Is the past really past?
 

This came to me in a flash of inspiration and I was wondering what the people around here think it might mean if proven absoluetly true.

Frist I shall start by describing a perfect Newtonian closed system. In such a system the postion and velocity of every particle can be determined exactly and without error should on have the right measureing device. This means that once you know the velocity and loctation of each particle of the system you can predict every possible future event that will ever happen. It would require massive amounts of computing power and I doubt even Quantum computers would be up to the task for systems consisting of more then a small group of particles. Now, you can also go the other direction. You can back track and describe every event that ever happened to that system since it's creation as well, using the same method and same huge amounts of computing power described above.

Quantum mechanics and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has shown that we can't actually know the exact postion and velocity of a particle. We can only know the most probable postion or the most probable velocity and any measure of one changes the other. Applying the same logic as above you could calculate probable futures if you know enough about the probable postions and velocties of the particles that make up the system. Now because you can only describe probable locations and velocities something strange happens when you try to go the other way. It would seem that you can only state the most porbable history of a particle and not what really happened.

Let's approach this from a different angle. Now the future is nothing more then a collection of the most probable events. (Given by Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) Likewise, the present is just verification in that we usually measure the most probable event. There sometimes is a deviation or two. If we continue on back we see that at one point the past was the future and then the present before it became the past. Thus the past was never anything more then a collection of probable events. For the past to be in some way physically different in nature to the future or present would require that nature have some preffered flow of time. To this date no evidence of that has ever been found. In fact evidence suggests nature doesn't care which way time flows. Thus the only difference between past, present, and future is human preception. IE. We see the future as the probable events that could happen, the present as the most probable events that are happening, and the past as the most probable events that could have happened.

Now if we throw in an observer and take into account the collaspe of a wave function we can describe a direction for time. Not only that but we can describe why a direction was picked. Before the wave function collaspe the past, present and future are all the same thing and time has no direction. However, once the system is observed we set an anchor from which time can choose a direction, and it seems to choose the direction that won't cause a paradox. (IE. It doesn't rewind the event for it to happen again. The collasped wave function stays collasped.) This suggests that until something is observed time does not flow, and by not observed I mean nothing must record and remember what happens thus collaspeing the wavefunction.

The question I pose to you is what does this mean for humans and life in general? It would seem our very existance and observation of the universe gives time it's direction and allows it to seperate into past present and future,

Edit: Note that I haven't yet described a system in which something with free will exists. That tends to throw things off a bit. The events described are simply ones that would happen independant of outside motivation. Nor has the system been observed.

Edit2: Futher thought and discussion lead to a subtantial revision.

oh yeah? what evidence has been found? or, what evidence WILL be found, if you want to look at it that way ;)


wait, but you just said The system means nothing for life in general if life in general, or in specific, doesn't exist in the system.

Err... Sorroy about that I'm used to talking with people in my major and my Physics teacher. We have all read generally the same material and conclusions that nature doesn't care witch way time flows. I'll work on posting some of that.

You are correct and for that you get a cookie. The situation I described basically says that there is no way to no whats happening inside a box that I can't see into no matter what I try. Which is pretty obivous. The way I went about it though makes the role that the observer plays clearer. Normally we would think things are progressing normaly in the box and it's percisely like the rest of the universe. However, QM and the Uncertainty Principle suggest, very strongly I might add, that without an observer time as no direction and the past, present, and future become basically the same thing.

Then I stated this:
Which means we are bringing life into the equation and disrupting the intial condition. Considering it in this way the role the observer plays is made clear. The observer collaspes a wave function allowing the universe to differentiate between what is the past, present, and future. In essence the observer, by the act of observing, created the past and gave time it's direction of flow.

Now back to the question I asked but pharsed slightly differently: What does it imply about humans that our existances defines the direction of time, and actually enables a past to exists? Also, what was the universe like before it was first observed? Finally, what might this imply about other life forms in the universe?

Well, several issues can be brought into play here, many of them philosophical in origin... I mean, I could work under the assumption that nothing is real, that everythign around me, including this forum, and the people who psot on it, are simply created by my mind in a sad attempt to give meaning to a world in which I know nothing because I do not know it is there...If that's the case then every law of physics doesn't actually exist, I am creating everything that is happening in my mind, and therefore I actually created the past, and the people in it, and they did what they did because I wanted them to, but everyone knows it because I created them and put this information in their minds... Therfore nothing you've said actually exists, therefore I can't comment on it.

Sorry, jsut felt like going on that rant :p , lol. Basically, I think that physics majors, since they deal with a lot of uncertainty as it is, should minor in Philosophy. That way you'd all have seizures when you realize that your two main fields of study contradict one another theoretically, and you couldn't prove they don't or do... Dunno why I'm actually continuing this, I guess I'm just adding a whole 'nother list of uncertainties to the already overwhelming list of them in your first post...

you rolled a 9...
 

