Why is there a "now"?

[Perpetual Student]

The "present" is to time as "here" is to space.

Can you provide a coherent argument for why that analogy fails?

See the above post.

 

[sol invictus]

See the above post.

There's a nearly identical equation for x, so I'm missing your point.

The relativity of simultaneity shows definitively that there cannot be a single, unique present. But I agree with Zeph that it's actually a bit of a red herring in this discussion. Even if we take the limit c->infinity (so that special relativity becomes Galilean, and there really is an absolute time), it's still not the case that "now" becomes universal. The reason is that my "sequence of states" argument applies perfectly well in that case too. "Now" is still a relative phrase that has meaning only when attached to a particular time - exactly like "here", which means something only if you know where it was uttered.

 

[dlorde]

Why do you think that an individual has their own "now"?

I don't really know. It may be that it's an aspect of the generation of a sense of self as agent and continuity of self. Once you can model/project outcomes based on experience/memory, have awareness of recent events (short term memory), processing of new perceptions, and projection of likely events to come, reflective awareness presumably gives rise to the ongoing sense of 'now' e.g: "I just did that/that just happened; I am doing this/this is happening; I am going to do that/that is going to happen".

All the arguments above apply just as well within a human body or brain as they do between individuals.

Yes, however consciousness seems to be 'adjusted' to give (reasonably) consistent/coherent sense of 'now' for the self construct. I suspect that interaction with others is the driver for the evolution of these facilities, so they are focused in that direction.

Just speculation.

 

[Perpetual Student]

There's a nearly identical equation for x, so I'm missing your point.

While you sit in your living room reading this, by choosing a particular v and x relative to you, I can move into some past "now" of yours; I can reverse my v and return to the "now" you just had, which is no longer a "now" for you. If I choose I can continue to increase v and go through your current "now" and continue into a "now" you have not yet experienced (whoops -- you may be dead and not experience it at all). All the while I have done this, I am always in my own "now."
Our sense of now is intensely linked to our consciousness. The comparable effect on the space coordinates of SR does not seem to have a similar impact.

 

[sol invictus]

While

That word assumes facts not in evidence .

you sit in your living room reading this, by choosing a particular v and x relative to you, I can move into some past "now" of yours; I can reverse my v and return to the "now" you just had, which is no longer a "now" for you. If I choose I can continue to increase v and go through your current "now" and continue into a "now" you have not yet experienced (whoops -- you may be dead and not experience it at all). All the while I have done this, I am always in my own "now."

Again, not in evidence. I don't believe the bolded sentence means much of anything.

There is a long, thin (I'm assuming ) 4D world-sausage that contains a sequence of states of a meter scale sack of fluid known as "Perpetual Student" (google worldline if you don't know what I mean). There is a distinct, non-intersecting 4D world-sausage that contains a sequence of states of a meter scale sack of fluid known as "sol invictus".

You can choose any spacelike hypersurface you want and call it "now"; and as you say, that slice might or might not cut through both sausages (if it does, we were both alive at that "now"). Tilting that slice according to the equation you posted leaves the laws of physics invariant, but - as I said - I don't think that's particularly relevant to this.

What is relevant is that you can choose any slice you want, tilted or not, just you could choose any timelike line and call it "here". There is very little difference, as far as I can see.

Our sense of now is intensely linked to our consciousness. The comparable effect on the space coordinates of SR does not seem to have a similar impact.

You mean you're conscious of places other than where you are? That would qualify for the $1,000,000 challenge.

 

[Zeph]

I believe that Fontwell is probably right, that this is part of or highly related to the hard problem of consciousness. I find it an especially interesting aspect thereof.

Let me try one more framing (finding these additional ways of explaining what I'm asking has been one of the benefits for me).

Consider three dates: Jan 21, 2009; Jan 21, 2010; Jan 12,2012. As far as I can tell, physical science can place all of these on a fairly consistent timeline in sequence (by increasing entropy if you wish) and more or less measure the times between them. All three of them "have been or will be a subjective 'now' ". But in science they are in no significant way distinguished - each is just an arbitrary point on the timeline. Yet we humans do make a distinction, and this distinction is very significant to us. The lattermost date is currently considered "in the future" while the others are "in the past". (Put another way, the former two dates have something in common which the latter two do not. I do not see anything in physics which supports the concept of a meaningful non-arbitrary "reference point" from which to measure future and past. From January 2013 they would all be "in the past" and that classification has just as much weight (two are in the past, one in the future).

