Brian Greene: "The Past is as Real as the Present

[Doctordick]

same here.

I wish I could trust you! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but I am certainly not expecting a rational response.

Already explained. Know-that emerged from know-how emerged from survival.

Ah so, those who couldn't do it died off did they? Doesn't that sort of beg the question? Some of them managed to do it didn't they? How can you sit there and tell me it can not be done?

That's a possibility. But you haven't been clear about what is wrong with the current definition and what justifies your fix.

And the statement that there are conflicts between quantum mechanics and relativity theory is insufficient to take a new look? Or don't you believe there are conflicts between quantum mechanics and relativity? I have met plenty of indoctrinated professional physicists who hold steadfastly to the idea that no conflict exists. That's what makes physics a religion.

It's exactly the opposite: an attempt to analyse and clarify the issue of time.

Sounds more like reassertion of the Einsteinian catechism to me.

Neither did I.

I never said you did! But you were certainly going all out to imply that I didn't understand Einstein's theory.

But you haven't explained why that is erroneous.

Well, I would! Except for the fact that every time I bring the issue up I get immediately shoved into the "crackpot" category.

That is the kind of comment cranks are always making. well, not all cranks are wrong. But the ones that are right, are right because they can put forward a gogent case. You still haven't explained your alternative view.

Not all cranks are wrong? Isn't being wrong the definition of a crank?

And perhaps one day you will spell out what it is.

Ah perhaps one day! I would say against that statement that I read every post you have submitted to this forum up to and including your response to Pensador at 10:15 AM on 04-01-2005. I would have continued except for the fact that at about that time, you had made it quite clear that you had no interest in anything I might say. So I gave up on you. I only comment on that because of my very first post to the physics forum. You have obviously never read that. If you check that thread, you will also discover that no responses were ever posted to my comment. Implying that you and Faustus weren't alone in your desire not to think about such blasphemous issues.

Firstly, you still haven't explained what this means or what justifies it. Secondly your statement "time is a concept in the mind of man" is exactly what I eman by "subjsective".

No, I don't think it is. I don't think you have thought the issue through. If you are going to attach the word subjective to any and all "concepts in the mind of man", then you are a solipsist by definition. My point is that one must be very careful with ones definitions.

Dozens of words of ad hominem; you could have proved, and not just claimed, how smart you are by using the same amount of words to put forward a convining case.

First, I don't think you have a very good understanding of the general use of the term "ad hominem", second, at no point have I ever claimed to be "smart" and finally, no case on any subject is "convincing" if the audience refuses to pay any attention to what is being said. And you have as much as told me you have no interest in what I say.

That's semantics.

Semantics? Isn't that being careful about what you are expressing? Methinks you are just trying to avoid the issue of the confusion in your thoughts.

And you STILL haven't explained what this great insight is supposed to be.

And that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. As I said earlier, my very first post on the physics forum points out an alternate geometry 100% consistent with special relativity. On top of that, I have posted many conclusions (together with cross references) which can be reached with a little logic and the realization that clocks do not measure time. Faustus even had the gall to criticize what I was saying without even looking at the references and you congratulated him for expressing your opinion. If you want references to more significant posts, I'll give them to you. This is a good one. You might try reading the whole thread (if it doesn't exceed your attention span).

If you are interested, read that essay on the issue of http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/flaw/Fatalfla.htm and, if you can understand what I am saying, and have any interest in how it effects general relativity I will help you; however, it's not a trivial issue even if it is much simpler than Einstein's results. At any rate, don't bother to respond unless you are interested in having a rational discussion.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[bottomfeeder]

. Why do you think astrology is still such a lucrative profession.

Have fun -- Dick

careful, one of our illustrious moderators is a 13 year veteran who doesn't take kindly to being put on the spot or defend her "profession"

she will just ban you in which case you might have to reincarnate

after a few PF lives you almost reach nirvana

 

[Smurf]

That's a possibility. But you haven't been clear about what is wrong with the current definition and what justifies your fix.

You must be behind in the times, the search for a 'Theory of Everything' has been going on for a while, turns out our current definition(s) are in direct conflict with each other.

People get confused about this because they work well enough for practical purposes at the present. And I say at the present because it's quite evident they will need to be refined eventually. Only half a century ago Newtonian physics was considered infallible (at least for all practical purposes), but it wasn't until Quantum Mechanics and Relativity that we were able to figure out nuclear power and the really really really really small computer bits that are enabling you to read this right now.

 

[Doctordick]

careful, one of our illustrious moderators is a 13 year veteran who doesn't take kindly to being put on the spot or defend her "profession"

she will just ban you in which case you might have to reincarnate

after a few PF lives you almost reach nirvana

I think you misread what I say. I am not criticizing anyone's beliefs; all I am saying is that a rational discussion should follow the rules of logic. The issue between physicists and astrologers is not with their beliefs but rather with the predictive value of those beliefs. Most people who's success is most directly dependent upon the accuracy of the forecasts put stronger stock in the physicist's views than they do in the astrologer's view. They do that in the interest of good logic not for emotional reasons. None the less, if your life depends on it, I would say going with your gut is the best bet over any logic.

