Is the future real?

[Aldebaran]

there are many different theories with different ways of answering this question

'presentism' is the view that neither the future nor the past exist; that the matter of the universe only exists in the present moment, memories and anticipations are just illusory projections, from the present moment

'four dimensionalism' refers to the view that the
past, present and future are all 'equally real', and that (tenselessly) there exist dinosaurs, people and (if there will be such things) cities on Mars. These things don't exist now but they do exist, with the analogy often being that, if I am in London, New York doesn't exist here even though it does exist.

so is the future real or unreal?

When arguing that a reality necessarily exist, inevitably what is called "past" can in human perception only be as real as the individual perception thereof. For the same reason what is called "present" in human perception inevitably follows that same rule and so does what is called "future".

From which follows that "future" is and always shall be out of reach because impossible to be perceived before it becomes the present, and if it is the present it becomes the past at the same moment.

Hence when arguing that a reality necessarily exists and needs to keep existing for that reason, "future" is all it can be.

salaam.

 

[isitme]

 

[Knotted]

there are many different theories with different ways of answering this question

'presentism' is the view that neither the future nor the past exist; that the matter of the universe only exists in the present moment, memories and anticipations are just illusory projections, from the present moment

'four dimensionalism' refers to the view that the
past, present and future are all 'equally real', and that (tenselessly) there exist dinosaurs, people and (if there will be such things) cities on Mars. These things don't exist now but they do exist, with the analogy often being that, if I am in London, New York doesn't exist here even though it does exist.

so is the future real or unreal?

Is this a question about the nature of time or a question about the use of the words 'exist' and 'real'?

Why would our normal use of these words provide any insight into anything other than the abuse of these words?

EtA: Why would the verb 'to be' be only valid in the present tense? Something in the past 'was'. Something in the present 'is'. Something in the future 'will be'. This is the correct grammar.

EtAM: If the present moment only exists then what is meant by this? The present moment in contrast with which other moment? You cannot meaningfully say that only *this* moment exists. Why does your jaw flap and noise emanate from your mouth when you consider it? There is nothing to say here.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

if things can go only one way, then the future already exists ahead of us. its just a matter of travelling towards it, the only way we can. there is no way of knowing what this future will be, so it remains a mystery. we have to turn the pages one at a time, but the rest of the story is ahead of us.

if the future is changeable then it doesnt exist yet. human beings would be directing the future by exercising free will.
human beings would be operating outside of the normal laws of the universe. somehow controlling their mind, even though every atom within their mind has to obey the laws of science. its a convincing illusion, so nobody minds that its unscientific. free will is felt in the heart.

 

[fela fan]

when i want to know what a word means, i normally use dictionary.com, and you can hold me to that about any post i have ever made

But don't forget, and seemingly crispy has not taken this into account, dictioniaries only provide the denoted meanings of words. Connotational meaning is almost completely absent from them.

And philosophy has had problems down the ages for a few reasons, this one being a major one.

By way of illustration:

define 'mother' as it is in the dictionary.

Then write down your own meaning of 'mother'.

 

[fela fan]

the past seems a lot more real than the future

Life is only in the here and now. Anything else is a projection.

Time is only a whole series of nows.

The thing about the 'future', is that once you get there, it is in fact the present, the here and now.

But, yes, the future is real enough, even in the animal kingdom. Yet it's only real in the present moment.

 

[Jonti]

this is a philosophy forum


what else do we have, besides words (and smilies), to play with?

Yes indeed, max, it does seem you have nothing else.

Sad, but true.

 

[Knotted]

Life is only in the here and now. Anything else is a projection.

That's at least consistent. Life over there does not exist where as life here exists. I exist and you don't in other words. A very selfish point of view!

If anything it is the other way round.

If the here and now existed then what is it that we experience and what is it that is doing the experiencing? Are my thoughts and sensations pin-points in time and space? Can we say precisely when we have realised an idea? And if we can say precisely then we have not said anything. I am thinking what I am thinking now, feeling what I am feeling now. Can a tautology have content?

On the other hand, our world would not surprise us if it were just a projection. We cannot predict the future with any great success nor can we always predict what is happening in the room next door, so our world is not a product of here and now.

 

[kyser_soze]

It's all about mirrors.

Or something...

 

[Poi E]

It's all about mirrors.

Or something...

smoke and mirrors in the case of history.

 

[Brainaddict]

We cannot predict the future with any great success nor can we always predict what is happening in the room next door, so our world is not a product of here and now.

This is logicfail of the highest order.

 

[rover07]

Laser-armed sharks Woo!!! Can i buy one

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I don't know about the future, but history sure as hell exists.

Well, history may exist but what version of history? When you look back on events that have taken place in the past, inevitably you view them with the benefit of hindsight, which can mean that you look for reasons or justifications or logical connections about why events occured, which aren't actually credible or feasible.