What I'm positing is that a fundamental aspect of the universe we experience as conscious human beings - dividing the 4th dimension timeline into a future and a past at a point we call "now", and the changing of that point - is beyond the scope of physical science (so far anyway). I do not find convincing the idea that this is "just like 'here' conceptually". We do NOT divide the xyz universe into two fundamentally different halves, with one side always increasing and one side always decreasing. One direction is opaque, the other direction is "known" or "knowable". My presence as a conscious being at location x=234.985 does not in any way divide the x axis into any kind of analogy of "the past" and "the future", whereas that distinction IS the essence of what we call "now".

So "now" is just like "here" with the minor exception that it's fundamentally different at the core. That is, the most fundamental descriptions of what "now" means - without which we cannot even discuss the concept - are specifically not shared by "here", which has no analog whatsoever. I do certainly see the superficial similarity in that they are all dimensions, but any explanation which conflates "here" and "now" by addressing only the similarities and brushing aside such deep differences in their dynamics is weak in explanatory power.

Put another way, "now" is a close analog to "here", for some suitable definition of the word "now". That is, if you define 'now' so as to remove the concepts of future, past, and assymmetry and keep only the concept of "an arbitrary t on the timeline like an arbitrary x on a spatial dimension', then by circular logic this is true. But every one of us lives in a subjective universe wherein "now" is not so arbitrarily chosen as "here", and in which there is a difference between past and future, and in which the future is perceived to transform into the past when it becomes "now", in ways that have no analog in spatial dimensions.

I believe that in a universe like ours but without life, there would still be space and energy and mass and time (a 4 D universe with entropy and an arrow of time). I'm not so sure whether concepts like "future" and "past" (or "now") would have any meaning in such a universe, however. So I believe this may have to do with consciousness, as others have suggested. And I believe that from a physical science perspective, past, future and now may be "illusions".

Of course, the 4d world may also be an illusion as well - perhaps the true nature of the universe is a 2D holographic information pattern on the surface of an expanding sphere. (I'm not actually making that up). One might say that for humans, reality consists of those illusions which are persistent and consistent enough even in the face of skepticism, to gain special status. Where science has gained such strength in our culture is that by focusing in a well structured way upon these "objectively measurable" aspects of the universe, it has had tremendous demonstrated explanatory success. A concept like "now" is hard to measure in that way.

Relativistic simultanaeity and the illusion (?) of sharing a roughly synchronized concept of "now" with other conscious beings are different concepts. And indeed the apparent synchonization of "now" is a separate issue from 'why is there a now' - I brought that partial sidetrack into the discussion only to help people see that "now" is not a point we each choose arbitarily and independently, as one more way in which "now" fails to analogize well with "here". The misleading but pernicious confusion with relativistic simultaneity made that approach a distraction rather than a useful reinforcement. It has been helpful to see how easily these can be conflated and confused, not the least by my incaution. If I bring this up in another venue at some point, I will be more careful not to get sidetracked in that manner.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I shouldn't be wasting time contemplating the Universe, but it's so much fun.

GR makes for bizarre contemplating. Take the twins example where one travels close to the speed of light and the other doesn't. When the traveler returns, her body went through time more slowly, but upon return, the two are still in the exact same "now". That suggests "now' is flat (2 dimensional so to speak), and that we are not moving through a time dimension, we are experiencing "now" in some other way.

 

[Perpetual Student]

That word assumes facts not in evidence .

"While" clearly means "at or simultaneous with the time that...." It's like saying time is not in evidence.

Again, not in evidence. I don't believe the bolded sentence means much of anything.

The continuity of time is what this refers to. Why is that a problem? What exactly is not in evidence?

There is a long, thin (I'm assuming ) 4D world-sausage that contains a sequence of states of a meter scale sack of fluid known as "Perpetual Student" (google worldline if you don't know what I mean). There is a distinct, non-intersecting 4D world-sausage that contains a sequence of states of a meter scale sack of fluid known as "sol invictus".

You can choose any spacelike hypersurface you want and call it "now"; and as you say, that slice might or might not cut through both sausages (if it does, we were both alive at that "now"). Tilting that slice according to the equation you posted leaves the laws of physics invariant, but - as I said - I don't think that's particularly relevant to this.

What is relevant is that you can choose any slice you want, tilted or not, just you could choose any timelike line and call it "here". There is very little difference, as far as I can see.