But, when I say that, I don't mean go with someone else's gut; I personally feel leadership in the world is usually provided by the people worst qualified for it (anybody with any sense and decent morality doesn't want the job). I often say, "god save us from the guy who knows what ought to be done". Everyone should make up their own mind as to what is best.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[bottomfeeder]

Dr Dick

do you mean GUT as in one's very own "grand unifying theory" which may or may not be backed up by empirical data and may defy logic and reason yet you somehow intutitvely "feel" it to be true ?

and i hope you mean everyone should make up their own brain as opposed to mind because you can sometimes lose your mind given that it's not really yours you just tap into it for a while and feedback to it but it belongs to everybody and some people never even know they have the same one or are sharing it with others

I'm all about having fun though cos it makes me happy and there are no degrees of freedom in happiness you either are or are not

at least that's my opinion and I'm sticking with it until somone can convince me theirs is better in which case I'll tka e theirs on board as well

 

[Andre]

Time? Augustinus has explained that already in the fourth century, let's see ..errrm

http://www.bgbach.asn-ktn.ac.at/latein/tempus_2000.htm
Si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio.

What then is time? If nobody asks me, I do know; but when I want to explain it to an enquier, I don't know.

 

[Tournesol]

DrDick

Where have you posted anything relating your theory of time to QM ?

 

[Doctordick]

Where have you posted anything relating your theory of time to QM ?

​

You are joking of course! Don't you have any understanding of the "religion" you are discussing?

When I first began posting (to QM and other relevant divisions) the response of the "powers that be" was overwhelming. Every post I made was moved over to the "Theory Development" section (except for that philosophical post and one to the feedback thread). I also suspect a number of posts to extant threads were deleted by those very same authorities. Now, in my head, nothing of what I was saying was theoretical in any way but I certainly was willing to accommodate myself to their desires so I posted only to that section. I wasn't totally put off by that development until it became quite clear that the academic abilities of the people posting there was quite short of what one would expect of a "physics forum" (which lead to that "feedback thread" referenced above). It was made clear to me by some of those certified "Super Mentors" that the "Theory Development" section was reserved for nuts and crackpots. They even, on occasion, referred to it as the "Nuts are Us" forum.

Well, if that was the situation, that was the situation. Really it wasn't much different from my earlier experiences. Even back as a graduate student in the "theoretical physics" section, I found very little interest (if any at all) in thinking about the basis of theories. It was the presumption of every theoretician I ever met that "theoretical physics" was a closed subject. Everybody was spending all their time trying to find proper approximations which would allow numerical computation of the "already accepted as correct" theoretical position. My thesis was the development of a calculation method which would accomplish a valid sum of a large number of terms in a particular expansion. I think it is hysterically funny that one of the greatest breakthroughs of the twentieth was Feynman's notation (which was an accounting method of keeping track of terms in a QED expansion not an advance in the theory at all). By the way, that doesn't imply I don't respect Feynman! I do, I managed to talk to him in 86 and he agreed to take a close look at my work; after he finished with that challenger thing. Next thing I heard, he had died of cancer.

So, only quacks think it is possible that alternate perspectives might be possible and I was relegated to the "Theory Development" section. I even managed to get some intelligent people interested in what I was saying. That's when chroot decided that only mentor's could start new threads in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39733 section and began locking the threads where I was posting. (I suppose he was worried that I might generate a following to my logic and disrupt the authorities power).

So I am now posting to the "Philosophy" section. I suppose that tells you what the opinion of the "physics authorities" is of philosophy! I am sorry, they have made it quite clear that they don't want me posting to the "QM" or the "Relativity" sections. Reminds me of an event which occurred when I was in my first year of graduate study. The chairman of the department was teaching introductory quantum. After class one day, I showed him the perspective I discussed with Hurkyl earlier. His response was, "well what you say is certainly correct, but don't show it to any of the other students, it will just confuse them!" (By the way, he gave me a A+ in the course.)

I think Greg, chroot, et al. are afraid I will "confuse" their following. (I may be baned after this post, so wish me luck.)

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

do you mean GUT as in one's very own "grand unifying theory" which may or may not be backed up by empirical data and may defy logic and reason yet you somehow intutitvely "feel" it to be true ?

I mean the intuitive feeling! (But, after all, isn't that your real GUT feeling anyway?) If you can follow my thoughts, I think put the issue of how I view things pretty clear in my post to Is theory development possible in the absence of thought?

If nobody asks me, I do know; but when I want to explain it to an enquier, I don't know.

That seems to be the summary of everyone's answer.

Where have you posted anything relating your theory of time to QM ?

