Does the Past Exist Yet?

[Vrecknidj]

Interesting article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-the-past-exist-yet-e_b_683103.html

First couple of paragraphs:

Recent discoveries require us to rethink our understanding of history. "The histories of the universe," said renowned physicist Stephen Hawking "depend on what is being measured, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has an objective observer-independent history."

Is it possible we live and die in a world of illusions? Physics tells us that objects exist in a suspended state until observed, when they collapse in to just one outcome. Paradoxically, whether events happened in the past may not be determined until sometime in your future -- and may even depend on actions that you haven't taken yet.

Enjoy.

Dave

 

[SpaceYeti]

Tomorrow will never happen.

 

[TruthSeeker]

They talked about this in the movie "What the Bleep do We Know" (the most INTP film you'll ever see), but it still blows my mind. How? Are the particles "aware" of being observed? Do our thoughts zap them with some kind of psychic force?

Whatever the reason, this stuff's fascinating...

 

[Da Blob]

This has been a recurring theme of mine since I have joined the forum. So much of the atheist and agnostic defenses of their POVs is based upon the false assumption that we, as humans, have a real comprehension of Time and Causality - when we do not. For example, they can only see 'logic' in one of the prepositional relationships of causality, that of Before-After. They assume that all causes must occur Before effects and that all effects happen After causes.
Other prepositional causality is ignored by their limited logic and rationality - such as the Near-Far causality of Gravity or the Within-Without causality of boundary formation, the Above-Below causality of hierarchies etc...

Even now there is a thread ongoing where consciousness is said to be merely an effect of objects (such as brains and their components). It is almost pointless to point out that brains, or some components thereof, are the effects not the cause of consciousness...

EDIT: a couple of more quotes from the article

"We must re-think all that we have ever learned about the past, human evolution and the nature of reality, if we are ever to find our true place in the cosmos," says Constance Hilliard, a historian of science at UNT.

.

Bottom line: reality begins and ends with the observer.

 

[₲uardian]

ur mom doesn't exist until observed

also, interesting.

 

[₲uardian]

How? Are the particles "aware" of being observed?

This was my same thought. I don't see how the observation of a human being is really relevant to the universe. If observation is just some constructed concept, sure we could make any rule we want about observation.

 

[SpaceYeti]

They talked about this in the movie "What the Bleep do We Know" (the most INTP film you'll ever see), but it still blows my mind. How? Are the particles "aware" of being observed? Do our thoughts zap them with some kind of psychic force?

Whatever the reason, this stuff's fascinating...

... That's a propaganda film, you know. Didn't you notice that the physicists who do appear in the film later claimed their interviews were selectively edited?

 

[lone_dreamer]

This was my same thought. I don't see how the observation of a human being is really relevant to the universe. If observation is just some constructed concept, sure we could make any rule we want about observation.

The human observation of the universe might not have a direct affect on the universe itself, but the humans perception of it.
This may be relevant: Quantum Double Slit experiment

 

[EyeSeeCold]

If actions of the universe rely on observations by human life, then what put the universe in motion before the emergence of life?

 

[Puffy]

If actions of the universe rely on observations by human life, then what put the universe in motion before the emergence of life?

I wonder

 

[typus]

If actions of the universe rely on observations by human life, then what put the universe in motion before the emergence of life?

If they did, then I have no idea! But they don't, so... there's that.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Human beings tend to over value their importance. It's only natural though right? I mean here we sit on a backwater dirtball (allegedly) within a massive universe (allegedly) so of course it can't exist if we aren't lookin' at it. You know, it is possible to overthink things from time to time.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to make my dinner in such a way as to cause Hitler to be stillborn and make the Dodo bird more adaptable.

 

[Da Blob]

Human beings tend to over value their importance. It's only natural though right? I mean here we sit on a backwater dirtball (allegedly) within a massive universe (allegedly) so of course it can't exist if we aren't lookin' at it. You know, it is possible to overthink things from time to time.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to make my dinner in such a way as to cause Hitler to be stillborn and make the Dodo bird more adaptable.

Hmmm! Interesting scenario there. What if you already did it once but mixed up two ingredients making Dodo birds stillborn and Hitler more adaptable...? Hmmm I always thought the point of witches' brews was to change the future not the past...

 

[Saeros]

In 2002, scientists carried out an amazing experiment, which showed that particles of light "photons" knew -- in advance −- what their distant twins would do in the future.

Somehow, the particles acted on this information before it happened, and across distances instantaneously as if there was no space or time between them. They decided not to become particles before their twin ever encountered the scrambler.

Bottom line: reality begins and ends with the observer.

"We must re-think all that we have ever learned about the past, human evolution and the nature of reality, if we are ever to find our true place in the cosmos," says Constance Hilliard, a historian of science at UNT. Choices you haven't made yet might determine which of your childhood friends are still alive, or whether your dog got hit by a car yesterday. In fact, you might even collapse realities that determine whether Noah's Ark sank. "The universe," said John Haldane, "is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

Am I the only one who thinks that all of that is completely absurd? Firstly, the very fact that they are using a human observation of the universe to deny the validity of human observations seems extremely bizarre to me. If we have to re-think everything we know, then we'll have to start with the existence of photons. Do the photons they're using to make this judgement really exist beyond the observer? If we're going to completely reject the validity of all of our observations, then we can't automatically assume the validity of any subsequent observations. We just wouldn't have anything left of which we can be certain, and we would collapse into some flavor of solipsism.