Yes, this makes sense; there does not appear to be much of a scientific case for my comments. Perhaps the psychological difference with time that we sense is due to the fact that we can move around in space and return to any point (theoretically we could compensate for the motion of the earth, solar system and galaxy), whereas the now of time can only occur once. Also, time has a built in coordinate system (the big bang) -- but space does not.

You mean you're conscious of places other than where you are? That would qualify for the $1,000,000 challenge.

This is a tough one. In one sense, I am certainly conscious of the Andromeda galaxy or some quasar (for example) regarding both its space and time. I am conscious of both the light we now see and the light it might be emitting at this moment. I can think about the whole observable universe (in my crude manner) and consequently be conscious of it all at this moment. But, I think you mean that I cannot be conscious of actually being elsewhere or everywhere?

In any case, our sense of awareness is of the present moment. Our sense of our position in space (which is actually never definite) is not critical to awareness. For example, if I were kidnapped, hooded and brought to some place with a spaceship while rendered unconscious and later awoke in utter darkness and weightlessness, I would have no idea of my location in space but I would certainly be aware of "now" in time.

 

[sol invictus]

Consider three dates: Jan 21, 2009; Jan 21, 2010; Jan 12,2012. As far as I can tell, physical science can place all of these on a fairly consistent timeline in sequence (by increasing entropy if you wish) and more or less measure the times between them. All three of them "have been or will be a subjective 'now' ". But in science they are in no significant way distinguished - each is just an arbitrary point on the timeline. Yet we humans do make a distinction, and this distinction is very significant to us. The lattermost date is currently considered "in the future" while the others are "in the past". (Put another way, the former two dates have something in common which the latter two do not. I do not see anything in physics which supports the concept of a meaningful non-arbitrary "reference point" from which to measure future and past. From January 2013 they would all be "in the past" and that classification has just as much weight (two are in the past, one in the future).

The reference point is just as arbitrary to "we humans" as it is to "science". That's the essential point that keeps escaping you. Yes, when you wrote that comment 2012 was to your future. But it's also (probably) true that where you wrote that comment, the arctic circle was north of you. See?

What I'm positing is that a fundamental aspect of the universe we experience as conscious human beings - dividing the 4th dimension timeline into a future and a past at a point we call "now", and the changing of that point - is beyond the scope of physical science (so far anyway). I do not find convincing the idea that this is "just like 'here' conceptually". We do NOT divide the xyz universe into two fundamentally different halves, with one side always increasing and one side always decreasing. One direction is opaque, the other direction is "known" or "knowable".

The only relevant difference - according to science - is that at least in the part of the 4D spacetime where this exchange is taking place, there is a true asymmetry between past and future. Not coincidentally, that's the only difference you've been able to identify.

My presence as a conscious being at location x=234.985 does not in any way divide the x axis into any kind of analogy of "the past" and "the future", whereas that distinction IS the essence of what we call "now".

Sure it does. Part of it is at larger x than you, part at smaller. Now, depending on your environment, it might or might not be the case that larger x is very different from smaller x. But that's the only difference.

So "now" is just like "here" with the minor exception that it's fundamentally different at the core.

How?

 

[sol invictus]

"While" clearly means "at or simultaneous with the time that...." It's like saying time is not in evidence.

The continuity of time is what this refers to. Why is that a problem? What exactly is not in evidence?

That time "passes", or that there is in any sense a special moment, "now".

Perhaps the psychological difference with time that we sense is due to the fact that we can move around in space and return to any point (theoretically we could compensate for the motion of the earth, solar system and galaxy), whereas the now of time can only occur once. Also, time has a built in coordinate system (the big bang) -- but space does not.

We don't even know that for sure... although it's certainly true "locally".

This is a tough one. In one sense, I am certainly conscious of the Andromeda galaxy or some quasar (for example) regarding both its space and time. I am conscious of both the light we now see and the light it might be emitting at this moment. I can think about the whole observable universe (in my crude manner) and consequently be conscious of it all at this moment.

Right, but that goes for both time and space.

In any case, our sense of awareness is of the present moment. Our sense of our position in space (which is actually never definite) is not critical to awareness. For example, if I were kidnapped, hooded and brought to some place with a spaceship while rendered unconscious and later awoke in utter darkness and weightlessness, I would have no idea of my location in space but I would certainly be aware of "now" in time.

I don't understand that at all. You'd know precisely as well when you were ("now") as you'd know where you were ("here").

The only real difference is that you could be pretty sure that "now" was to the future of the time you were kidnapped (since you remember being kidnapped, it's reasonable to conclude it happened in the past), whereas you'd have no such assurance of direction for "here" and where. But that's all (because again, that's the only true distinction).