If a tree falls in a forest, on a mime, and no one sees it, the tree is simultaneously falling ON the mime, and levitating OFF the mime as time flows in both directions, until of course you are walking through the woods and find a mime's rotted body squished under a tree?

The end result of which is, of course, a squished, dead, rotted mime body. and who can really complain?

I guess I’ll just leave it at the fact that as long as I don't come in contact with this great unobserved ball of Schrödingerical Uncertainty, I’ll be happy. So I guess I’ll just do my best to observe as much of my surrounds as possible so it doesn't sneak up on me, and I’ll try to keep my cats out of boxes full of Geiger counters, radioactive elements, timers and poison vials, and thus I shall endeavor to keep time marching firmly in the right direction.

Because, seriously, I don’t want that tree falling up off the mime. fuckin mimes.

you know, in philosophy class I would have just offered to come over there and wap you with my book. None of my classmates ever took me up on that offer :-\

However, I recently came up with a better idea. If I ever take another philosophy class, I will bring a Muffin into ever class. At the first mention of "nothing being real" I will jump onto my desk, yell "HOW REAL IS MY MUFFIN OF PAIN" then wing the Muffin of Pain at their heads. If they insist on being dense and tell me the muffin wasn't real, I will remove from my backpack the Brick of Pain and ask them if they care to repeat my experiment to see how real my brick is.

Besides to show that I have a low tolerance for bullshit, the point of the Muffin of Pain is to show that a philosophy of the world that refuses to acknowledge that a brick can harm you is fucking stupid, because you might just wind up with your dumb ass brain splattered on a classroom floor. Granted, any brain that doesn't think its real might as well end up splattered on a classroom floor, but that’s not my point.

Philosophy must be useful. Your philosophy, explicit or implicit, guides your actions. If you REALLY think that the world doesn't exist, and you DON'T duck when the brick is flying at your head because "its not real" or "it doesn't exist", you die. God willing, before you procreate.

[NOTE]This is just the way I choose to believe and there is no evidence for or against any of it that I know of, so if you can point me to any books that won't put me to sleep that have relevant information, please PM me.[/NOTE]

I don't think that time marches in any direction. Time stands still and we are moving along it the same way one might move a certain direction along a road. Let me explain.

I believe that time is a fourth dimention that works in prety much the same way as the three that we preceive normaly. You can move forward or backward, or up or down, or left or right. In the same way, it should be possible to move forward and backward through time, because time is stationary like coordinates in three dimentional space. In order to get from one coordinate to an other, you must move yourself there. The same goes for time coordinates, except that we are limited in our ability to preceive our passage across this fourth dimention, so we don't know how to stop or reverse ourselfes.

In other words, if you aren't observing it, time doesn't stop or reverse becauseit was never moving. You are moving across it, so when you open the box, you can only observe the contents as they are at the time coordiantes that you exist at at the time you opened the box.

DON'T YOU KNOW TIME IS BUT AN ILLUSSION?!?! :P

Bahh, there's nothing to discuss "time" is simply a velocity of speed that exceeds the fourth dimensions very limited expectancies..

It's pointless to think about where fantasy ends and reality begins, the fact is we exsist, we remember, and we look foward too. Who gives a crap about the technichal stuff?

Ever sense I had that dream about talking to God I discoverd the meaning of life wasn't some deep meaningful star trekkie crapola, it's pretty simple stuff. How can I put this to you.. hmm.. well the meaning of life applies differantly to differant people..

The meaning of life to Christians, Muslims, and Jews:
You win some, you lose some.

The meaning of life to Pagan and Indian spiritualisms:
Shit happens.

Yea, it was a pretty messed up dream. But it made me feel better.. :bmage:

Sure, it may not be necessary information, but we still want to know. Wanting to understand is part of what makes us people and not just more animals in the background trying to survive. How does it work? Why does it work? These things may never be answered, but the search for answers is worth while. That's the whole point of philosophy.

But i'm off topic, so i'll shut up now.

I wasn't saying that I believe nothing is real, but I have taken my fair share of Philosophy courses, and am in fact minoring in the subject, and it is a very valid point of view.... But if I did believe it, then it wouldn't matter, because if I truly believed it, then when your brick hit me, my brain would register it as something I wanted to happen (becuase why else would I make an imaginary person throw a brick at me) and thus I would feel no pain... sure I might end up in a coma, but to me it would simply be me seeing the true world... hows that for your laod of philosophy bs?
So now that I've gone completely off topic, I agree with you on the mime part.. they should all f'in die.... seriously.. does ANYONE actually like mimes? if so your goin in the forest next...

bah, you need to use bigger words to dazzle the idiots with bullshit. If you use words no one understands, or at least strings of words that, together, mean nothing, they will assume you are smarter then them. If you use words they DO understand, they may be able to piece together the general Idea fast enough to call bullshit before you’ve moved on. Good start, though.

Viper has since pointed out a fatal flaw in the Muffin of Pain theory. namely, that the muffin would most likely be consumed before being used in its vital instructional role.

but then, that's why they come in six packs.