It occurs to me that I may have misunderstood what you meant. The essence of the relation between my representation of time and quantum mechanics is pretty well laid out in the reference I gave you. If you are trying to understand the detailed relationship, you need to first understand my representation of QM. Essentially, I derive QM directly from first principals (that is what I am doing with saviormachine right now). My destination is the equation given in my post to magus niche. It is the solutions of that equation which constitute all of QM, even general relativistic QM. If you care to take the trouble, I can first show that ordinary non-relativistic QM is an approximate solution of that equation. That fact allows me to define certain concepts as specific factors in the equation. Once that identification is made, a specific interpretation of the approximations used in the first step turn out to be the standard non-relativistic approximations.

I then show that Dirac's equation is also an approximate solution of that equation when those specific approximations above are not used. That solution yields terms which must be interpreted as electromagnetic fields. When one looks at circumstances where those terms are significant (not just given values), it turns out that Maxwell's equations are an approximation to my fundamental equation. In order to get that result, one must assume that the exchange events are massless. The form of the equation allows interpretation of fields where the exchange events have mass and that result is quite similar to nuclear forces. The actual forces are a consequence of the detailed structure of the exchange events so there is no contradiction of conventional physics.

When you get there, it is only a small step to finding solutions which correspond to general relativistic circumstances. At that point, I get results almost identical to Einstein only not quite. My results have another term (a small correction) which is as small with respect to the general relativistic effects as the general relativistic corrections are with respect to the Newtonian result. At the moment, I don't think the differences between Einstein's results and mine are within the range of experimental verification. In addition to that, I may have made a minor error somewhere (I have been known to do that). To date, I am not aware of any competent examination of my work.

If you are interested, do your best to follow what I am presenting to saviormachine and comment if any of it seems unreasonable to you.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment above.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[bottomfeeder]

I mean the intuitive feeling! (But, after all, isn't that your real GUT feeling anyway?) If you can follow my thoughts, I think put the issue of how I view things pretty clear in my post to Is theory development possible in the absence of thought?

Have fun -- Dick

yeah man, I know what you meant, I was just pulling your chain

I tend to react by blind instinct which in my postings as RingoKid and spicerack have been consistent with my postulate of a passenger consciousness we tend to overide to assume manual control in the form of logic and reason

my "grand unifying theory" is mainly about bubbles and nothing in particular

nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing

accept nothing as fact
question everything
determine your own truth
define your own reality

Imagine, if you will bubbles...
expanding as they float around
bumping into other bubbles
and inside of these bubbles
is another bubble expanding
and so on...

...and if all these bubbles
made a musical note,
as they bumped and merged
and expanded,
they created chords and melodies
and so on...

and for what it's worth in real life. I work in the arts as an art director here in New Zealand for short films, music videos, commercials as well as being a graphic designer and screen printer all of which requires evolving, adapting to change and making subjective decisions based solely on instinct and intuition in real time, real fast. I also do rigging for the entertainment industry which requires putting my ass on the line in a very real way.

I don't have any formal education in anything even remotely physics/maths oriented and don't feel I need to. I visualise and project a reality that i can make real in an illusory form as art.

Make and take from it what you will and come hang out in the strings and branes section

peace

 

[Gaijin]

time is a figment of our imagination

Im not shure who to side with because, the last buch of posts between the doctor and tounesol have been have been more aimed at each other than at the definition of time.

ok, on with this.

My say is that that time is not a sperate dimention from space, it is really just the decay of matter, and that "time" at its measurement are constructs of the mind. Time, as the progression from past to future, is really not a thing but a movement of matter from low entropy to high entropy, the normal flow of matter in this universe. "Time" is only a construct of the human mind to help simplify our understanding of the changes we see in matter(decay and transformation) and to deal with our own mortality. It helps us to invent a concept of time to help us a. go about our daily scheduled lives and b. explain why things get old, people die, and why we can remeber the past and not the future.

The reason why we can remeber the past is because our brain registers past senses, that were at the moment of reception were present occurances, as memories in our brain. Now we cannot "remember" the future because we have not had the current experience of it to store the sensual memory of it in our brains.

Humans created the idea of time like other constucts, words and numbers, to express and comunicate thoughts and messages to each other. But like the other constructs, especially words, they are a point of refenece to the user and differ by the different user. Take the word "happy" we cannot perfectly define what it means because it does not exist. We are not "happy" because we say the word, but because we have an emotion of pleasure.
People were quote "happy" long before they had a word to define it, and to be "happy" has a slightly different meaning with everyone because we cannot see others peoples point of view. The same reason we created words to "try" to express things to each other(because we can never truly communicate) was why we created time to express our present moment with past experiances and our predictions of the "future". We created time to help catalog our memories of experiances.

There is only a past and future in time in the sense that with our point of refence(now), an event has either already happened(in our memory) or it has not happened(not in our memory).


wow. good thing that words aren't real, so i can have an excuse for why this doesn't make sense. Go ahead and tear this up (i would actually like to see what you think, either on my idea or immature wrighting style) but the main point was that time does not exist because it is a constuct of the human mind to simplify what information it gathers.

