|
The present is only an instant that becomes the past |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, there is a present, future, and a past. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No, the present is NOW (by the time you read this...it was then) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Excellent question, but for now I'll lean
toward yes because if the idea of time was never invented what would make sense? No age, holidays,
milestones. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Actually it would make more sense to say the present is all that exists. Of course by the time you
perceive my present it will be my past but what’s in a name. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Our perception of it is separate from it.
Just because our thoughts of what is currently happening are late (by a nanosecond or something)
doesn't mean that there is no currently happening present. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We are not in the past but we are going to the future. Were we are now is the present. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lots of good posts on this thread.
Seems to be a question of infinity and temporal. If infinity exists, it would be "the present". "The
present" would be a term of measurement used by temporal reasoning (which can only use temporal
references that are comparative to the temporal).
Interesting to note that temporal reasoning is constantly describing things whose existence is in
question. The word "nothing" is a good example. It would certainly seem that "nothing" is the one
thing that can't exist in the temporal or the eternal.
Anyway, I vote no simply because I, being of temporal reasoning cannot say that the present does not
exist. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sort-Of-No.
What I believe about the continuum of time and space is that the current present time? Has already
existed in the past as in a circle or loop:
The string-theory tweaked.
Time, is like a video-tape which can be rewound: "Prophecy" is nothing more than Someone In The Sky
already viewed/knows our choices and actions because God already saw it. Us.....
(Pre-Destination).
Today, is a "previously viewed movie";-) ;-)
;-) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with cjack. Sure, the present is the past a second later, but when we talk about the
"present", we mean as in, "presently bush is in office" we think it in a sense as a whole |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't think that it would be irrational to say that a present doesn't exist. I think that a better
statement would be: We always interpret, witness, or experience presents after they have happened. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The idea of the present is illusory and does not reflect the true nature of reality. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Not properly it doesn't, as time is always divisible and it is impossible to divide time into
infinity. But the present exists as we use the term, to describe time around which we are speaking
in. |
| |
 Carl  03 May 2008 11:46
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
"The present is the exact nanosecond of right now, oh, it's gone" is not a very good definition,
mainly because a nanosecond is too long.
I believe that the present changes at a rate of 0.0(recurring)1 of a nanosecond, unfortunately this
number cannot exist, because to be recurring, it would have to be infinite, to be infinite it would
have to have no end, and to have the '1' on the end of it, there would have to an end.
It's very confusing, but if you think about it for a while, it may make sense and prove the
non-existence of the present, rather a continuously changing tense we know as 'the Present' |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Good question. It reminds me of David Hume's skepticism regarding one's perceptions. Hume argues
that we make a major assumption that our perceptions give us an accurate picture of the real world.
So, the skeptic would argue that you can't really prove the present exists, one can only perceive
that it exists, and our perceptions may not be reliable. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
