Why future doesn't exist but past does?
Because it hasn't happened yet.
We make our own destiny.
t. Sarah Connor
Unless you believe that time itself is illusory, the past doesn't "exist" either. It happened, but it no longer exists.
>>1168872
>Why future doesn't exist but past does?
Without typing a blog (plane is taking off) this is still an open question in physics. The "arrow of time" is a mystery. Why was the entropy of the past lower than it is today?
Once it starts we understand it but why did we start with initial conditions of such low entropy? You can always fall back on the anthropic principle but that's an extremely weak explanation.
But it does 'exist', the only difference is that we know what happened in the past we don't or know very little of the future.
>>1168872
the only thing that exists is the now.
Because entropy increased
Define existence
Define future
>>1171554
Not anymore it doesnt. Its now, now.
Every action you take now builds the future. If you would know cut your finger, the future would have a you without a finger (that is unless laws of physics break or you mend it back (again altering future).
Anon you are the future, remember it is not too late to change it.
>>1171672
soon
Is the future caused directly by the past, or is the past caused directly by the future?
Why can we know what has happened in the past, but we can't know what has happened in the future?
>>1171684
are you legitimately retarded?
>>1171697
>should i attempt to answer his philosophical questions in any meaningful way?
>or should i just call him retarded?
>hmm
>>1168872
It's other way around you retard
The past is determined by future
>>1171711
that isn't philosophical, it's just bullshit
>Why can we know what has happened in the past
Because it's already fucking happened and you have experienced it
>but we can't know what has happened in the future?
Because it hasn't fucking happened yet.
On a side note, in contrast to my own point, it is actually possible to know what happens in the future, for example when you make plans to meet at a certain time and place, you know what will happen in the future.
You're still fucking retarded and sound pseudo-philosophical tho, the way you phrased that was beyond shit
>Why future doesn't exist but past does?
Future exists, it's already predetermined.
Present, past and future all already exist equally. At the same time.
Time is just like any other space dimension, the difference being that we can't control it.
Think of it like being born and raised inside a moving train.
You have and will always be inside this train.
You can move inside the cabins freely but you see the outside world moving along.
The inside of the cabins are the three space dimensions, X, Y and Z.
The outside world is time.
If you're that person that can't leave the train and will forever live inside it, when you look trough the windows you'll think that you can't control the outside world and that's a whole different thing, but the reality is that both outside world and the inside cabin are the same thing, they're all objects in space.
This is how time works.
We are forever trapped inside a cube, and we can go anywhere within it, but we are unable to move trough the various cubes within the bigger tesseract.
The bigger tesseract contains an infinite amount of cubes that represent the infinite amount of different "times" that exist. Within this tesseract, there is a cube universe that is that of the Universe as it was 1000000 years ago. Then another one as it was 100000 years ago. Then another one as it was 10000 years ago.
There's a cube that contains you when you were born, as you are right now, as you are 5 years in the future, and your corpse 100 years into the future.
All time exists at the same 'time', contained in the 4th dimension.
>>1171751
>"Why is this bird blue?"
>-"Because it's fucking blue you retard"
>>1171783
Our molecules inevitably are pushed foward in the 4th dimension by some force, and that's how we feel time flow. Maybe it is God that is causing this?
>>1171783
If time is just another spacial dimension, and operates under the same natural laws as they do, why should we be unable to move through the dimension of time? Couldn't we pull the emergency brakes on the train, or climb into the driver seat and make the train go into reverse?
>>1171785
>im going to make an irrelevant argument and post a confused face so i don't have to engage with this persons argument
You have experienced the past, that is why you can know what has happened, or other people have experienced it and can inform you
You do not have experience of the future, because it has not happened yet, therefore you cannot know for certain what will happen. Plans may change, people may die, whatever
Not my fault you can't grasp this, or refuse to accept such a simple answer to try and make yourself seem smarter
>>1171791
>why should we be unable to move through the dimension of time?
Draw a line.
Draw a point within the line.
Ask the point, "why can't you leave the line"?
The point will, unfortunately, be unable to answer, because points are unanimated objects and are therefore incapable of intelligent speech.
That being said, I'm not quite sure why, but it makes sense to me.
>Couldn't we pull the emergency brakes on the train, or climb into the driver seat and make the train go into reverse?
Time travel is possible, even in this day and age.
Just get close enough to a blackhole without being killed and you'll see 100 years pass like it's literally the brink of an eye. So it's possible to at least tell the conductor to speed up.
>>1171797
>You have experienced the past, that is why you can know what has happened
1. How can i have experienced the past? The only thing that i have ever experienced is the "now", i have never experienced the "past".
2. What's the difference between [event that has happened] and [event that will happen]?
3. Why can i remember one of those, but not the other?
4. What's the difference between knowing for certain that something has happened, and knowing for certain that something will happen in the future? Is there any difference?
>>1171806
>point on the line analogy
>"points are unanimated objects and are therefore incapable of intelligent speech"
Yeah but humans are animate and capable of intelligent speech thou, maybe i missed your point.
>>1171811
1. The now becomes the past. Are you trying to tell me that because you currently aren't riding a bike you've never rode a bike before? You have experienced riding a bike in the past.
