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?

[daisya]

Lol O Geezer.

[jomifl]

As I have said before, the popular idea of time travel ignores the fact that the earth is spinning and orbiting the sun which is travelling through space. To travel in time you would also have to travel in space very accurately. Assuming you arrive somewhere where there is matter do you displace the matter instantaneously (explosion) or incorporate it into yourself(could get some interestingly heavy atoms produced and if you are still alive at this point the decay products would probably kill you)? Think carefully before you try it.

[Quassia]

I have a future headache coming on after reading this ;0) Wish I knew what you were all on about!!

[jomifl]

daisya ..it really is all about definitions, My first rely was a bit tongue in cheek as we really don't know what we are discussing, at least I don't.

[askyourgran]

I'm with jmr, the fortune teller told me what would happen in the future and eventually it did. I have plans for the future because York races will be held on 23rd july and we have booked a place to go for the day with a meal afterwards. So if the good Lord decides to cancel my future by bringing about armageddon I will not be going. Stokemaverick will be shortly be asked to work out my race cards if he will be so kind.

[jake-the-peg]

100 years ago all this predestination stuff would seem very logical.

All the atoms were little billiard balls that fly around and will interact with each other in nice deterministic ways - If you reset them all and replayed they'd all do the same thing - destiny was apparent.

Then two things happened :

Non linear dynamics or chaos theory to its friends showed that to predict things you had to know their starting conditions infinitely accurately

Quantum mechaniscs showed that at very small levels true randomness if rife

Put it briefly - if you went back in time with the winning lottery numbers - I want to come to see your face when then numbers come up different!

[daisya]

Jomifl I will consider it before I try it. I am sure it can't be done anyway unless you're a movie maker. I still think it possible though that the future is there already mapped out and we cannot change the way it happens which of course means I can't accept there is freewill which is a difficult concept for most humans isn't it?

Quassia I will join you in that headache, it's that sort of subject that can really give you a fuzzy head lol.

[Old_Geezer]

Ah, there's the rub Jake.

Chaos is applicable to object sizes similar to ourselves, but the problem there is not that it is truly random, "merely" that we have no ability to predict given the number of things affecting anything, and most importantly the accuracy we'd need to know existing conditions. It's a practical problem rather than an intrinsic one.

QM indicates that at quantum level, because certain pairs of quantities can not be precisely known, randomness seems to be obligatory. But quantum effects somehow seem to vanish as the dimensions grow, and we end up back to a predestined universe once more.

[jake-the-peg]

No you have to consider the two together.

Chaos tells us that to accurately predict the future you need to know the starting conditions infinitely accurately.

And QM tells us that when you get down to high levels of accuracy truely random quantum events start to occur.

You put those two together and you have a non-deterministic Universe

[Old_Geezer]

I see what you are saying, but I'm presently unconvinced of the conclusion.
I shall give it more thought.

[Quassia]

Sums up my look .. looking in on this post! Confused! http://www.google.co....,s:0&biw=1093&bih=427

[chakka35]

daisya, your question as to whether I am not "into the subject of debate" would amuse those who have known me, and been bored by me, for many years on AB.

I certainly am, but not for long about fairies in my garden, unicorns in the Amazon, crystal-gazing or clairvoyance. There are so many breathtakingly wonderful, astounding real things in life, this planet and the universe that we really don't need manufactured paranormal sillinesses.

Engage me in a real subject, then we can talk. Meanwhile I'll leave you to your astrology, Tarot cards or whatever. It's gin time. Cheers.

[daisya]

Like it Quassia but you should have gone to specsaver lol

[Old_Geezer]

I've given it some thought and can not argue myself out of my first impression.

It's not so much that we can not know the accuracy to an infinite degree (partly because of the impossibility of discovering/holding infinitely accurate values, and partly because we believe reality kicks in quantum affects which make them unknowable anyway) but that reality itself has to, in some sense or other, 'know them' to progress on to whatever happens next.

But does it ? It seems to be an act of faith that says because something is unknowable then if it was run in exactly the same conditions a number of times, then the outcome changes. Maybe it still comes out the same anyway.

I can see why most would plump for the non-deterministic version, but I believe there is an element of doubt.

As a separate issue, chaos doesn't always show in all systems, some seem more 'stable'. Maybe even if there were to be variation it would prove slow and small anyway.

[daisya]

I have to go along with you old geezer, I don't think things are easy to explain away by science without conclusive proof and they have none. Doesn't mean to say the other train of thought is proof either but it cannot be dismissed just because people think science is the be all and end all of every subject.

Chakka if you still read this, if you are not into this sort of debate why do you enter it? That I can't understand if you feel it's beneath you because it is "manufactured silliness". I totally agree that there are so many wonderful, weird and fascinating subjects in this world but to concentrate totally on those without adding a little difference to debate seems rather one sided to me but of course, each to his own which I respect.

[Quassia]

daisya ... I actually 'do' go to specsavers! :0)

[chakka35]

daisya, RATTER answered your question in the very first post. My first post was to ask why the subject was raised on the Science site when it has nothing to do with science. You haven't answered that, and I hoped that you would. For many years I have discussed metaphysical, pseudoscientific, superstitious, mostly crazy matters on sites where such harmless fun is to be had quite legitimately.
I also felt it right to answer your straight question about the envelope with the prediction in it - an answer you haven't acknowledged.
But you're quite right: I'm contributing nothing to your imaginings so I'll leave you in peace.

[whiskeryron]

I think it is deja vu all over again.Ron.

[daisya]

Chakka, Ratter didn't answer my question he gave me his opinion as have you and everyone else. I posted this in Science because I wanted to know if there was a scientific answer to this question that I had not come across, I didn't think there was anything wrong in that. You have your own opinions as to the validity of the subject matter and it may differ to mine or others, it doesn't mean you are right or wrong, it's your opinion. No one has "answered" the question but it's been interesting to read the opinions and thoughts. It's a pity that some people feel that subjects like this can't or should not be discussed because they don't fit in with their thoughts and opinions. Rather narrow minded if I may say and the only thing I would add is, if any of us don't like or agree with subjects on here why bother to post to the thread?

[derekgprior]

We are all time travellers. We are currently moving towards the future at 1 second per second. We know how to slow down our speed (by moving very fast) but the trick would be to find a way to speed it up.