All of this is completely non-sensical. How can we even begin to discuss the possibility that, for example, a decision that somebody 500 years in the future will make is causing me to write this post? That my writing this post could be causing the hurricane near the island of Hispanola in 1502, 500 years ago? That my getting out of bed this morning caused the holocaust? <--- If that's the case, I would be perfectly happy to just crawl right back into bed

I'm also a little concerned about the phrasing of a few of the quotations. They "knew" what the twin photon was going to do, and they "decided" to do something. That almost implies that the photons themselves are capable of conscious thought, and free agency. I'm totally confusticated, confuzzled, and even a little bit confused.

 

[Beat Mango]

What a dumb question.

 

[Agent of Chaos]

When will the future become the present and when will the present become the past?
Or is time just one twisted illusion? Maybe reality as we know it if nothing but an illusion.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Am I the only one who thinks that all of that is completely absurd?

Um no. See above

Btw Blob? I realize that today Hitler still lived and Dodos aren't running around but that is ONLY because I am out of eye of Newt (not newt). As soon as I get within ten feet of that Gingrich guy, I'm blinding his ass and saving the Dodos! (and a few million Jews)

Bank on it Brutha!

 

[SpaceYeti]

When will the future become the present and when will the present become the past?

Right now. In the future.

 

[Da Blob]

absurd |əbˈsərd; -ˈzərd|
adjective
(of an idea or suggestion) wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate

[as n. ] ( the absurd) he had a keen eye for the incongruous and the absurd.
• (of a person or a person's behavior or actions) foolish; unreasonable

• (of an object or situation) arousing amusement or derision; ridiculous :

ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from Latin absurdus ‘out of tune,’ hence ‘irrational’ ; related to surdus ‘deaf, dull.’

absurdism |əbˈsərdˌizəm; -ˈzərd-|
noun
the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.

It comes as quite a surprise to some, that we exist in an absurd universe. However, I depart from the Nihilist derivative of Absurdism as promoted by Comte and agree with the basic premises of Kierkegaard's variation on that theme which is more in line with the discoveries of quantum physics.

It is an old idea that our 'solid' existence is only a manifestation of a figment of God's imagination. After all it is written "we were made in the 'image' of God"

Of course, there will be those who prefer the scenario presented in the Matrix trilogy. But all in all it is understandable as to why so many tend to lose their grasp on reality... Reality is not solid enough to be grasped. After all when you grasp an object, do you feel the object? No, you just feel input from your own nervous system, those nerves in your hand grasping ...'some thing'... maybe...

BTW- dreams of the future and memories of the past are the same thing, figments of Man's own imagination and generated from the same place in the brain... In fact, memories of the future and dreams of the past might be a more fitting way to describe the process...

 

[Vrecknidj]

Given that there are multiple interpretations of the results of quantum mechanics experiments, and given that many of them are plausible, and given that we don't have any clear way (yet) of knowing whether one interpretation is better than another, we're kinda stuck.

I prefer David Bohm's work, but I admit that it's merely a preference. I have no proof that he's right.

Dave

 

[pjoa09]

about the video.. i think observing is an action that affects the observed and the observer. something like one of newton's law.

as for future and past i like to think that time is spiral, events occur in a spiral and if we were to squish this spiral spring we would realize that the past and the present are the same, but only expanded. an even 2000 years ago is similar to an even 2000 years later. and are merely different due to the observers action.

 

[babrock]

I find all this facinating and incredible, both t idea brought up initialy and that from t vidio. By no means do i claim to be any athority but i find t idea that existence in any way requires our consiosness to be outlandish beyond belief. Imo, what is at issue is what constitutes an observer. Surely, it is way more likely that when t term observervis used it simply reffers to some particular types of interaction as opposed to some others and it does not refer to whether or not whatever is being interacted w has conciosness or not.

Just one example here; obviosly there were meteors crashing into t surface of t moon billions of years befor there were any conciose entities to obsrve it as some of them anyway have been there from befor life began on our planet.


I donot claim to have any idea what types of interaction qualifily as an observer but clearly some do and some donot. Electrons going thru a double split donot unlessthey have some particular type of measuring devise, in which case they do.

How similar this actually is, Idk, but this reminds me at least of how itis said that time itself didnot exist (in our universe at least) befor t big bang as time is a function of motion and one cannot have motion w/o mass and particals

And again if this makes me dogmatic somehow i apolagise but i am simply quite unable to accept that a universes existence requires me for its existence.

 

[avanover]

I would say that what is observed exists in states whereas the unobserved exists as activity. In practical use: people would say that activity is non-existence. For example, a concept of the mind is an activity and commonly thought of as non-existent (although it actually does exist in a certain respect). Nothing is truly non-existent for non-existence is a contradictory term. Non-existence is a concept and thus has property, i.e. the property to be conceptualized, and especially since non-existence can be distinguished from existence (which is the definition of property, distinguish-ability). Now since non-existence is a concept, it cannot truly be non-existence for it would not be a concept otherwise. Therefore, a "state" of non-existence cannot be. Non-existence can only exist as an activity where illogicity is allowed.

 

[walfin]

I don't think human beings are made any more special, the effect applies to any observer (which may not even be alive).

 

[DesertSmeagle]

So what does this shit mean only the observable world exists to us?..i dont know what i just said.I think physics world has come to the point where we need to figure out how to see higher dimensions..its like we need a missing puzzle piece..some scientists think that when we observe something, a nearly infinite number of outcomes happens in a nearly infinite amount of parrallell universes..its fukin crazy. like that experiment with the guy the cat and the box haha.. i dont remember the scientists name, but those interested in this shit know what im talkin about..shradingers cat or something...so an infinite amount of possibilities is happening in an iinfinite amount of different universes, every second..in one universe i remembered the name of the guy who did that cat experiment..in another universe im a dragon king giving birth to an army of cheetahs wearing monocles..