Because it can be very difficult to understand the context of the situation that was in place prior to the history, or historical event, that you look back upon, its very easy to ascribe a meaning that justifies or makes sense of something, simply to satisfy your desire to make sense of things. It's like saying that everything happens for a reason, when in fact, that is a logical fallacy in many ways.

Some things happen out of the blue, but historians will then lay out their theories about why this happened, as if the event or occurence could have been prevented or avoided or predicted. When in fact, the only thing you can say with any certainty is that despite what has occured beforehand, you will never know what may be around the corner.

 

[max_freakout]

there are many 'versions' of history, but there is only one or zero actual histories

 

[max_freakout]

This is logicfail of the highest order.

are you saying that the future can be sucessfully predicted?

 

[kyser_soze]

are you saying that the future can be sucessfully predicted?

To an extent yes, but the prediction itself has an effect on the future. For example, when I used to plan media campaigns, I'd predict what the response rates to X banner would be based on previous experience of placing ads for X brand, so my initial conditions limited the potential number of outcomes. FWIW I was usually about 80% accurate, with +-5% of that average across any given campaign.

Ultimately you're limited by the parameters of your model, initial conditions you bring to that model, and the data you have access to with which to populate your model.

There are other ways of looking at this as well - the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy in behaviour which is caused by assessment of past experience against current environment which will lead to X or Y behavioural response.

A good resource for you with your cod-mysticism would be the first Dune Trilogy (Dune, Dune Messiah, Children of Dune) in which one of the central themes is the idea of the prophet creating the future they see.

 

[Brainaddict]

are you saying that the future can be sucessfully predicted?

Try to read what people post. I objected to the logic of the sentence, not to the initial assertion of the sentence. By the 'logic' I meant the bit of thinking that comes between the assertion and the conclusion.

 

[cesare]

A good resource for you with your cod-mysticism would be the first Dune Trilogy (Dune, Dune Messiah, Children of Dune) in which one of the central themes is the idea of the prophet creating the future they see.

Written by Frank Herbert and first published in 1965 <<<------ max, take note

 

[stdPikachu]

Written by Frank Herbert and first published in 1965 <<<------ max, take note

Are you saying that because it was written in the past, it doesn't neccessarily exist?

 

[max_freakout]

I'd predict .............. based on previous experience

the only information you can base predictions on is previous experience, but this is inductive logic, which is logically fallacious

 

[max_freakout]

Are you saying that because it was written in the past, it doesn't neccessarily exist?

yes maybe the best science-fiction story hasn't been written yet

 

[kyser_soze]

the only information you can base predictions on is previous experience, but this is inductive logic, which is logically fallacious

Rubbish. I could make preidction about something I have no previous experience of, or indeed have any information about. It'd most likely be a shite prediction, but it would still be a prediction.

Example: I can look at a list of horses in a race, say 'that one will win'. I have no knowledge of how to study form, or indeed horses, but I can still make a prediction with 1/nh chace of being correct.

 

[Dillinger4]

Max Freakout: Exploring philosophical dead ends since 1990

 

[stdPikachu]

the only information you can base predictions on is previous experience, but this is inductive logic, which is logically fallacious

A million scientists just cried out in horror and were suddenly silenced. If all information as experienced by humans is logically fallacious (I'm not aware of any information that exists in the "pure, no interpreted by humans" sense), WTF is the point of talking about it? Hatstand melon wibble frunge.

Every action we make is based on our brain making a predction about what the action will entail based either on its memories or some form of reasoning (be it logical or not). Kyser's point is valid because, at least as far as my current level of knowledge of neurochemistry and quantum mechanics goes, it's the only way we're currently capable of processing/"understanding" anything.

 

[Dillinger4]

This is the point where he mentions David Hume.

 

[cesare]

"Why do you test for humans?" he asked.
--"To set you free."
--"Free?"
--"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
--"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind," Paul quoted.
--"Right out of the Butlerian Jihad and the Orange Catholic Bible," she said.

I wonder how max would fare with the gom jabbar

Max, it's quite good to read even if just to try and spot how many different religions get woven in.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Example: I can look at a list of horses in a race, say 'that one will win'. I have no knowledge of how to study form, or indeed horses, but I can still make a prediction with 1/nh chace of being correct.

What? You're saying that there's another way to select your gee-gees???

 

[kyser_soze]

I wonder how max would fare with the gom jabbar

Max, it's quite good to read even if just to try and spot how many different religions get woven in.

Even the lowliest acolyte would dismiss max with the one word answer, 'semantics'!

What? You're saying that there's another way to select your gee-gees???

So I've been told.

 

[max_freakout]

Rubbish. I could make preidction about something I have no previous experience of, or indeed have any information about. It'd most likely be a shite prediction, but it would still be a prediction.

read my post carefully, i didnt say you could only make predictions about things you already have experience of

i said:

the only information you can base predictions on is previous experience

 

[max_freakout]

If all information as experienced by humans is logically fallacious WTF is the point of talking about it?

all information as experienced by humans isnt logically fallacious

arguably though, there is no ultimate 'point' in making predictions