 

[Perpetual Student]

The only real difference is that you could be pretty sure that "now" was to the future of the time you were kidnapped (since you remember being kidnapped, it's reasonable to conclude it happened in the past), whereas you'd have no such assurance of direction for "here" and where. But that's all (because again, that's the only true distinction).

I think that's true. My prejudice for time seems to be unwarranted.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

This confuses Dark Helmet too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36SQTFIAZKU

 

[The Man]

This confuses Dark Helmet too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36SQTFIAZKU

I agree completely.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6698185#post6698185

 

[Zeph]

I think the most amusing part of this conversation is the unseen irony.

My original hypothesis could be restated thusly: while science has been spectacularly successful in explaining an objective basis for much of the subjective universe we experience, it appears to have no handle on the concept of "now", "the future" and "the past" beyond acknowledging a directionality to time (but not dividing point). It grapples with the subjective experience of a moving "now" point where the future becomes the past only from the outside, as an arbitrarily specified location on the time axis no different than an arbitrary location on a spatial axis".

The main "counter argument" to this hypothesis seen here in various guises is that scientifically, this "now" is nothing more than an arbitrary point on the time axis no different than an arbitrary location on a spatial axis". (smile) I've been challenged to more scientifically describe what this "now" is with the implication that, within the realm of science, unless I can define it more meaningfully, it really doesn't exist (in science) and I'm engaging in (scientifically) meaningless speculation. This is amusing because *I'm* the one saying that it doesn't appear to be possible to even formulate a concept within physics relating to the subjective experience of "now", and then I'm being challenged to do what my hypothesis suggests it beyond science's (current) scope, or to concede. The shoe couldn't be much more on the other foot.

The funny part is that people making such arguments imagine that they are somehow refuting the original hypothesis, when they are doing an excellent job of supporting it. I point out multiple fundamental differences between the non-arbitary "now" and arbitary x, and get responses along the lines of "you keep failing to understand that if you look at the problem in just this one limited way, it goes away - just ignore the differences, in other ways "now" it just like "here".

It literally had me laughing out loud this morning (in a friendly way, not hostile or scornful). There seems to be at least some mild "frustration" with me in being so obtuse as not to "get" that scientifically, "now" is just like "here" and thus there is no scientific traction for any experience of "now" which is unlike "here" - when in fact THAT WAS MY VERY POINT.

I have conceded since the beginning that science can and does deal with "now" as if it were no different than "here"; repeatedly reinforcing that very point does not contradict the hypothesis. And I totally "get" that viewpoint; it was in fact my own original answer, but upon further reflection I just find it to have no explanatory value in addressing why in objective terms there seems to subjectively be a moving point on the timeline in which the undetermined future becomes the determined past. Showing that science has begun to actually successfully investigate the aspects of "now" which go beyond those characteristics shared by "here" WOULD begin to counter the hypothesis.

Sometimes scientists deal with this by labeling the experience of "now/past/future" just an illusion, and I actually believe that within the current scientific framework that may indeed be the "correct" answer (just as consciousness may be, from a physical scientist's viewpoint, an illusion). And not entirely unlike the "correct" answer that within the realm of real numbers, there is no square root of -1; mathematics had to expand to complex numbers before it had traction on that (or on what what arcsin of 4 would be). Until then, "now" has no objectively measurable aspect that would satisfy a physicist, and may be labeled an "illusion" not yet explained. This is at least a sort of answer, even if a bit more hand waving that I am looking for, but doesn't put the shoe on the wrong foot.

One of the brief summaries I like as a definition when dealing with belief oriented folks, is "reality is that which sticks around whether or not you believe in it". I find the value of science is that by making a feedback loop of knowledge seeking which incorporates that reality feedback even when doing so is psychologically uncomfortable, it has been extraordinarily successful in explaining much of the subjective universe as well (compared to other approaches of explaining the world). The irony here is that the experience of "now", "future" and "past" seem to be quite resilient - you don't need to "believe" in them or have an explanation or model, for them to "stick around".

You can still, of course, ignore and discount those experiences. But the motivation in doing so is, interestingly enough, in my experience more similar to new age belief motivation than to the motivations behind scientific endeavors. More to provide comfort to the human psyche seeking to feel that its current models of the universe are completely explanatory, than to that wild edge of knowledge seeking (most often occupied by science) which accepts some discomfort when the familiar models show explanatory limitations.

