# Does the Future Already Exist?

Page 3 - 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.

#### spacedweller

If future "exists" then it follows that fate exists.
If fate exists then it follows no free will exists.

If this is correct then it also follows that existence of a future is not scientific but rather philosophical or religious approach.

I personally don't believe in fate but do believe in free will, so the future is what we make it.

But from another perspective, the astronomical one, while we can influence each other and our own actions (which aligns with previous statements) we can't influence the universe, so the future might exist on astronomical scale.

#### Gibsense

If future "exists" then it follows that fate exists.
If fate exists then it follows no free will exists.

If this is correct then it also follows that existence of a future is not scientific but rather philosophical or religious approach.

I personally don't believe in fate but do believe in free will, so the future is what we make it.

But from another perspective, the astronomical one, while we can influence each other and our own actions (which aligns with previous statements) we can't influence the universe, so the future might exist on astronomical scale.
I propose that the future exists but we amend it on arrival (a continual process)

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Gibsense,

I propose that the future exists but we amend it on arrival (a continual process)

This must be true on larger scales, due to inertia.

The smaller the difference, the more likely it is susceptible to change.

Cat

Gibsense

#### Questioner

The problem with a hypersphere of space growing in the/a time void/space/dimension is that time doesn't pass uniformly throughout the universe.

Around black holes where time is incredibly slow.
So the radii of the posited hypersphere would be much shorter there.
It would have sharp pointed inward dimples.

The geometry to those incredible BH dimples require additional space to conjoin with the majority of the hypersphere/surface.

I'm not saying the general concept is impossible,
but it has some significant hurdles.

I suppose one could propose that the temporal extent/existence [spine] of mass/matter floats outward with the expanding hypersphere,
but that would create non-uniformity on the interior of the hypersphere.

That might imply the present has distorting influence on the past.

Everyone's a critic.

#### COLGeek

##### Cybernaut
Moderator
I propose that the future exists but we amend it on arrival (a continual process)
So, the future is now?

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Is this not getting into semantics?

The "furniture" of the future exists now. (As it did in the past).

Our interactions - past, present and future.

The object - tv - car - table, i.e., the furniture exist "now".

They were/are/will be existing, perhaps in modified form.
They are thus "part of the future".
Our interaction with them is transient.

To some extent, we, ourselves are similar.

Does the possibility of putting the tv on in ten minutes make the tv/putting on/watching - make these part of the future? Possibly.

Nothing changes the state at a particular time. Even in block universe.
Just our attention. And what is that?

Am I being clear? You can say an object is future / now / whatever you like. Semantics.

The map is not the territory.

Cat

spacedweller

#### Gibsense

So, the future is now?
Ah, no the future - on arrival becomes the present; an ongoing process.

The future is imagined as a whole string of events from, say, less than 1 second away stretching forward. We then arrive a second on and the future becomes "now" we can "do our thing" within the constraints of the circumstances which I suppose might contain future events.
Say some country dropped a hydrogen bomb in a month, I doubt a decision to buy a different toothpaste would change that, but you might avoid toothache.

If millions changed the brand (some marketing promotion) the stock market might be affected. Some investors might get cold feet and the market slips. The President (of some country) loses money and gets grumpy and is rude to a dictator who sets off a chain of events leading to armageddon.

Wild conjecture might be vaguely interesting but not very useful without evidence I admit.

Last edited:

#### Gibsense

The problem with a hypersphere of space growing in the/a time void/space/dimension is that time doesn't pass uniformly throughout the universe.
This is not wholly correct (IMO).
Imagine there was (a thought experiment) something that had never moved (through space).
It would have only a time coordinate of relevance. Similar objects existing somewhere else would have the same time value
So, ignoring gravity wells there would be an agreement on a uniform time. If a gravity well is a problem avoid it or all routes compared have the same value from the Wells. A thought experiment.

#### COLGeek

##### Cybernaut
Moderator
Ah, no the future - on arrival becomes the present; an ongoing process.

The future is imagined as a whole string of events from, say, less than 1 second away stretching forward. We then arrive a second on and the future becomes "now" we can "do our thing" within the constraints of the circumstances which I suppose might contain future events.
Say some country dropped a hydrogen bomb in a month, I doubt a decision to buy a different toothpaste would change that, but you might avoid toothache.

If millions changed the brand (some marketing promotion) the stock market might be affected. Some investors might get cold feet and the market slips. The President (of some country) loses money and gets grumpy and is rude to a dictator who sets off a chain of events leading to armageddon.

Wild conjecture might be vaguely interesting but not very useful without evidence I admit.
My point, just following your logic, is that the future can't already exist as it isn't "stored" in some media waiting to be played. Regardless of all the conjecture, it isn't something you can skip forward to.