 

[Tigron-X]

Steven Hawking once asked why can we remeber the past but not the future.

We do. It's called deja vu. :P

Chain reactions don't just go from link to link, one at a time, all events are linked to one another. These links are also readily observable in what is today called linear time. But even more obvious are the simultaneous chain-reactions seen in quantum studies.

So time moves three dimensionally, and in reaction to posing and opposing forces?


Anyhow, here's something I'm working on:

To me time is not really a dimension I can consider at the moment, but rather I see it as a concept we attempt to plot by calculating various other dimensions simultaneously with respect to one another. And we fail because we can't find a sound beginning and an end to always follow. And, we cannot predict the expansion and contraction of space. It seems there are too many variables to measure and to plot as a consistent array of sequences that would define a given event properly.

However, I do recognize gravity and magnetic fields as two separate dimensions. Gravity defines a moving point through space, and a magnetic field defines a linear wave expanding through the dimensions of space simultaneously as if a 3D ripple occured. I also recognize magnets as the sixth dimension. This defines the intensity of passing energy through a magnetic field. The next two dimensions are measured with use of thermodynamics and calculation of kinetic energy. Of course, thermodynamics define the fluctuation of heat, and kinetic energy expresses the amount of stored energy. And, the last dimension is radiation which is used to show the fluctuation and transfer of stored energy between each magnetic pulse.


more later... I need to go to bed before I go crazy.

 

[GiZeHy]

hi
i just want to throw in one way of thought. itz just an argument not based on any scientific results. we all only exist in the 'now'. when we mentaly look back in time we can also only do it in the 'now'. so the past was not, instead it 'is'. of course one can only imagine it but the only way of the mind to exist is in the 'now' which is not bound on time. in this 'now' we always imagine the past and the future. for the brain there is no difference of now and past either. the same electronical impulses are measured in the brain when reality is interpreted in the now or even imagined from the past. only the mind makes the difference to build up a logical construct in which it is able to learn end evolve. now, why do we perceive time flowing in this certain direction? i think many facts are responsable for this, even facts no human being ever thought of. related to a spiritual matter one could say: we perceive time passing with rising entropy because our true selfs should realize that we're here to create and bring order to kosmos. whatever dudes, time is a difficult topic...

 

[Dr.Yes]

Time is our method of measuring change.

Each change gives rise to another change.

This makes every change part of/or rooted in/ the change that came before it.

This makes the present changes we are experiencing part of the past changes that bring about the present and those changes associated with the present. This makes the past real in that it is a part of "real time" or "the present".

If we can remember the past we can remember the future. There are certain "sequences" that lead up to certain conditions. These can be used to "remember the future". We get our cues from the past and how it has effected the present, then use this set of sequences to remember how things turn out... in order to remember what will happen in the future. We have to figure in various developments that have evolved out of all the c hanges making up the present but the evolution of change is usually on a slow and steady course. So, the future will usually look similar to the present or the past according to certain laws that change very slowly or not at all.

What is sequence equated with in quantum studies?

 

[Smurf]

Steven Hawking once asked why can we remeber the past but not the future.

A better question would be, Why can we only remember one past?

 

[Doctordick]

Time is change in what one knows!

A better question would be, Why can we only remember one past?

Now doesn't it seem reasonable that, "The past is, by definition, what we remember." With regard to the "we" in your statement, anyone who has any experience with life to speak of is well aware that disagreement about the past is actually quite common. It follows that "we" as a collective unit actually do not remember only one past. Each remembers the past they think is correct.

What is more relevant is: "Why do so many people agree that there is but one past?" We certainly can not go back and check. Each of us only remember events personally experienced by themselves; for the rest of the past, we depend upon the descriptions of others. Why do we believe what they tell us? The answer to that question is actually very simple: the answers we believe make sense to us and the answers we don't believe don't make sense to us.

So we are living in a hypothetical world of our own creation and firmly believe that we are undoubtably correct in the opinion that there is only one possible past which could give rise to that view: i.e., it is the general opinion of mankind that anyone who disagrees with them must be insane. This opinion has been quite common throughout history in spite of rather substantial variation in what various groups believed to be the nature of that world.

However, today, we (in the western world) have gone well beyond the opinions of guru's who know the truth and want to share their insights with us. We now have exact science against which there can be no argument. Wait a minute, isn't that what all the guru's say. Well of course not, exact science doesn't make statements it can't show to be correct; well, at least they will change their position the moment any error is discovered (just ask them if you don't believe me).

So, let's get back to that question. Why is it that exact science manages to get such universal agreement on the description of the past (or at least the governing phenomena) if it is no more than a hypothetical world of our own creation? Surely it cannot possibly be a hypothetical creation as then we could all live in whatever world we wanted and science would have nothing to do with it. That is what all the scientists say anyway.

In case you have missed the point here, the question was essentially, "why is there only one past?" And the answer is (by universal acclaim) because I say so; the "I" of course being the guru of current belief.

