

NB Just a thought - the Balloon Analogy has been around for at least 40+ years. I have had, and indeed am still having, the shock of finding that what I thought were original ideas have already been discussed. That does not however negate their value.

 

[Gibsense]

Questioner said:
Does the future already exist?

If it did wouldn't it be part of the present?

Does the past [already] exist?

Without a theoretical framework can we prove the past exists or existed?

 

[Gibsense]

Questioner said:
Does the future already exist?

If it did wouldn't it be part of the present?

Does the past [already] exist?

Without a theoretical framework can we prove the past exists or existed?

Attempts to answer these fundamental questions include the Block Universe.
It assumes all past present and future exist simultaneously and relegates the arrow of time to our limited perception.

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense,

That is quite clear thank you. I have done my best to assist

and it is much appreciated. Thank you. I did not mean to appear ungrateful.
I am sorry for going a bit 'over the top', but complicating the issue was really not helping.

the Balloon Analogy has been around for at least 40+ years.

There is an old saying, which is very applicable:

There is nothing new under the Sun

I take your point, and agree

When I emphasised my objective, I used 'my' only in the context of the immediate objective I was addressing - not in any sense of unique personal ownership.

Apologies again for the over emphasis, but I needed to explain that my objective was simple, and had been achieved to my satisfaction. I did not want to waste the time of you kind people who have participated.

Cat