There is more than a little "butterfly effect" thinking in the rest of the post, as well.

Regarding your string of events, seems those are all "now" events.

Catastrophe

#### Questioner

In the Everett many worlds theory ever quantum event generates more than one outcome universe.

Essentially generating infinite existences.

Logically that strongly suggests that more than one simultaneous previous instant convergered at this instant,
so there would be more than one past instant sequence that led to now, this instant.

Making the 'past' plural rather than singular.

#### Gibsense

My point, just following your logic, is that the future can't already exist as it isn't "stored" in some media waiting to be played. Regardless of all the conjecture, it isn't something you can skip forward to.

There is more than a little "butterfly effect" thinking in the rest of the post, as well.

Regarding your string of events, seems those are all "now" events.
I am taking the Butterfly effect first. Yes, this is deliberate. A small change has a major impact. therefore I struggle with the concept of a diversity of universes from one tiny change to the "now" event as we arrive at it in a normal time sequence.
Yes, they are all 'now' events as the future is engaged each, say, second.

Thinking again, I know the idea of every event producing a new universe to achieve multi-universes to an infinite extent has some respectability but I do not like it. Similarly I am advised that the past includes every possible route to the present and our arrival here 'now' includes all of them.
I am not convinced but try to argue the case. Back to the drawing board maybe.

PS. The idea of a tape with the future written - yes but not a tape; this would be the Quantum Landscape. To be continued...

The solution may involve imaginary time I think - more swotting.

#### Gibsense

I am taking the Butterfly effect first. Yes, this is deliberate. A small change has a major impact. therefore I struggle with the concept of a diversity of universes from one tiny change to the "now" event as we arrive at it in a normal time sequence.
Yes, they are all 'now' events as the future is engaged each, say, second.

Thinking again, I know the idea of every event producing a new universe to achieve multi-universes to an infinite extent has some respectability but I do not like it. Similarly I am advised that the past includes every possible route to the present and our arrival here 'now' includes all of them.
I am not convinced but try to argue the case. Back to the drawing board maybe.

PS. The idea of a tape with the future written - yes but not a tape; this would be the Quantum Landscape. To be continued...

The solution may involve imaginary time I think - more swotting.
Attempts to theoretically allow free will, with a future that already exists by allowing free will events to amend the future in producing an infinite number of future universes seems ridiculous. Surely it is ridiculous. My attempts to provide logic to allow this to occur by providing a threshold for such action are not convincing.

#### COLGeek

##### Cybernaut
Moderator
Attempts to theoretically allow free will, with a future that already exists by allowing free will events to amend the future in producing an infinite number of future universes seems ridiculous. Surely it is ridiculous. My attempts to provide logic to allow this to occur by providing a threshold for such action are not convincing.
This is an interesting discussion. For a future to exist independent of a now, that would imply some sort of destiny/fate/divine intervention/script/etc. That doesn't comport with reality.

Obviously now events impact what will happen (or not). Those are the only events we can truly influence. The past is gone. The future not here yet, but our nows can influence those and have multiple effects.

Theoretical quantum aspects are certainly interesting to ponder, in the greater "what if" sense, but from a practical/applied perspective they are not relevant.

The moral of the story, make good now decisions so you can improve your future now decisions. Those are all we have to work with.

#### Gibsense

The solution may involve imaginary time I think
Imaginary Time is stated by Hawking to be an additional spatial direction at 90 degrees to our normal time. The point about this is that the need for an infinite number of alternative universes disappears. As the imaginary time runs orthogonal to time (and the other spatial dimensions) the whole history of the universe is tackled (past present and future) at each intervention from 'now' events by the advance of imaginary time. - see the diagram below

In addition, the cause and effect of interventions can be reconciled throughout the history of normal times. That is the shape of any possible event must have a reconcilable future where the whole 'latest' (B) history has consistent cause and effect. Cause and effect then operate in both normal and imaginary time. If only the latest 'B'version exists (similar to our situation) then we only need one universe to explain free will and not the incredulous infinity

[/url][/IMG]
Also perhaps the cat and the box have a part to play; some of our decisions (all?) may be both 'taken' and 'not taken' and they await some decisive intervention by cause and effect to take root in the next 'B' version

Last edited:
COLGeek

#### Atlan0001

The problem (not at all a problem for me as far as I'm concerned) with fundamental binary base2's absolute set of absolute '0' and/or absolute '1' is that they have proven (proven, mind you!), through our computers and information systems, to be an infinite binary base2 '( fractal zooms universe(s) structure and vector') set of infinite '0' (null unity) and/or finite '1' (quantum unity (discrete quanta discreet unities))!

