About what will happen in the future

[kryptonaut]

entropy.

Prey not.

Perty on!

[stonestreet]

One person DJ shows will be replaced by a robot that does the show.

What's the difference?

Ouch! A bit harsh!

Actually, everything IS happening in the future, just not the past - Albert Einstein

But do the past and future ever exist if matters are only considered in the present?

And if the future exists, then there's a chance at some point that 'nothing' will happen (again).

Yes, since there is no "future" or "present" in cosmological terms. In other words, your notion that we only consider matters in the present is likely an illusion, and the discussion is largely an argument of semantics (what is "the present?"). According to Einstein, time is another dimension that changes when you change your frame of reference. So the future is happening now. We have tested this hypothesis, and like all Einstein's tested hypotheses, it is supported by all available evidence (we have travelled into the "future" slightly).

Your point that there's a chance that nothing will happen may or may not be true, but there is no evidence that there was ever "nothing happening" in the past. The idea appears to violate every observation ever made. In fact, a stronger argument might be that only one thing is certain in the Universe, and that is change. Your idea is extraordinary, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence to ever be accepted as a scientific conclusion.

I have heard that the past, present and future are nothing but the imagination of an observer. Nothing pre-exists its distinction.
I have also heard that you can not step into the same pair of underpants twice...although I am sure that some one will refute that.

Anyways the truth is the invention of a liar so don't quote me on that.

[Gonga]

One person DJ shows will be replaced by a robot that does the show.

What's the difference?

Ouch! A bit harsh!

Actually, everything IS happening in the future, just not the past - Albert Einstein

But do the past and future ever exist if matters are only considered in the present?

And if the future exists, then there's a chance at some point that 'nothing' will happen (again).

Yes, since there is no "future" or "present" in cosmological terms. In other words, your notion that we only consider matters in the present is likely an illusion, and the discussion is largely an argument of semantics (what is "the present?"). According to Einstein, time is another dimension that changes when you change your frame of reference. So the future is happening now. We have tested this hypothesis, and like all Einstein's tested hypotheses, it is supported by all available evidence (we have travelled into the "future" slightly).

Your point that there's a chance that nothing will happen may or may not be true, but there is no evidence that there was ever "nothing happening" in the past. The idea appears to violate every observation ever made. In fact, a stronger argument might be that only one thing is certain in the Universe, and that is change. Your idea is extraordinary, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence to ever be accepted as a scientific conclusion.

I have heard that the past, present and future are nothing but the imagination of an observer. Nothing pre-exists its distinction.
I have also heard that you can not step into the same pair of underpants twice...although I am sure that some one will refute that.

Anyways the truth is the invention of a liar so don't quote me on that.

Well, science can never speak to any sort of absolute truth, or proof. People who talk about the "truth" are speaking either from a religious or philosophical viewpoint.

Again, from a scientific standpoint, time in fact exists. It is one of four recognized dimensions of space. It's just different than we normally perceive it. Like the three space dimensions we're most familiar with, our perception of time varies with our frame of reference. It is affected by our speed of motion (the faster, the slower time is relative to our position), and by mass (the greater the mass we are in proximity to, the slower). The larger the planet an organism inhabits, the slower time unfolds relative to other planets. This is not hypothetical, it has been tested - rockets in space, when they return to Earth, the clocks have lost time (time slowed down). We have also demonstrated another of Einstein's predictions - that space can be bent - we do this every day now with gravity lenses and photographs of the early Universe. What's most interesting about this relationship though, is the realization that the effect of a mass (gravity) on a body is the same as acceleration. That's why, hypothetically, when a mass is great enough (black hole singularity) the effect is the same as that of acceleration to the speed of light. This fact (an observation repeatedly confirmed) has profound implications about the nature of reality.

I should also mention in response to a previous post, that we live in an open Universe. In other words, the sum of all the mass and dark matter is now thought to be insufficient to ever cause expansion to slow or stop (closed Universe). Therefore, the current thinking is that expansion, and yes, entropy, will be the ultimate fate of the known, visible Universe. Not a happy ending. Also, though nothing can be known about anything before the Big Bang, there's no evidence that nothing existed before it. Most scientists think it's more likely that something existed prior to the event. Further, most think that there never was a "beginning."

[trimph1]

Now, all of you anthrocentrics are giving human traits to science, lol.

[stonestreet]

Hi,
I really love science stuff, have done from my teens. However I am only an armchair explorer and so have to concern myself with mundane processes to get by. I enjoyed Hawking's Brief History of time when it came out and so have thought about the very big as well as the very small. I make the distinction between following this stuff and understanding this stuff. I mostly can only follow along.

