Is it possible for the future to exist?

[daisya]

I wondered if it's just a matter of belief or not or is there any proof even the tiniest piece, that the future is out there? What do others think or know, if the past has been and we have proof as much as there is of it and the present is now and happening, then isn't the future there ready and waiting to happen? How could we tell if it is or is it all just a guessing game?

[RAV1D]

McMouse..... It's been a few mins,well a few hours now and the future you spoke about never happened!

[daisya]

Modeller seems to have an answer re the future in a scientific medium but how can it be proved, can it be proved about the future being there? I can understand what you say but what about someone "seeing" something that hasn't happened at the time but comes into existence later is that seeing into the future and the future mapped out because this thing has happened? Difficult that one I think.

RAV1D maybe he told a porky that's why his future never happened lol.

[starone]

It's bad enough knowing what has happened in the past without knowing what is going to happen in the future. We live in the present and you should be trying to enjoy it, not worrying about what might happen. As the saying goes - this is not a dress rehearsal - you have only got one chance so use it.

[daisya]

Starbuckone I'm not worrying at all about the future, que sera sera, just interested to know about people's views on certain subjects, thanks for yours.

[chakka35]

modeller, you flatter this question by linking it to those well-known Einsteinian principles.
What is happening at this moment on some distant planet is happening now, in the present. The fact that we won't see it for some time does not change that. In fact, when we do see it we will be looking at the past!

None of this learning (mixed with sophistry) allows for insight into the future for the very obvious reason that the future has not happened yet. Neither Einstein nor anyone else can change that elementary fact.

[jake-the-peg]

There is something called the strong anthropic principal

http://en.wikipedia.o...i/Anthropic_principle

Now I emphasise that this is particularly contraversial and most (although not all) scientists won't give this the time of day.

It basically exists that the Universe has to exist in the way that it does because it is necessary for concious observers to come into existance in order for it to form at all.

This would entail the future existance of intelligent life affecting the formation of the physical laws of the Universe.

However because we don't know how these laws came to be what they are it is highly speculative.

Personally I wouldn't dismiss it as impossible just because it's counter-intuitive - I wouldn't think it's likely though

[daisya]

Chakka if the past existed why can the future not exist too? Why because we can't see it or touch it, is it not there waiting in the wings for us to pass into it? Jake I don't know about all these theories, no one can come up with evidence just supposition it seems but interesting enough.

What would you say that if someone wrote down something they had seen as a vision or dream and sealed the writing in an envelope and later the vision or dream came to pass exactly as it was written, would that be evidence of the future existing because it was seen beforehand and documented? Has this ever happened do you know?

[jake-the-peg]

The "evidence" from this comes from quantum mechanics.

I sense this is beyond the current discussion but it's related to something called Quantum Entanglement.

In QE two particles can be connected or "Entangled" even if they are seperated by a large distance. If one is changed the state of the other will change too.

If you're willing to look at in in a certain way you can think of it as breaking the light speed barrier. And doing that is the same as travelling in time.

Now that's not the sort of "predestination" where the entire future of the Universe is already decided but a very specificcase.

Jumping from that to the strong antropic principal is a bit of a leap to put it mildly!

But you did ask for the tiniest piece of evidence.

Check out EPR paradox for more details

[daisya]

Thank you Jake, maybe intertwined in all the readings there is something that will say the future exists, I firmly feel in my non scientific mind that it has to because not much is left to chance in the great scheme of things so wouldn't the future be taken care of too I ask myself. Maybe we will never find out for sure because people won't get their heads around there not being cause and effect, that they think there is some divine intervention because that's the only answer they can come up with (religion drives so many thoughts). Some can't deal with the thought of life being mapped out for each and everyone of us it's easier for some to dismiss that conception. I would love science to find the answer one way or another.

[jomifl]

The present doesn't really exist because by the time you are aware of it ,it is already the past. The future does not exist except as a concept in our heads. When the future does happen it is in fact the past.

[daisya]

Jomifl you said the future doesn't exist but then you said "when it happens", you can't have both, it either exists and happens or it doesn't exist and cannot happen.

[Old_Geezer]

You can. It can be brought into existence when it didn't exist before. It's all definition problems.

I'm unsure why it would be beyond the current discussion Jake; I'll read it when I have a chance, sort of thing that interest me.

[chakka35]

daisya, re your two questions:

"If the past exists, why can't the future exist too?" is almost as eccentric a question as your original one. By definition, the past does not exist (though evidence of it does) otherwise it would not be the past. Also by definition, the future does not exist unless you completely redefine the word 'future'.

If someone did that with a prediction in an envelope I would first look for a conjuring trick (it has been done many times before by conjurors) or look for coincidence. Only after all such rational explanations had been exhausted would I have to contemplate clairvoyance. Fortunately, no such claim has ever so survived, so the idea is academic.

I think I was wrong in saying that this should be on the "R&S" site. In fact I don't know where it should be - maybe in a new site called "Flights of Fancy" where we could all have fun discussing daft ideas. But then that would have to include religion, so where would that leave "R&S"? Oh dear...

[daisya]

Yes Chakka I should have said past existED not exists of course, sorry it was an error on my part. As for this being an eccentric question, each to his own as far as I'm concerned, you have your thoughts on the subject and others have theirs, doesn't mean to say you are right anymore than others. Are you not into the subject of debate even if you consider it hypothetical (or maybe you mean nonsensical?).

[Old_Geezer]

"Now that's not the sort of "predestination" where the entire future of the Universe is already decided but a very specificcase."

Hmmmm.... given that some experiments to show the duality of light can be made using far away galaxies and gravitational lenses in the path from there to here, I suspect we must be close to showing this is all "entire universe" territory. With those types of experiment we are dictating what happened thousands of years ago, thousands of light years away by deciding what we are doing with the light when we get here. Are we affecting the past, or does the past know the future ? Or maybe it is that there are an infinite number of each and we just force one that makes sense with our present.

[daisya]

Old Geezer I like your reasoning and the way you mull over a question. A deep thinker you are. If we feel that the future, our lives and the very being of this planet is pre ordained (just because it is) then I would say the past and present doesn't affect the future because it's already set out. No doubt plenty would disagree but it could be a possibility couldn't it, we act out our lives because we have to but think it's cause and effect or chance?

[Old_Geezer]

I'm unconvinced that chance is anything more than the name we give to results we can't predict, because we don't know everything to infinite accuracy. But that is determinism, and leaves little room for free will, whatever that is. Maybe we are all just along for the ride, just deluded thinking we are in control. Maybe at a quantum level one can get randomness without cause and effect, but isn't it all determined at our level ?

[carolegif]

What if we went to somewhere in the future and it wasn't there? Someone could go to where their house was and they were in the middle of a motorway - very nasty!

[daisya]

I think people like to feel they are in control of (most of) their destiny and would not like to admit that maybe they aren't, that life could actually be mapped out for each individual. Maybe you're right about randomness at some level but who knows which level it's decided upon, is it a case we aren't meant to know as we are pawns in a game!

[Old_Geezer]

What you mean time travel ? I'm assured by those brainy types that the universe has no set grid reference; so you'd enter the time machine in your house, try to go forward a few seconds to test it out, only to find everything in the universe has moved millions of miles away and you're in empty without air. I think a motorway may be the least of your worries ;-)