The correct answer is, as a matter of fact, quite different; however, it takes some serious thought to figure the thing out.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Which is exactly what Schrodingers Cat would say. But if you asked a photon, well, I'm not so sure.

 

[Pi_314B]

"clocks do not measure time

This is just dead wrong. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII am sure of this.

I can't believe I'm giving a reply to the eye doctor.

 

[Smurf]

It follows that "we" as a collective unit actually do not remember only one past. Each remembers the past they think is correct.

I love it! I havn't even read the rest of your post, but that right there just made my day.

 

[Dr.Yes]

According to quantum theory sequence really can't exist. Superpostion suggests that people can exist in the (state of the) past at the same time as the present etc... Many people can be found stuck in the past . The question about whether the past is real or not belongs to the traditional relativist.

I'd say the equivalent of sequence in quantum studies is "regionalism". The superposition or entanglement of states "experienced" by an object do not occur in a sequence, (as in past, present, future) but it simultaneously "experiences" a region of states. It may not "experience" all states but only those states that pertain to its existence.

You have to calculate how much the past state is influencing your present, real time state. If it has no influence on your present state, then the past really isn't "real" in terms of the amount of influence it has on you, now. However, according to quantum logic, the past, present and future are all part of the region of states that support your existence. This tends to make all those states "real" in terms of being "essencial" to the existence of the present state. Thank you.

 

[Smurf]

According to quantum theory sequence really can't exist.

Superpostion suggests that the past is a state people can exist in at the same time as the present. Many people can be found stuck in the past. The question about whether the past is real or not belongs to the traditional relativist.

I'd say the equivalent of sequence in quantum studies is "regionalism". The superposition or entanglement of states "experienced" do not occur in a sequence, (as in past, present, future) but simultaneously "experiences" a region of states. It may not "experience" all states but only those states that pertain to its existence. Thank you.

Can you explain that a bit clearer for the amateur physicist? starting with why can't sequence exist according to quantum theory?

 

[Dr.Yes]

Can you explain that a bit clearer for the amateur physicist? starting with why can't sequence exist according to quantum theory?

Try reading my edited section... I added some stuff. Sequence only exists in a relative universe. The quantum theory suggests more of a simultaneous co-existence of waves, objects and states.

 

[Doctordick]

This is just dead wrong. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII am sure of this.

Ah, he has arrived! The guru of guru's At last we have someone who we can depend upon to give us the correct answers to all our questions.

Have a ball -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Try reading my edited section... I added some stuff. Sequence only exists in a relative universe. The quantum theory suggests more of a simultaneous co-existence of waves, objects and states.

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "theory" or are you so limited that you cannot comprehend the possibility that an accepted "theory" might be wrong?

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Dr.Yes]

are you so limited that you cannot comprehend the possibility that an accepted "theory" might be wrong?

Just making small talk on a small board like you.

In fact... out a here.

 

[Tournesol]

Now doesn't it seem reasonable that, "The past is, by definition, what we remember."

No. It indicates that we are incapable of remembering incorrectly, which is false.

With regard to the "we" in your statement, anyone who has any experience with life to speak of is well aware that disagreement about the past is actually quite common. It follows that "we" as a collective unit actually do not remember only one past. Each remembers the past they think is correct.

That doens't mean there are literally multiple pasts, only multiple memories
of varying degrees of accuracy.

 

[Doctordick]

Tournesol, I really wish you would put a little more thought into your responses. I have the very strong impression that you respond with the first thing that pops into your mind without considering the implications of the response.

Now doesn't it seem reasonable that, "The past is, by definition, what we remember."

No. It indicates that we are incapable of remembering incorrectly, which is false.

Please explain to me by what means you manage to know anything of the past which is not based on something you remember.

With regard to the "we" in your statement, anyone who has any experience with life to speak of is well aware that disagreement about the past is actually quite common. It follows that "we" as a collective unit actually do not remember only one past. Each remembers the past they think is correct.

That doens't mean there are literally multiple pasts, only multiple memories of varying degrees of accuracy.

And exactly what is it that you compare those inaccurate memories with if it is not other memories? In other words, what knowledge of the past qualifies as an accurate reference and is not part of your memory. Are you not assuming your interpretation of the past (the memories you have decided are accurate) constitute the only valid representation of the past?

Please take the time to think about what I am saying.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[professor]

the past was real, but can no longer exist on the same "tangent" as the one we remember, only a new course that would take you off in a completely different direction if at all possible to even travel/or see into the past. there is also a possibility that the past is observable through wormholes, though that would show that the observers past would be unobservable,the farther from his pasy in spacetime, the farther back, the oserver has potentil to view/travel to. thoughin essence since it was not the past of the observer, would he even be travling into the past in the first place?

 

[professor]

uhh.. buddy we compare those recollections to recorded images/videos/recordings ect... that how we know there was only one past...

 

[Doctordick]

uhh.. buddy we compare those recollections to recorded images/videos/recordings ect... that how we know there was only one past...