My current way of thinking is that Science is a domain of explanations. We explain the coherences of our experiences with the coherences of our experiences. Every thing that is said is said by an observer to another observer who could be him or herself. An observer can only observe what the observers structure will allow. We all have different structures. Who is it that has privileged access to reality? Scientists come to an agreement about what reality is. They do not explain the world, they explain their experience of the world.

Of course I do not claim ownership to these words however my experiences in life allows those words to resonate with me.

One person DJ shows will be replaced by a robot that does the show.

What's the difference?

Ouch! A bit harsh!

Actually, everything IS happening in the future, just not the past - Albert Einstein

But do the past and future ever exist if matters are only considered in the present?

And if the future exists, then there's a chance at some point that 'nothing' will happen (again).

Yes, since there is no "future" or "present" in cosmological terms. In other words, your notion that we only consider matters in the present is likely an illusion, and the discussion is largely an argument of semantics (what is "the present?"). According to Einstein, time is another dimension that changes when you change your frame of reference. So the future is happening now. We have tested this hypothesis, and like all Einstein's tested hypotheses, it is supported by all available evidence (we have travelled into the "future" slightly).

Your point that there's a chance that nothing will happen may or may not be true, but there is no evidence that there was ever "nothing happening" in the past. The idea appears to violate every observation ever made. In fact, a stronger argument might be that only one thing is certain in the Universe, and that is change. Your idea is extraordinary, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence to ever be accepted as a scientific conclusion.

I have heard that the past, present and future are nothing but the imagination of an observer. Nothing pre-exists its distinction.
I have also heard that you can not step into the same pair of underpants twice...although I am sure that some one will refute that.

Anyways the truth is the invention of a liar so don't quote me on that.

Well, science can never speak to any sort of absolute truth, or proof. People who talk about the "truth" are speaking either from a religious or philosophical viewpoint.

Again, from a scientific standpoint, time in fact exists. It is one of four recognized dimensions of space. It's just different than we normally perceive it. Like the three space dimensions we're most familiar with, our perception of time varies with our frame of reference. It is affected by our speed of motion (the faster, the slower time is relative to our position), and by mass (the greater the mass we are in proximity to, the slower). The larger the planet an organism inhabits, the slower time unfolds relative to other planets. This is not hypothetical, it has been tested - rockets in space, when they return to Earth, the clocks have lost time (time slowed down). We have also demonstrated another of Einstein's predictions - that space can be bent - we do this every day now with gravity lenses and photographs of the early Universe. What's most interesting about this relationship though, is the realization that the effect of a mass (gravity) on a body is the same as acceleration. That's why, hypothetically, when a mass is great enough (black hole singularity) the effect is the same as that of acceleration to the speed of light. This fact (an observation repeatedly confirmed) has profound implications about the nature of reality.

I should also mention in response to a previous post, that we live in an open Universe. In other words, the sum of all the mass and dark matter is now thought to be insufficient to ever cause expansion to slow or stop (closed Universe). Therefore, the current thinking is that expansion, and yes, entropy, will be the ultimate fate of the known, visible Universe. Not a happy ending. Also, though nothing can be known about anything before the Big Bang, there's no evidence that nothing existed before it. Most scientists think it's more likely that something existed prior to the event. Further, most think that there never was a "beginning."

[vurt]

surely if you wash the underpants you can step in to them again? unless youre rich and buy new ones for every day, not that youd have to be megarich of course, just i cant see why youd buy new underpants every day unless you had more money than sense, you could spend the cash on something a bit more worthwhile like a couple of cds a week or something for the kitchen, theres always a nice set of pans or a garlic press.

[Aloysius]

Today is the tomorrow you were worried about yesterday.

[xoxos]

yeah science keeps going round and telling everyone it never lost that fight with epistemology. wuss.

[xoxos]

Scientists come to an agreement about what reality is. They do not explain the world, they explain their experience of the world.

"when the foot touches the ground, the foot feels the foot"
- an epistemologist

it's so charmingly absurd... what could be more suspect/corrupt than consensus/"peer review"? there is no truth unless i and all my ***** agree and say it is?

the other one i like so much is science demands the universe do everything twice,m exactly the same.. it demands repeatable phenomenon imagine if someone treated you like that... have to say everythnig twice, exactly the same, whenever they want it. eventually you'd get tired, kick them in the balls, and slam them over the head with their chair. what the f**k kind of universe wants to work with an observer like that.

