Correlation may not imply causation, but it sure as shit does imply correlation.
FIne. You say the past does not exist.
But people talk about it all the time, and there and many academic disciplines rely on the idea. So it has to have some meaning. Saying it does not exist is neither helpful nor true.
You might just as well declare that any abstract concept does not exist yet you are then at a loss to explain its absence. You are happy enough to talk about the past and you also can imagine your experiences in that past. So it would seen that a fairer and more practical answer to this question is that the past exists in our memories, our stories, in the fossil record, and in museum. Existing in such a way suggest that “the past” is an abstract concept, so we have circularity.
The past does exist.
However the past is not a place to which we can physically return. Time travel backwards is impossible.
The past does in fact determine the present and future, since we continually draw on our past to make our future.
I do not think that the caricature of her position that you present here is a fair one.
What we might have is nothing more than a confusion in the means of expression.
What we have in fact is to avoid use of the concept “the past” is that each moment of reality is by necessity the outplaying of all antecedent conditions. There is only the now, ever changing by the interaction of timely events. And whereas we might run into the future more quickly, time’s arrow is unidirectional, and there is no turning back.
Have you any idea just how ignorant you appear, especially to the English ear, by the use of “y’all”?
Tell that to Motor Daddy.
And then we have the clown act which offers a childish strawman.
Duh.
No. eating breakfast might cause a burp or fart, or a feeling of satiation.
The egg came first BTW
Oh I gotta do your work for you now?
It is a contraction for “you all”, which is universally understood. Get off your high horse!
So you agree that my past actions don’t determine my future? Explain yourself you illiterate douche!
What is the connection between “the state of the universe” at 0752 hrs and “the state of the universe” at 1126 hrs? The universe completely changed in that duration of time, so what is the connection?
This sounds pessimistic, but afterwards I went on to explain that our will matters to us,
and it’s not to be ignored. But with respect to causing meaningful change, it is powerless.
[/quote]
I’m just wondering why you said our will has no meaningful impact on the outcome, when it clearly does. I think you clarified what you said. You said our will matters… but with respect to causing meaningful change, it is powerless. Did you mean that even though the outcome may contribute to meaningful change, we are powerless (not something that we can take credit for) to do otherwise because what unfolds is out of our control?
It is not me who declared that “Past does not exist”. That was peacegirl. Personally, I have no idea what she means by that. All I can do is guess and see what follows.
Instead of immediately proceeding to the discussion of whether that statement is true or false, perhaps you should tell us what that statement means.
Until then, we’re left with the following two interpretations of mine and their respective consequences:
-
If “The past does not exist” means “The past does not exist in the present moment”, then the statement is true by definition. The term “past” means “the sum of all things that existed prior to the present moment”. As such, it’s not a reference to something that exists in the present moment.
-
If “The past does not exist” means “The past is not a form of existence” where “form of existence” means “a thing or a group of things that existed, exist or will exist”, then the statement is false, again by definition, because the word “past” is a reference to something that existed.
Which one is the case?
Ask peacegirl. She made that claim.
These are the things you should be telling peacegirl.
As far as I am concerned, I agree with the above.
It won’t hurt if you do something useful now and then.
That’s not what he said. We sometimes choose what we don’t want, as the lesser of two or more evils, because there’s no better choice. We are doing what we think is the best alternative given our particular circumstances.
The term “past” is simply in reference to elapsed time that has already occurred.
A quick definition of time:
<------------------.--------------->
“Now” is a point in time that has no duration. It is represented by the point in the above.
“Past” is the time before now that has already elapsed.
“Future” is the time that has yet to elapse.
Saying the past does not exist is a true statement. The past is time that has already elapsed. The past was from the year 2000-2001. The past was from 1999-2002. The past was from 2020-2022.
The only way out of that conundrum is to say that All of time previous to “now” is the past, of which you have no defined duration of time to call the past.
You’ve dug yourself into a hole. You know what they say, right?
You merely misunderstood what “The past causes the future” means.
Noooo. Nothing (not even God himself) can make us do anything against our will, that is if we don’t want to. That doesn’t mean that sometimes we feel as if we have no choice because the alternative is so awful to contemplate, but we still have a choice. I gave the example of a father who was told that if he talks, his child will be instantly killed. Can anything on the face of this earth make this father talk, if he wants to keep his child safe? Obviously he has a choice, to talk or not to talk. He could choose to talk or he could die before talking. What choice does he really have? Is it free? Free will means he could choose A or B both equally without compulsion or necessity. But he under a tremendous compulsion to choose what he believes is best for him and his child.
Where does it exist then Magnus? Show me that memory is not involved in what occurred this morning.
The word “past” means “the sum of everything that existed prior to the present moment”.
[/quote]
So what you are saying is the past (everything that ever existed) is contributing, at this very moment, to this post? It is true that everything that ever happened has led us to this point in our collective history. But texting this post has nothing directly to do with the Big Bang. Everything that has created who I am (heredity and environment) continue to impact what I choose each moment. My choice to share information with you is because I prefer it over not sharing this information. Doing something else at this moment is impossible because it gives me less satisfaction (that is why free will is a realistic mirage; we can’t move in the direction of less satisfaction or less preference when a greater preference or a greater satisfaction is available). If I get tired of responding, I will then stop posting in the direction of greater preference, which is another moment in time without any free choice on my part.
Show me the territory where the past exists? I’m not confusing anything. The past is a memory of a present event that now exists in our memory bank. Our memory is what makes us who we are because it connects us with our history, but that still does not mean the past causes the present. How can it if we only have the present.
Time to bring this crucial manifestation of human interaction back into focus:
The part where we are ever embedded in a sea of variables we only have so much understanding and control over.
Then the part where, in a determined universe as some understand it, even this is but one more immanent manifestation of the only possible reality.
Something the losers among us can take comfort in, while the winners can roundly reject.
You know, given this:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was “somehow” able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter “somehow” became living matter “somehow” became conscious matter “somehow” became self-conscious matter.
Not counting those here who simply ignore this part and proceed as though only a fool wouldn’t think like they do about free will [or the lack thereof].
That’s one of the ways people define the term “past”.
Here’s another way they do so:
And that’s how people use the term “past” when they say “The past causes the future”.
What you’re doing here is misunderstanding what other people are saying ( because you didn’t bother to understand how they are defining their terms ) and then criticizing them for something they didn’t say.
When it’s done because of an excessively strong desire to prove other people wrong, it’s called a strawman attack.
I haven’t understood it because you haven’t explained it.
What do YOU mean by “The past causes the future?” Use the example I gave about eating breakfast in the PAST and getting my mail delivered in the FUTURE?
Your terms are wishy washy! That is the cause of your confusion.
Since when do we define terms by using that very term in the definition? It is MORONIC to define the term “past” by saying “something that happened or was done in the past”