The problem with that response is that the consistency of that outcome is, itself, a memory. All you are really saying is that it is your expectation that the next time you do it you will get the same result. In other words, you are assuming your current world view is correct. That is an assumption based on your memory.

All I am saying is that the probabilidty of future events should be very similar to past events. The past (our memories) consist of a lot more information than what we are currently processing (the present). That the sun comes up every morning is no proof your current world view is correct, merely that it is at least consistent with your current memories.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[Tournesol]

Please explain to me by what means you manage to know anything of the past which is not based on something you remember.

I did not say we have any means of epistemological access to the past
other than out memories. I am saying that you cannot infer from that the
past just is , ontologically, memories.

You said:

"The past is, by definition, what we remember."

The past is, in fact, what happened before the present whether we remember
it or not.

And exactly what is it that you compare those inaccurate memories with if it is not other memories?

Direct evidence. If I remember putting my wallet in my trouser pocket only to find it in my jacket pocket, my memory was wrong.

In other words, what knowledge of the past qualifies as an accurate reference and is not part of your memory. Are you not assuming your interpretation of the past (the memories you have decided are accurate) constitute the only valid representation of the past?

As my example shows, I am not.

 

[professor]

thank you... doctordick... your wrong sry :)

 

[Doctordick]

I did not say we have any means of epistemological access to the past
other than out memories. I am saying that you cannot infer from that the
past just is , ontologically, memories.

Ontology: the study of the nature of reality; what is and what is not real. Certainly your assumption that the past is something other than your memories is an undefendable proposition. Let us carefully look at exactly what you know. First, it should be quite clear to you that you "know" absolutely nothing of the future. Now, it is true that you have expectations and would certainly be surprised if those expectations turned out to be wrong, but that is no proof that those expectations are correct (in fact, it is error in expectations which drives advances in science). Second, the present is just too short to be of any significance. The present turns into the past before you can even consider it. The past is all that is left and your only contact with the past is your memory. Since they are all we have, we can scarcely avoid using them. We can certainly presume our memories are themselves real; by simple definition if nothing else.

Please spend a few moments thinking about that. To deny one's memories are real leaves one with nothing. It is clear to me that what you want to do is to divide your memories into two categories: those which are consistent with your personal world view and those which are not. The problem with such a thing is that any division you make is made under the presumption that your world view is correct. You either have absolute faith in the validity of your world view (it is your religion) or it is subject to examination. To set any part of your perceptions above examination is to scuttle rational science. How do I convince you to take a look at those perceptions.

It seems to me that you should be able to comprehend that your expectations as to the future are one to one with your faith that your world view is correct. If we are to defend your world view, we must objectively examine the basis of that view. The basis can be nothing other than your memories.

You said:

"The past is, by definition, what we remember."

The past is, in fact, what happened before the present whether we remember
it or not.

God's in his heaven and all's well with the world! Your position is a religious stand.

If I remember putting my wallet in my trouser pocket only to find it in my jacket pocket, my memory was wrong.

Oh con tare, if you remember putting your wallet in your trouser pocket and also remember finding it in your jacket pocket, you decide the earlier memory was in error. In fact, you might wake up and decide the second memory was a dream and the first was accurate. The point is, you never have anything but your memories to work with; your world view is an attempt to make those memories make sense. That is, you create a consistent explanation of those memories; if that necessitates categorizing some of those memories as "invalid", that's what you do. Your mistake is thinking yours is the only solution.

If you believe your response is a valid refutation of my position, you have simply not thought the issue out.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity.

 

[Tournesol]

Ontology: the study of the nature of reality; what is and what is not real. Certainly your assumption that the past is something other than your memories is an undefendable proposition.

I am principally claiming that that is what the word *means*.

Let us carefully look at exactly what you know. First, it should be quite clear to you that you "know" absolutely nothing of the future.

Nope. I know events that can be reliably predicted, up to a point. Of course memory is not 100% reliable either. It is a diffrerence of degree, not an
absolute.

Now, it is true that you have expectations and would certainly be surprised if those expectations turned out to be wrong, but that is no proof that those expectations are correct (in fact, it is error in expectations which drives advances in science). Second, the present is just too short to be of any significance. The present turns into the past before you can even consider it. The past is all that is left and your only contact with the past is your memory. Since they are all we have, we can scarcely avoid using them. We can certainly presume our memories are themselves real; by simple definition if nothing else.

We have to assume our memories are reliable in the absence of countervailing evidence. So what?

Please spend a few moments thinking about that. To deny one's memories are real leaves one with nothing. It is clear to me that what you want to do is to divide your memories into two categories: those which are consistent with your personal world view and those which are not.

No, I am asserting that there is more to reality than my memories.
I need only reject memories that are inconsistent with the majority , not with some fixed world view.