Last edited:

#### spacedweller

Is this not getting into semantics?

The "furniture" of the future exists now. (As it did in the past).

Our interactions - past, present and future.

The object - tv - car - table, i.e., the furniture exist "now".
Yes it does, but not in same shape.
Objects (matter) changes so it's no longer the same furniture.

The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's Paradox, is a thought experiment and paradox about whether an object is the same object after having had all of its original components replaced over time, typically one after the other.

TV, a car, furniture, cannot stay the same as to say these things are from the future.

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
TV, a car, furniture, cannot stay the same as to say these things are from the future.

Semantics. If you say that you sat in your grandfather's chair, did you lie?

So it has a stain or a chip since he died.
Do you say "the chair which will be stained ten years after he dies is/was his chair?".
Vide "Ship of Theseus".

Life is too short for this type of discussion?
We all know that certain assumptions are accepted and useful in common parlance.

Preface your remark by "scientifically speaking" or "to be absolutely accurate" and that may be another matter.

Thus you both have to accept context/assumptions.

Does "your grandfather's chair" define it? Only grandfather? Only chair?
The chair, once belonging to grandfather Smith, that was put on the bonfire?

Of course, we all accept assumptions are necessary in everyday communication.

Cat

#### Questioner

One might think of vectors sequential instants that extend in the future direction(s),
and the closure with a particular instant which selects for that instant's subset of possible sequences.

So there would be potential/quaui- futures, many or most of which might be similar so statistically guessing predominate aspects about the probable future becomes reasonable.

There might be some aspects of future sequences that is convergent/very-difficult-to-change across the spectrum of possibilities.

Obviously large mass body physics approach the completely deterministic.

Part of the attraction of science is the determinism it seems to provde.
Paradoxically we want to manipulate that determinism which is a bit oxymoronic.

As usual we want it both ways.

Gibsense

#### Gibsense

"The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's Paradox, is a thought experiment and paradox about whether an object is the same object after having had all of its original components replaced over time, typically one after the other."
One might think of vectors sequential instants that extend in the future direction(s),
and the closure with a particular instant which selects for that instant's subset of possible sequences.

So there would be potential/quaui- futures, many or most of which might be similar so statistically guessing predominate aspects about the probable future becomes reasonable.

There might be some aspects of future sequences that is convergent/very-difficult-to-change across the spectrum of possibilities.

Obviously large mass body physics approach the completely deterministic.

Part of the attraction of science is the determinism it seems to provde.
Paradoxically we want to manipulate that determinism which is a bit oxymoronic.

As usual we want it both ways.
I like some interesting ideas even if they do not quite fit with my own !

#### Rithwik Panka

I think yes, that would explain the phenomena where you dream about something then that actually happens.

#### Classical Motion

Where do the dreams that don’t actually happen go?

#### Atlan0001

I think yes, that would explain the phenomena where you dream about something then that actually happens.
No, it is the miraculous phenomenon where you put two and two together and it actually comes out four. Then you realize the backtrail, or backtrails, you did not know, realize, or understand before. You reverse engineered.

#### ChrisA

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
What if the "multiple universe" interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct?

To summarize, in Schrodinger's cat experiment, the cat is both live and dead until some observer looks at the cat. One way to interpret this is that the universe is branched and there are two universes, each containing the cat and the observer. By observing the cat the observer determines which copy he is. So there are two of me, one of them had a son as a first child and the other a daughter as a first child.

But it is far worse than this, EVERY quantum event happens or not the universe splits in two, and given the number of events in the last 13.5 billion years there are an unimaginable number of parallel universes. There are trillions of trillions of me, each with a slightly different life. Some of us are so close that we differ by the temperature of a single atom. In most universes, there is no life on Earth because there is no Earth, Sun or Milky Way Galaxy.

If this is the case, and no one as yet disproved it, then EVERY possible future will happen. What you experience is determined by which universe you are in, There are trillions of people almost like you, and each will experience a slightly different future.

BTW, this seems totally impossible, unless you are a software engineer and have done the "fork(), exec()" pattern many times. After the exec() the first thing your software does is to check which copy it is. It asks "Am I the original or other copy?" This is very much like observing the cat. The state of the cat tells which copy of yourself is looking at the cat.

If this is true, Then we really are just rolling over the effects of past causes at the rate of one second per second. But does it pre-exist? No. Not at all. In fact the entire future universe does not exist

It is disturbing, but this interpretation of quantum mechanics solves most logical problems. But few people want this to be true

Last edited:

Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
27
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
11K