Does the past exist?

it's amazing the convergence of the "infinite universe possibility" meme that just vomited itself into the energy matrix.
i'm thinking it collapses on itself. the more you become aware of the possibility of infinite possibility, the possibilities of the multiple futures are actually reduced, because now more of 'you' have realised it, and as this meme spreads, various possible universes will collapse into one eventually, as every 'body' begins to have the same 'mind'(again).

it makes sense to me, but i don't know that i've explained it well.

i'll try some more!
if we can imagine looking at a tv screen(growable/shrinkable), and then thinking of every pixel on the screen(multiverse) as being a possible universe. the pixels are focal points in 'time'(which would actually have to be called omnitime or something, because it would incorporate the timelines of each universe). so as you play a tape forward or backwards the picture is determined by the information held in the 'past' or 'future' of the tape. the information, in turn, is ALSO dynamic based on probabilities of what could lead to a particular arrangement of pixels(possible universes) to appear on the screen, AND the size of the screen(which is a function of logic/karma).

so, ......(takes a breath, whew), if a pixel is "red" on the screen because god is thinking of a "rose", the probability that it will stay red is a function of the other "thoughtpixels" on the "screen".

now make it all the dream of a shoe.



[Edited on 19-3-2004 by billybob]

I don't know why going back in time would create a parrallel unverse. What makes you think that? I don't see any evidence anywhere. I guess there are could be many pontential unviverses, but I don't think two could exist at the same time. But, I think as you use a time machine and go through time and as normal people go through time, universes are constantly being destroyed as oppurtunities are missed. Anyway, these potential universes don't really even exist...they're more ideas than anything. If time is infinite, then every oppurtunity will repeat itself and eventually, and every potential universe will eventually be explored. If time is finite then, once an oppuruntiy is gone its gone, and potential universes disappear as oppurtunities are missed.

Originally posted by AttackHippo

Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence
I tend to think the Langoliers eat up the past. Seriously though, what if the Creator specifically designed the universe so that the "past" IS just a memory? That way, we can't go back in time and f' it up (which means we couldn't travel back in time to begin with).

Then again, if we can go back in time, I'm all for the parallel universe theory. That theory being, if someone were to go back in time in "their" universe and change something, it would create an alternate universe so that it doesn't screw up the previous one's "timeline." That of course lays down the possibility that there are an infinite amount of parallel universes. Its a brain teaser more then anything else.

[Edited on 3-19-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]

As far as parrallel universes go, if a guy goes back in time and changes stuff, he'd create a parallel universe. So it wouldn't have any effect on this universe would it? If every time we changed the past it created an alternate unverse that didn't effect us there'd be no point in going back in time.

there would be a point because when you returned, you would return to the new universe that you had created when you altered the past, so even though those changes dont affect one, it affects the universe you have to remain in

PolarBear, yeah, I kind of thought about that one too. Hopefully you do return back to the new present/future that you did f' up and you don't end up going on a trip to another parallel universe that someone else f'd up, lol.

The past does indeed exist. I was there yesterday, and I can give you an eyewitness account. I had turkey and mashed potatoes with green beans/carrots in a lovely garlic sauce for lunch. I worked far longer than I should have at a job which I should have been paid far more to be doing. In world events, Bush and Kerry continued their political mudslinging and an ill-equipped Pakistani army was taking a beating at the hands of some holed up Al-Qaeda high-muckedy-mucks in BFE, Pakistan. This much can be verified by other witnesses, with the exception of those killer beans/carrots in garlic sauce which you will simply have to take my word on. (Boston Market rocks! )

But seriously...

Time is always in motion, and all is relative. "These were just steps for me. I have now climbed on over them. Therefore, I must have journeyed beyond them. But you thought I wanted to just sit upon them and rest."--Neitzsche Among other things, I think N had a good grasp on time. The statement above relates not only the passage of time and events, but the differing perception of both from different perspectives. A few other tasty morsels:

"If the universe were to have a state of equilibrium, then end of becoming and evolution, then it would have already attained it. The present moment, the instant which passes away into the void of dead time, proves that it has not been attained; an equilibrium of forces will never come to pass. The infinity of the void of dead time signs the death certificate of being--since becoming cannot have started to become. It is not something that has become, it is the becoming of something--a asometimes smooth, sometimes interrupted process of becoming. Never having become, it would alreadybe what it becomes if it were to become something. In other words: that which becomes would never have left its original state if it had one. The only stable element is recurrence--the more or less constant traits in a flow of becoming with no beginning or end. At the gate marked "NOW", past, present and future coagulate in a synthetic relation between this moment and other moments to come and be similarly squandered.

If the present was condemned to congeal in the frozen inertia of the anticipation of the arrival of a new present in order to pass, then the past in general would never be consituted (since the present would be left waiting at the gate for this to happen) and the present could not pass away. Impatient, unsated like flames licking at the distance, ever-hungry for new horizons, this waiting is impossible for us. The moment is simultaneously present and past, as well as present and simultaneously future in order for it to pass away in favor of other moments."

I love that guy. That is just a little from his views on what he termed "eternal recurrence". Good reading, if you can get your mind around it. Damn shame his works have been so widely misunderstood. But hell, writing like that I suppose it was inevitable!

Also brings to mind an 80's episode of the twilight zone...the one where some guy somehow got knocked out of the time continuoum (sp?) and found his house being taken apart by a bunch of faceless "cleaner guys" in blue coveralls. He eventually got to witness one minute of the next year's Christmas under construction. Not entirely unlike the Langoliers munching everything up, just in a bit more organized fashion.