The problem with such a thing is that any division you make is made under the presumption that your world view is correct. You either have absolute faith in the validity of your world view (it is your religion) or it is subject to examination. To set any part of your perceptions above examination is to scuttle rational science. How do I convince you to take a look at those perceptions

I do not have absolute faith in the total of my current beliefs (NB not a fixed world view). I have to work on the hypothesis that they are largely correct.
What do the epistemological considerations tell me about the reality of the past ?

It seems to me that you should be able to comprehend that your expectations as to the future are one to one with your faith that your world view is correct. If we are to defend your world view, we must objectively examine the basis of that view. The basis can be nothing other than your memories.
God's in his heaven and all's well with the world! Your position is a religious stand.

Rhetorical hogwash.

Oh con tare, if you remember putting your wallet in your trouser pocket and also remember finding it in your jacket pocket, you decide the earlier memory was in error.

I didn't say they were both memories, I said one was a present, direct
experience. (And you still haven't uttered a sinlge syllable to suggest
why the revisability of memories means the past is memories ontologically).

In fact, you might wake up and decide the second memory was a dream and the first was accurate. The point is, you never have anything but your memories to work with; your world view is an attempt to make those memories make sense. That is, you create a consistent explanation of those memories; if that necessitates categorizing some of those memories as "invalid", that's what you do. Your mistake is thinking yours is the only solution.

I don't see any evidence for radically different but equally valid world-views,
and the idea is clearly inimical to scientific objectivity.

The fact that I arrive at a world view that way doesn't have any ontologicla implications.

If you believe your response is a valid refutation of my position, you have simply not thought the issue out.

You haven't explained it -- you haven't come out with anything that even looks like a epxlanation.


Nothing you say is addresses the issue. You are still inferring an ontological claim
"certainly your assumption that the past is something other than your memories is an undefendable proposition."
from an epistemological premiss , and that is still a falacy. You have laboured
mightily to esablish a point I have already agree with , that the only epistemological access to the past is via memories. You don't even seem
to be able to see that this just isn't a premiss that supports your conclusion.
If a memory wasn't causally formed in the past, it isn't memory.

 

[Doctordick]

Tournesol, I believe that you are simply misinterpreting what I am saying. Whether this misinterpretation is intentional or just emotionally driven I am not sure. What I am trying to get you to do is to look at things from a slightly different perspective; I assure you that I have no argument against most of the things you say. My only thrust is to point out that they are based on some very subtle assumptions. The issue is, in fact, the difference between deduction and induction. Deduction can be logically defended point by point in a manner with which induction can not be defended. It should be clear to any thinking person that the errors in our world views (and here I am speaking of the accepted scientific world view) are very rarely if ever in their deductive results. The errors which exist are certainly a consequence of erroneous inductive conclusions.

The major problem with trying to omit inductive results (which has been pointed out by both philosophers and scientists for centuries) is that the omission leaves one with exactly nothing to work with. The foundations upon which any and all deductions are based are arrived at by "experience", the very essence of inductive reasoning. The only real defense of an inductive conclusion is, "I believe it is true". Why does one "believe it is true"? Why, because our deductions from it are consistent with the other things we believe are true.

What I am doing is attacking the conclusion that omitting inductive results does not leave one with anything to work with. Or, to put it another way, I have found a way of dealing with those inductive results without explicitly constraining them in any way. That is, I have developed a specific way of dealing with problem of deduction which is so general that the deductions so constructed are valid for absolutely any internally consistent set of inductive conclusions.

Of course, this way of attacking the problem is very alien to anyone who holds their personal world view (that set of inductive conclusions reached by their lifetime of experience) to be infallible. They invariably want me to point out where the error in their perspective is before they even consider looking at things from an alternate perspective. The real circumstance is that I am not actually questioning the adequacy of their world view at all. Rather, I am questioning their assumption that no alternate, equally valid, world view exists. The error they are making is assuming that their world view is the only world view one hundred percent consistent with their experiences. If you examine the history of science you will discover that, over and over again, the flaws in the old beliefs turned out to be in that very presumption.

Much is made of the fact that a new perspective must clear up a difficulty which the old perspective failed to handle. Erroneous prediction is the driving force of change. A new perspective can only supplant the old perspective when a proof exists that the old perspective is wrong (that old perspective must lead to invalid expectations before the scientific community will even consider alternate possibilities).

This (rather universal) attitude overlooks another very significant fact: every time an advance has ever occurred, it has done so via an altered world view which was totally and completely consistent with all the experiences upon which the old world view had been based. If it weren't consistent with the known facts (all the experiences upon which the old world view was based), there is no way the scientific community would even begin to accept it. The subtle issue here is that, prior to the difficulty with the first world view (that erroneous prediction mentioned above), both world views under discussion were in complete one hundred percent agreement with what was known. What I am pointing out is that, even if one's world view is perfectly consistent with what is known, either that world view is absolutely without error or there exists another world view which is just as perfectly consistent with what is known.

