Does the present exist?

[Coppernerves]

It seems that the present is between the past and the future, but doesn't seem to actually have any duration, so it's not so much a part of time so much as a hypothetical dividing line.

But then, wherein lies the difference between past and future? One is in memory, the other in speculation, both are incomplete and sometimes at fault.

I think maybe the difference between past and future is we get to choose some things about our future, but does that mean if things are out of our control, we're actually just remembering them?

I think that considering "current" events and actions to be nearer or further in past or future, rather than "in" the present could be more useful for planning and getting on with what needs to be done.

If everything we do is later, we don't need to be so preoccupied with what we are doing "now".

CAPTCHA: time is an illusion

 

[Foolery]

I think it's too early in the day to be huffing paint, buddy.

 

[Barbas]

You are pretty much the dividing line. Everything in front of you, where you are going, is the future, while everything behind you, where you've been, is the past...

...Unless you walk backwards, which really destroys the entire system. Please don't do that.

 

[Aerosteam]

Oh wow. Um... uh... yes? "Present" means, y'know, "now". If we're talking about events/dates happening right now, we can only describe them as being in the present. Here's some examples of when it applies:

I'm alive in the present, not in the past/future.

This country's recession is in the present, not in the past/future.

This year's Easter is in the present, not in the past/future.

His birthday is in the present, not in the past/future.

I'm baking a cake in the present, not in the past/future.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Eh...ish. You could look at "now" as being the lag our human brains experience when turning the future into the past.

(And that's without getting into how time moves at different rates depending on things)

I love these batshit insane threads when people try to look too deep into stuff. It's hilarious.

You mean you loved them?

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

It's like arguing that the number 2 doesn't exist because it has no thickness on the number line. By definition a point (points being 0 dimensional) in time has not duration, but that doesn't stop it progressing to the next point, or make it meaningless. In fact, the continuity of time is what solves Xenos paradox. He thought that because space is continuous, you could never traverse it as that meant crossing infinite points, forgetting that their are infinite time points to do it in.

From a perception point of view, our eyes work like video cameras, sending discrete images to our brain, which turns them into film. I think the rate is 30Hz, so you could argue that for humans, 'now' lasts 1/30 seconds.

But yeah, asking the difference between past and future is like asking the difference between 2-x and 2+x (when you are at 2) where x tends to zero. From calculus the answer is 2dx. Or 2dt in this case.

 

[sanquin]

I argue the opposite. The past has already happened, so from our perspective it doesn't exist any more. The future will never happen, because once it's 'the future', it's already called 'the present'. Future and past are concepts that humans thought of, really.

 

[TWRule]

It seems that the present is between the past and the future, but doesn't seem to actually have any duration, so it's not so much a part of time so much as a hypothetical dividing line.

But then, wherein lies the difference between past and future? One is in memory, the other in speculation, both are incomplete and sometimes at fault.

I think maybe the difference between past and future is we get to choose some things about our future, but does that mean if things are out of our control, we're actually just remembering them?

I think that considering "current" events and actions to be nearer or further in past or future, rather than "in" the present could be more useful for planning and getting on with what needs to be done.

If everything we do is later, we don't need to be so preoccupied with what we are doing "now".

CAPTCHA: time is an illusion

Some thoughts:

I think it's legitimate to reject a conception of time wherein 'past', 'future', and 'present' are all mutually-exclusive and non-overlapping. I'll explain.

So, on the one hand, there is what's called "chronological time", which indicates the kind of artificially measured-out time of the clock, the calendar, etc. It does seem to be more useful for planning when it comes to social events people have to come together to participate in, and we do use it that way already. However, as you pointed out, 'the present' doesn't have any real meaning for this kind of time. At best it can be represented by some specific time marker (ex. the "present" is 1:53pm PST on Saturday, April 26, 2014); it cannot represent the lived/experienced 'present'.

In contrast to chronological time, there is something called "kairological time" - it specifically refers to 'lived time', that is, time as represented from the first-person perspective. This is constructed out of events that are significant to the experiencer (that is, different enough from what proceeded them to register as significant information). If we talk about time from this perspective, not only is it relative to the individual, but the experienced present can actually be accounted for.

However, arguably, there is still no 'present' conceived of as independent of 'past' and 'future'. Rather, one only ever 'lives in' the present, but it is a present into which 'past' and 'future' are always already 'pressing'. As temporal beings, we are not just moving from one self-sufficient moment to the next, but fluidly projecting ourselves forward into our possibilities, giving us a sense of both 'past' and 'future' in each moment.

So it's not that there is no meaningful way to speak of ourselves as being 'subject to time', but rather that chronological time is a convenient (yet alienating) fiction, obscuring the lived reality of kairological time.

But this also means that we *do* have reason to concern ourselves with what we do "now", because our future-oriented concern is already contained in the 'present moment', and plays a role in coloring it. In other words, the way we project ourselves into the future affects what we are becoming now, and at each moment going forward.

 

[SKBPinkie]

You guys need to hook me up with your dealer.

This feels like one of those "what if dogs and cats are people in disguise" type of question that you'd see on Tumblr. In which case my only response is -

I can't even.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Yes I would say it does. I mean its happening right now... er unless you're reading this thread later then this is not happening now and as such I don't know what is happening now... which by now I mean not now now but later now, which to you would be now now I suppose but not now to me as now has already happened to me but it is happening to you now... er... I think I need to lay down now, by which I mean not now but back when I typed this when it was... OH GOD DAMN IT!

 

[L. Declis]

As much as I love it when philosophy starts getting really off on itself, I just wish once in a while they'd accept the simple answer. Does the present exist? Yes. We also have the past. And we have the future.

Yes, I know, it could be a daemon.

Yes, I know, we could be experiencing it backwards.

Yes, I know, it may be nothing more than perception.

But as far as we really need to know, the past is what has happened, the future is what will happen, and the present is now. And it's when people start just going like below that makes people roll their eyes at you.

"But what is now?"
"It's this instant as we experience it."
"But what is experiencing it?"
"My senses are telling me that these things are happening during the same moment as now."
"But can you trust your senses!?"
...
...
...
"Right, that's it, give me the drugs and go to sleep."

 

[Daverson]

"What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?"
"Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now."
"What happened to then?"
"We passed then."
"When?"
"Just now. We're at now now."
"Go back to then."
"When?"
"Now."
"Now?"
"Now."
"I can't."
"Why?"
"We missed it."
"When?"
"Just now."
"When will then be now?"
"Soon."

 

[Xyebane]

Everyone knows that this is all just an elaborate simulation of how people 'used' to live before our future robot overlords took over. http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

 

[Porygon-2000]

I think it does, yes, but it's of such an infinitesimal length it can't be measured.

Basically, I'm reminded of the Hitchhikers Guide about the population of the universe. Due to the infinite nature of space, simple mathematics tells us the population density of our universe is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Therefore, the people we see and interact with are technically flights of fancy, and should be ignored as such.

Think of that, but in terms of time, both past and present.

I may or may not be sober right now

 

[Ivailo Todorov]

When you think of the word present..Bam that thought is already in the past.

 

[Roofstone]

Speaking in archeology, the present is anything after 1950.

Since that is when carbon dating gets screwed up because of polution, or something like that anyhow.