2. It's in the words, you know those things we use to convey meaning?
3. Because of experience, that is what i've been saying all along
4. First hand past experience is more reliable than second hand obviously. For example, it's a commonly held belief that the holocaust happened (i'm sorry to use this example but here we are), we have evidence, records, second hand accounts. We also have some first hand accounts, but some people don't trust the second hand (or first hand) accounts. Can we say for certain that the holocaust happened? It's pretty safe to say that it happened.
However, we can't know for certain that something will happen in the future, because events that happen in the now (or the near future, before the time the event is supposed to happen) make it so that the event that is supposed to happen won't (illness etc. prevents a meeting)
That was annoying to word and I hope that my point comes across. I'll reinterate that your point sounds like pseudo-philosophy trying too hard to sound smart.
>>1171832
>You have experienced riding a bike in the past.
I disagree there. I've experienced riding a bike in the "now", however.
>>1171837
You disagree that, in the past, you have ridden a bike?
>>1171840
Yes that's correct. I have rode many bikes, many times. But each time i did so, it was in the "now", not in the past. I have never sat on a bike and said "now i'm riding a bike in the past". It's always been in the "now", every time i ever sat on a bike.
>>1171842
So do you just not believe in a concept of the past?
>>1171832
I can know for certain that things will happen in the future. If i am intending to drop a ball, i can say with 100% certainty: "The ball will fall towards the earth." And then that happens. Before i drop the ball, i can also say: "The ball will have fallen towards the earth." and that will also be true. If i know (with certainty) that event X will happen, then to me, event X might as well have already happened, and could thus be considered to be in the past. Because it has happened (in the future), and it is not happening in the "now".
>>1171845
>believe in
It's not a matter of faith to me, I'm considering it from a scientific perspective.
>>1171850
>he thinks he knows that gravity will continue to function as it has in the past with absolute certainty
HAHAHA
>>1171850
Fair point, but to be completely pedantic, what happens if you die before the event of you getting the ball, then dropping it? Yes, it's close to 100% certainty that an event like that will occur, but not 100%
>>1171855
but the now that you talk of becomes the past when time passes. as soon as you stop riding the bike, you rode the bike in the past. your point doesn't make any sense
>>1171859
You can try the ball experiment yourself.
>Hold a ball
>State :"The ball will fall."
>Release the ball
You will be able to predict the future with 100% certainty. Of course, this is a scientific theory, so feel free to prove me wrong, by performing the experiment just once, without the ball falling.
>>1171865
>he believes induction is a valid method of gaining knowledge and can have 100% certainty of the future based on part experience
Wew lad
>>1171814
His point seemed like it was supposed to be that the point had no concept of what it was being asked to do, as if you had told someone to walk through a solid wall like it was nothing.
I could be wrong however.
>>1171862
>What if a mutant gorilla bursts into the room and eats the ball.
Yes, we could go on forever. It's an example. Another example could be, that you've studied every heavenöy body in a certain solar system, and calculated that in 1 week, comet X will hit planet Y. You've calculated this with 100% certainty. Then you would be able to tell the future.
>>1171868
Would you like to memepost, or actually prove me wrong?
>>1171874
Are you not familiar with the Problem of Induction by Hume? He proved you wrong centuries ago. You can be pretty sure it'll happen, like, 99%, but by no means can you be 100%.
>>1171869
Hmm yeah, although if you asked a person to walk through a wall, and he had the correct technological equipment for the task, maybe he could do it. Or if he didn't he could start researching that equipment.
>>1171870
So you can hypothetically calculate some events in the future. But in your comet argument, they'll only collide because of events that are happening in the present. Situations that have no existence in the present cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy
>>1171877
Walking through a wall isn't the best analogy, really. Also, I feel like perhaps HIS analogy wasn't particularly sound either.
>>1171876
Is this a:
>you can't know nuffin
Kind of argument? Because i'm aware of that. Basically, i'm saying:
>There's a 99,9999% of the ball falling.
And you're saying:
>But that 0,0001 percent of the universe changing its laws mid-drop!!! What about that huh!!!
So you're just nitpicking basically.
>>1171889
No, I'm pointing out that you cannot be 100% sure. You were wrong when you said that. Accept it and move on.
>>1171898
You can be so close to 100% sure of the future, that for practical purposes, you may entirely disregard the miniscule chance of universe-altering events making you prediction wrong.
>>1168872
Neither "exist" and at the same time they are both happening simultaneously.
>>1171882
I was trying to make a sound analogy but a point can't talk and that's why we can't get an answer.
If the point was a human, however (implying a human could ever have the same mathmatical properties of a point), the human would probaly try to say something such as it being inherently attached to the line and cannot escape it, even though an outside force like a human move the line arround freely, by drawing, for example, a square, which is the prolongation of lines in an Y axis over the X axis (or X trough Y).
>>1171921
Why not just start with the human bit then? Adding in the inability of a point to talk doesn't help at all, it only complicates it further.
What you should have said was, As a point on a singular line is unable to move anywhere that isn't on the line, a human is unable to move through time.
>>1171931
That's exactly what I meant, but when I was typing the analogy I realized points can't talk, so it would be wrong to make that analogy.
>>1171957
The point being unable to talk is immaterial to the meaning of the analogy, anon. Humans' ability to talk doesn't help them travel through time any easier than the point's inability to talk helps it get off of its line.
>>1168872
In a way future exists - based on what physics tell us.
Start at 3:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks
Watch the video and come back with your impression. It is only few minutes long and contains lots of compressed well explain observations.