What you should conclude from that is that there exits more than one world view which is totally consistent with exactly the same experiences upon which your world view is based. That was certainly true in the past and I would conclude (by induction of course :rolf:) that it is most probably true at the present time. The question (which was in my head over fifty years ago) was, how does one go about opening up that issue in an exact scientific manner? At the time, I developed a way of dealing with those inductive results without constraining them in any way (rather worthless at that time because it yielded an equation I could not solve). Twenty three years ago, I managed to solve that equation and was quite astonished by the solutions.

To date, I have found it utterly impossible to communicate the existence of the issue I speak of above. Essentially, I am fighting the scientific community's failure to confront their own fallibility. One might as well try to explain Quantum Mechanics to a cave man. Or the world being round to my grandmother. They are not about to consider the possibility of being wrong without personally experiencing an error in their expectations.

I do not have absolute faith in the total of my current beliefs (NB not a fixed world view). I have to work on the hypothesis that they are largely correct.

So long as you believe you have to, how am I to persuade you to take the trouble to look at an alternative? Perhaps I can not. If that is the case then I suppose a continuation of this dialog serves no purpose. Let me know of your opinion on that subject.

Meanwhile, in hopes that it does something to clarify what I am saying, I will answer your comments.

I am principally claiming that that is what the word *means*.

You are claiming that the past is "more than you are aware of"? If your intention is to claim that there is more than you are aware of, I would agree that it is an inductive conclusion one hundred percent consistent with all our experiences but it is none the less an assumption and cannot be proved. You are certainly not aware of any part of the past which is not part of your memories.

Nope. I know events that can be reliably predicted, up to a point. Of course memory is not 100% reliable either. It is a diffrerence of degree, not an absolute.

Once again that is an inductive conclusion and cannot be proved. I won't argue with you that it is very reasonable to presume it is true; however, it is always possible that a prediction might be wrong. Unless you are claiming infallibility; but that would make your position a religious position and not a scientific one.

We have to assume our memories are reliable in the absence of countervailing evidence. So what?

You and I are talking about two different things. You are speaking from the position of an established world view; I am speaking from an objective scientific position. My position is that you have nothing to work with but your memories. That you have the memories is a fact, that your world view makes sense of them is an opinion and that your assumptions (inductive conclusions) are the only valid explanation is an overt error.

No, I am asserting that there is more to reality than my memories. I need only reject memories that are inconsistent with the majority , not with some fixed world view.

The problem is that your rejection of some memories and acceptance of others is exactly what is meant by the phrase "world view".

It seems to me that you should be able to comprehend that your expectations as to the future are one to one with your faith that your world view is correct. If we are to defend your world view, we must objectively examine the basis of that view. The basis can be nothing other than your memories.
God's in his heaven and all's well with the world! Your position is a religious stand.

Rhetorical hogwash.

Now that is a scientific rebuttal anyone would be proud of.

I didn't say they were both memories, I said one was a present, direct experience. (And you still haven't uttered a sinlge syllable to suggest why the revisability of memories means the past is memories ontologically).

Every "direct experience" you have ever had is a memory before you have the time to think about it. It follows that memories are the stuff you use to support your thoughts.

Ok, you want the past to be more than your memories. If that is the case, than most of the past of your world view is an assumption (events and entities assumed to exist in order to make your memories make sense). My point is not that such a move is stupid but rather that the events and entities you have assumed to exist are not the only assumptions which can make your memories make sense.

I don't see any evidence for radically different but equally valid world-views, and the idea is clearly inimical to scientific objectivity.

Of course you don't see any such evidence. Clearly there isn't any; if there were, the scientific community would have to drop the world view they hold. The issue is, should one examine the range available to "different but equally valid world-views" and, I would say, the simple refusal to consider such a possibility is "inimical to scientific objectivity" as it clearly totally equivalent to denying the possibility that their world view can in fact be flawed.

The fact that I arrive at a world view that way doesn't have any ontologicla implications.

You seem awful sure of that.

You haven't explained it -- you haven't come out with anything that even looks like a epxlanation.

Presenting explanation of a problem you cannot comprehend is a totally worthless endeavorer. The first step is to understand the subject under discussion: i.e., exactly what exists.

You have laboured mightily to esablish a point I have already agree with , that the only epistemological access to the past is via memories. You don't even seem to be able to see that this just isn't a premiss that supports your conclusion. If a memory wasn't causally formed in the past, it isn't memory.

Sorry, I hadn't caught the fact that you had agreed with anything I said. Ok, for the sake of argument, let us suppose the past doesn't exist (that was the original question on this thread). In that case what are memories? I would say that implies that, without memories, you certainly have no evidence that the past exists.

Ask yourself what your memories are in the absence of your world view to interpret them. If you have no way of interpreting or expressing them (having no world view) do your memories exist or not? That is, does your "only epistemological access" to what exists exist? Or look at it from another perspective, if there existed a "world view" which made all your memories make sense, since they amount to your "only epistemological access" to what exists, what purpose does it serve to assume additional things exist?

Let me know if any of this makes any sense to you at all.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity