Is the present now, or in the past?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Human beings are constantly living in the past.

What I mean by this is this:

Our eyes see something. It takes a short (extremely short) amount of time for us to register what we saw. But there is still an extremely slight difference between reality’s “present” and our “present.” It’s the same for all senses; they all have a slight (very slight) delay.

But what I’m asking with this is whether or not the present is reality’s present, or our present. Our present is slightly after reality’s, but which is more in the present?

2

are nano seconds ( billionth of a second ) worth contemplation?

3

theres something called the quantum moment were physical form spontaneously pops into existence,this is about 40,000 hertz.

some can here above 40,000 hertz, so they may be reacting to the future

the present or universal quantum moment is the culmination of past and future alike, larger bodies are much closer to the quantum moment than small bodies,which is why gravity starts to become a (force)-or a measurable interaction-leading the past to become the future

How far our minds are in the future or the past,can on a universal scale effect what the next moment becomes.

4

as it turns out, gravity is losing, so it may have more overarching philosophical and physical properties,than you may imagine

5 
non-sense
6

or over imagined, by you

7

you disagree

(sound)s like a lot of sence

8

guess we just don’t have equal brains

9

If you want philosophical comedy your gonna lose

I go by the name ejddar

and I was banned

justification enough

read and weap

10

of course I disagree.

you make no sense.

11

Discrediting or disregarding something because of it’s size or length is ridiculous. Everything is relative, so everything matters.

12

To whom? relative insignificance is equal to relative importance. I don’t measure my life in those steps.

Contemplating nanoseconds is disproportionate. It takes larger units to reflect on them than they are literally worth.

You’d having a harder time demonstrating that nothing else is more worthy of your contemplation.

Shaneytiger, this thread is interesting. I know you don’t want to read anyone else’s philosophy, but you might be interested in the formulation behind Sarte’s “existence preceeds essence” claims, because a lot of it informs your “living in the past” theory.

You might find it interesting and helpful.

When I started writing dance music, I had to listen to some of it. Not only is being an appreciative audience an important part of being an artist, but it also lets you know if you’re doing something that’s already been done.

13

I’m willing to read other people’s stuff, but I’m poor and don’t live near a library. I was reading some about Sartre’s The Look the other day online. If I can find something online, I will. I’ll try wikipedia and another encyclopedia.

As to the first three paragraphs, I just don’t know what you mean. I’ll respond to what I think you mean.

Any difference in the time between what we percieve and what is actually happening is important becuase there is still a slight difference. Regardless of how big the difference is, there is still a difference and that means that we are slightly disconnected. The question then becomes which is really the present: the “real” one, or ours?

14

Nah I was responding to your “everything matters” claim.

Nanoseconds might matter, but are they more worthy of my attention than anything else? I think not. Are they more relative to my interests than anything else? I think not.

I agree in principle with the view of relativity, but we have a finite amount of nanoseconds to contemplate, and all things are not equally worthy of our attention.

Shaney, you’re actually every well read and I’m sorry if it seemed I was having a go at you. My dollars for books (and my time for them) is also limited.

Let me explain what I meant about Sartre… or try, anyway. I’m rusty, on my firts coffee and haven’t woken properly yet.

He says that one of the difficult things about our existence is that we travel one direction in time (forward), but comprehend and derive meaning from it in another (backwards/hindsight).

You see a movie, and don’t necessarily undersatand it until the plot twist at the end and it all comes together and makes sense and you go “Ah! That’s what that bit at the beginning was about!” or something like that.

And that’s what our lives are, he says… at the end of the story, everything looks like it was working towards an outcome or result. But at the time, everything is meaningless. Our lives only make sense when we look backwards - the opposite direction from where we’re travelling - so how can aything make any sense? How can it make any meaning?

The only way we can take everything in is to collect the data and unpack it later - even if it’s only seconds later. Therefore, we’re always looking backward, living in the past, unable to make sense of what we’re experiencing in the moment.

There’s a whole lot of other stuff in that simple three-word phrase (including some anti-foundational stuff about essential natures, etc) but this is the stuff I was referring to. You might find it interesting? It’s kkind of attached to your hypothesis.

15

the present we experience is indeed realites present…
… reality does’nt have a present so past present future is only relevant to those experiencing the reality, not it in itself, therefore they are simply terms of understanding and words to name the constant/ experiencing.

in other words we are living in our own present. reality doesnt have a present nor is the law of time applicable to something that isnt alive, feeling and experiencing(the constant that is time).

what you should realise is the question you ask like so many others, dont make sense.

16

ah yes =P~ that supports the non existence of free will and that events are predetirmined.

17

If no life existed, then time would still pass. Planets would still be built and destroyed by cosmic forces. Unless you’re saying reality needs an observer ( a concept I disagree with) then it makes no sense to say that time is relative. Our perception of time may be relative, but not the actual thing itself. Sort of. Maybe. And even if I’m wrong about that, then it doesn’t make sense to say that time doesn’t exist without an observer (people).

18

I beg to differ. I’m a realist, but the people pushing for idealism - the idea that there is no mind-independent truth and nothing without an observer - make a solid enough case. I personally disagree with it, but I’d be a fool to say it’s wrong. And if they can do that with real stuff (lol), they can certainly do that with an artificial man-made construct like time.

Unless you’re saying that it’s “time” that builds and destroys the planets?

19

No, but I’m saying that “time” still exists in the universe. “Physics” also exists in the sense that we gave it a name and recognized it. “Time” is what allows planets to be built, because without “time,” the universe would be like a photograph: just a stillframe, an instant. I guess that “physics” don’t exist, either, because they’re just as man-made as “time.”

20

I cannot agree because I don’t see physics and time in the same terms at all.