Originally posted by eleveninchesin my opinion, i think we are merely pictures being changed such as a cartoon. so, the pages of our past will never be seen again.
Does the past exist, or is it just an illusion.The only way it could exist is if there is an infinite multiverse somewhere, where everything in the past goes to after it stops being the present and becomes the past.
But the past does not exist in the universe, as it is just an illusion of the human mind and imagination.
Not quite sure I understand why people would think that the past doesn't exist. To say the past doesn't exist is to say that loved ones who are no longer with us didnt exist. They are the past. They were born, they lived, and they died, making them the past. So, to say the past doesn't exist is basically saying they didn't exist. Also, this would deny any past event that happened in which shaped our lives and cultures. Since 9/11 is the past, is it just an illusion of our mind? Did it really not happen? If that didn't happen, then you are also saying that the time my brother spent in Iraq didn't happen and all the friends he lost during that time didn't happen. Just because we can't feel it or see it, doesn't mean it wasn't real. Our brains do not create an illusion of a memory. We either have the memory or we don't. I don't need to reach out and grab the past to make it real to me; I know it's real. The past is the past, the present is ever changing and the future has yet to happen. The only solid evidence we have of our existance is....the past. So, answer me this...if I approached you and slugged you in the face with a hard right fist, the few seconds it may take for you to recover would make the incident of the past, therefore, it didnt happen and you would have no right to respond.....right? Because it didn't happen. It would be an illusion of the mind. Perhaps we can't actually take a time machine and go to the past, but that doesn't mean it doesn't and didn't exist.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why is the future different from the past? It seems to me that if time is connected to space, then the past and future should be like up and down.
The problem is the relativity of simultaneity. IIRC, if the events are not causally connected they can be reordered for different observers, such that event sequence a b c is c b a for another observer. What lies in the present of one observer is partially in the past and future of another.
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
The problem is the relativity of simultaneity. IIRC, if the events are not causally connected they can be reordered for different observers, such that event sequence a b c is c b a for another observer. What lies in the present of one observer is partially in the past and future of another.
That puts the future and past on the same plane.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
According to most people: yesAccording to skeptics: ha! you can't prove it without inferring from the existence of the present!
But you can: If you are moving, then time is passing slower for you then for someone who is not traveling as fast. In a way, the person traveling faster is in the past of the person who is slower. This can be proved mathematically.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you can: If you are moving, then time is passing slower for you then for someone who is not traveling as fast. In a way, the person traveling faster is in the past of the person who is slower. This can be proved mathematically.
Of course Occam's Razor would favor an explanation that says we remember a past because there actually was a past.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's still inferring a causal link between the present and a past (mind you, this is me playing devil's (read: skeptic's) advocate), if the entire Universe was just created this moment complete with people with memories of a false past--then any argument for a past's existence would be invalid.Of course Occam's Razor would favor an explanation that says we remember a past because there actually was a past.
keep in mind that simultaneity is basically the same as present or events happening in the present.
Originally posted by En Sabah Nur X
relativity of simultaneity still would exist and some recent past would be observed for some of observers the present of others would be past and future.keep in mind that simultaneity is basically the same as present or events happening in the present.
A hardcore skeptic doesn't even believe that atoms exist in a provable sense.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Where is yesterday now?
in the past but yesterday exists because there's proof that yesterday happened because were today.
and yesterday is a man made unit. i nature there is no yesterday but just planet earth spinning around the sun. it's actually been just one long day since the beginning if you look at it from a natural perspective but if you want to be artificial then we have yesterday, today.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
in the past but yesterday exists because there's proof that yesterday happened because were today.and yesterday is a man made unit. i nature there is no yesterday but just planet earth spinning around the sun. it's actually been just one long day since the beginning if you look at it from a natural perspective but if you want to be artificial then we have yesterday, today.
The proof you have exists in the now. You can use logic and cause and effect to reason that yesterday happened, but you have no direct evidence. In other words, you can't pull a part of the past into the present and show that it is real. The past is unattainable.