[arkmabat]

surely if you wash the underpants you can step in to them again? unless youre rich and buy new ones for every day

I knew a guy who did this with socks. He'd buy a huge stock of them when they went of sale and throw them away after use.

[Aloysius]

[stonestreet]

Who gets to say what is allowed to be labelled science and what is not? Probably mostly it was the local church. What now with global communication facilities it could be a different entity. I doubt if I would get by being an employed scientist. Some people have committed suicide over the reactions by others to their science product, others have destroyed their life's work. I gather it can be quite ferocious working in the sciences.

Being an armchair observer is ok with me rather than it being a job. A bit like me and my messing about with sound.

Scientists come to an agreement about what reality is. They do not explain the world, they explain their experience of the world.

"when the foot touches the ground, the foot feels the foot"
- an epistemologist

it's so charmingly absurd... what could be more suspect/corrupt than consensus/"peer review"? there is no truth unless i and all my ***** agree and say it is?

the other one i like so much is science demands the universe do everything twice,m exactly the same.. it demands repeatable phenomenon imagine if someone treated you like that... have to say everythnig twice, exactly the same, whenever they want it. eventually you'd get tired, kick them in the balls, and slam them over the head with their chair. what the f**k kind of universe wants to work with an observer like that.

[stonestreet]

Ha, I can see that you are younger in earth years than me. In my childhood I distinctly remember on BBC news the recommendation that people should wear their clothes the normal way one day and then the next day wear them inside out. Also people were recommended to half cook their food and then pack it in newspaper to finish cooking. We had a big supply of candles. Do you remember the energy crisis?

surely if you wash the underpants you can step in to them again? unless youre rich and buy new ones for every day, not that youd have to be megarich of course, just i cant see why youd buy new underpants every day unless you had more money than sense, you could spend the cash on something a bit more worthwhile like a couple of cds a week or something for the kitchen, theres always a nice set of pans or a garlic press.

[Gonga]

yeah science keeps going round and telling everyone it never lost that fight with epistemology. wuss.

You mean scientists? I don't hear many scientists discussing philosophy except reverently and with regard to their personal views. However, probably even most philosophers would agree (those hat I know) that philosophy definitely "lost out" to science in regard to its relevance in the last 500 years, on this planet. Philosophical arguments will always hold interest, but they cannot be "tested," so they are not subject to falsification, right? Science hasn't "won," but it has shown itself to be more useful. And it has progressed toward its goal. So what does that mean?

Science is merely a word we use for all those methods of understanding the world that repeatedly work. If you use solid methods to understand something, you're doing science. Does philosophy show regular, newsworthy results that affect the lives of people and the course of human history? Can philosophy or religion unite 5 nations to put a probe down together on the satellite of a distant planet 7 years from now? No, because they don't seek to do that. Why bother if it cannot be understood? But the thing is there is evidence that the world can be understood. Science provides that evidence. That's something for modern philosophers to chew on!

I always find it funny how people use scientific arguments to "refute science."

People can choose whether to be essentially irrational or essentially rational. When I meet people it usually doesn't take long to see this in their view. Irrational people (usually religious) tend to have "beliefs" and the notion that there many things in the world that cannot be understood. Ultimately, many believe that that nothing of consequence can really be known. Fine. Nothing wrong with that. Except that it' boring and not exactly empowering. And they go on to "argue" their point! That's a bit absurd, because they apparently think they have a better method of investigating and understanding than everyone else...Philosophy is fine, but it can only go so far through pure logic (the same logic scientists use by the way). And philosophers don't have to spend years trying to reduce bias. Scientists though choose a rational view - make one assumption about the world - that it can be understood. It is an assumption...but a damn interesting one! A meaningful one! We do not assume we know everything, we do not presume to have truth, or proof, or even that we "win fights," etc. But as Steven Hawking said, if you examine the last 500 years of human history, what you see is how science has succeeded in beginning to explain what could never be explained before. He purports that's evidence that the notion "the world can be understood" may be correct. Myself...I have no beliefs, which I think are only needed in the absence of observations and facts (observations repeatedly confirmed).

If you reject science, what you really are rejecting is the notion that the world can be understood (or that you have a better methodology for understanding it than science, which is unlikely but I'd love to hear it). If you think the world cannot be understood, then why bother to try to explain as we do in these forums? Why bother to look for any meaning in life at all? The process itself of searching for meaning, and finding some, is pretty *&^%ing cool. Try it some time.

[trimph1]

Some are hardcore subjectivists...