[Edited on 20-3-2004 by Q]

The past DID exist and we all have records of the past based on our perception at that time. Only the now EXISTS at any time. The past was real and the future is real but none will exists until they come to be. There are infinite possibilities for the future but the past ultimately determines what the future will do. Reversing time would be like having what has not happpened re determining something that has happened.

Im not sure about creating paralell universes as i don't see why or how travellng in time(which we do all the time: space time continuim) would create or be able to borrow enough energy to create another universe in the same state as ours up to the point where u changed it.

Point taken. However, the passage of YOUR "now" in relation to other people could possibly be altered? For example, when you reach the speed of light, the theory is that time will stop, but only relatively. So, everybody's NOW will remain the same in their perception, and YOUR now will remain the same in your perception, but when you look at everybody else from YOUR point of view (as you fly past them at the speed of ligt), they would seem to be "frozen". You could then travel for what FOR YOU would be a million years, at the speed of light, and when you return, ZERO TIME has passed for everybody else. This is the theory, that time is relative, or at least NOW is relative and depends on perception.

I think we are ariving at pretty much the same place by two different roads here....LOL


What I am saying is that both of your NOWs are real to each of you but both are NOW.

Say I go foward a couple days in time and you stay "home". My NOW is still NOW to me and your NOW is still NOW to you. Both are NOW, both are real. Your NOW is my past so therefore to me does not exist. My NOW is your future so to you does not exist. But still BOTH are REAL but NEITHER exist to the other. I hope that clears everything up......LOL.


I may have done a bad job explaining it if anyone wishes I will try again......LOL

Originally posted by quiksilver
The past DID exist and we all have records of the past based on our perception at that time. Only the now EXISTS at any time. The past was real and the future is real but none will exists until they come to be.



That is my point both are real but neither exist or ever will exist. There is only the NOW. The past and the future are only different NOWs.

"We're in NOW now."

"But what happened to THEN?"

"We just missed it."

"When?"

"JUST now."

"So go back to then!"

"We can't..."

Yeah, I know. Quoting Nietzsche and Spaceballs-- both in the same thread, no less. What a bastard I am.

everyone carries their own local clocks with them thats why time might pass slower for people travelling fast.

Imagine a horizontal line, that is time for you when you are at rest locally. As you speed up the line goes at an angle so therefore will go along (left or right) more slower.

anyway back to question. Overall past = real and future = real, but neither exist. Imagining that time exists for this is important, as the NOW is what happens as time passes over from the future to the past. Sure you could say time doesn't exist, but a many a things that we use to give explanation to don't exist, it just lets us understand things easier. i.e. quarks dont really have a color but we use that to describe their interactions

[Edited on 20-3-2004 by quiksilver]

Originally posted by Amuk
As a thing I would have to say........ No

I would say the future doesnt exist either.

There is only the Now.

Now becomes the past as soon as it happens

Originally posted by AD5673
Umm...Well do you remember when you were 6 years old? or 8 years old? Do you remeber your birthdays? Feeling touching...? Well that is the past. So in fact the past is real; it's just really hard to travel back in time.

Those are chemical imprints in your brain. While you are at it...what is your first memory? Since you have no memory before that first memory, does that mean as a baby you do not exist in the past since you can't remember it? See what I'm saying?

Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence
PolarBear, yeah, I kind of thought about that one too.

Hopefully you do return back to the new present/future that you did f' up and you don't end up going on a trip to another parallel universe that someone else f'd up, lol.

But this would imply that we all carry our own timeline with us correct?

does the past exist? now? obviously no. before now? depends if you were there or not.

Each individual person creates their own philosiphy of time through experiences and events that occured within their physical and mental state. Different people experience time differently than others. The past is simply one's recollection of events through their own perspective. That's why history books are "mostly" meaningless to me, because they are based on the "overall" opinion of the population, not accurate at all. For example, if in a history book they claim that Christopher Columbus discovered America, that is the opinion or perspective, if you will, of the culture that wrote the books. In fact, Christopher Columbus did not discover America, and this has been proven.

Mr. M

The question is: What does it mean to 'exist'? Does only the present 'exist' with the past and future being reverberations (in opposite directions) of the present?

Interesting question, but like all questions posed we must first have the same definitions of the word in question.

IF there is only the NOW and we are living in the infinite:

Then the PAST would have infinitely many possibilites,
as well as the future.

Originally posted by Joseph Knecht
Then the PAST would have infinitely many possibilites

The obvious question then becomes: Why do we all only remember one past then...or at least one past seen from a multitude of angles?

The obvious question then becomes: Why do we all only remember one past then...or at least one past seen from a multitude of angles?

Well the multitude of angles says alot itself. The past for the calahari bushmen is probably so alien to people who share say... the past of china. And vice versa. To me the angles denote not one, but many pasts.

I think the past is always being created,edited, and rewritten:

A new discovery about the nature of the universe actually creates a past that wasn't previously there. Or in the least: Wasn't Percieved. It's almost like there's a well of existential possibilities and when something is discovered, a new past is created. Which in turn would inherently create a new future, IF the future is predicated on the past.

'They flutter behind you, your possible pasts.
Some brighteyed and crazy, some frightened and lost'
-Roger Waters

since it is all phantasmagoria....it is all happening at the same time

past,present,future all exist at the same time for those that acheive superconciousness

They know it is all a delusion