AND that is not hypocrisy on anybody's part. The subjective phenomenon of "now/future/past" really doesn't fit (yet) into the scientific framework (according the the hypothesis under discussion and so far not disputed); the tools of that framework do not (yet) have any traction on the question. So, scientifically, the problem "might as well" not exist if its out of scope. It's not just obstinancy or dogma which prevents scientists from tackling the problem.

However there's a distinction which can be made between "My current tools provide no traction in explaining that phenomenon", and "therefore that phenomenon doesn't exist". The latter jump is not itself scientific or rational. For what I perceive as largely psychological reasons, it becomes important to some folks to excise any blemish in the scope of their toolkit. Case solved, nothing to see here folks, move along. I have no problem understanding that, as I have exactly that same framework (faith in the scientific method, disdain for the unfalsifiable hypothesis) as part of my intellectual toolkit. It's not something which needs to be explained to me; my first toolkit of preference is also scientific. I've just come to see it as an interesting question when the toolkit is (so far) insufficient, rather than as threatening. (Unlike, say, a creationist, I welcome the ongoing shrinking of the gaps in what science can explain, and I'll be excited rather than dismayed when or if there is some scientific light shown on the subject at hand). While respecting science as much as anybody I know, I have no need to discount or ignore any current gaps. And I find the full explanation of the subjective phenomenon of "now/future/past" to be such a gap.

In fact, all this arises because I guess I continue to have enough faith in science to not exclude the possibility that there will at some point be some scientific explanation, to feel that it's worth continued scientific scrutiny rather than relegating it forever to the limbo of mere conflicting opinions.

Meanwhile, it has been fun.

 

[The Man]

I think the most amusing part of this conversation is the unseen irony.

My original hypothesis could be restated thusly: while science has been spectacularly successful in explaining an objective basis for much of the subjective universe we experience, it appears to have no handle on the concept of "now", "the future" and "the past" beyond acknowledging a directionality to time (but not dividing point). It grapples with the subjective experience of a moving "now" point where the future becomes the past only from the outside, as an arbitrarily specified location on the time axis no different than an arbitrary location on a spatial axis".

Both are perfectly fine dividing points between domains that we might call future and past (on a temporal axis) or to the left and to the right (on a spatial axis). The grappling remains entirely yours and evidently just with yourself.

The main "counter argument" to this hypothesis seen here in various guises is that scientifically, this "now" is nothing more than an arbitrary point on the time axis no different than an arbitrary location on a spatial axis". (smile) I've been challenged to more scientifically describe what this "now" is with the implication that, within the realm of science, unless I can define it more meaningfully, it really doesn't exist (in science) and I'm engaging in (scientifically) meaningless speculation. This is amusing because *I'm* the one saying that it doesn't appear to be possible to even formulate a concept within physics relating to the subjective experience of "now", and then I'm being challenged to do what my hypothesis suggests it beyond science's (current) scope, or to concede. The shoe couldn't be much more on the other foot.

Who said anything (other then you) about defining it “more meaningfully”? That you can’t physically or scientifically define the “now” you want is your problem. It’s your shoe and it stinks, don’t try to force it onto someone else’s foot. The fact is you just don’t like where your own shoe is walking you to, philosophy.

The funny part is that people making such arguments imagine that they are somehow refuting the original hypothesis, when they are doing an excellent job of supporting it. I point out multiple fundamental differences between the non-arbitary "now" and arbitary x, and get responses along the lines of "you keep failing to understand that if you look at the problem in just this one limited way, it goes away - just ignore the differences, in other ways "now" it just like "here".

You still evidently don’t understand what limited means, a non-arbitrary "now" is far more limited and limiting than an arbitrary “now”. Once again the only difference is your own personal perspective and that is extremely, well, limited. Oh, the obvious irony.

It literally had me laughing out loud this morning (in a friendly way, not hostile or scornful). There seems to be at least some mild "frustration" with me in being so obtuse as not to "get" that scientifically, "now" is just like "here" and thus there is no scientific traction for any experience of "now" which is unlike "here" - when in fact THAT WAS MY VERY POINT.

Wait so now your point is that “now” is just like "here" when just in the last paragraph you were claiming “multiple fundamental differences”. No wonder you’re laughing in "frustration".

I have conceded since the beginning that science can and does deal with "now" as if it were no different than "here"; repeatedly reinforcing that very point does not contradict the hypothesis. And I totally "get" that viewpoint; it was in fact my own original answer, but upon further reflection I just find it to have no explanatory value in addressing why in objective terms there seems to subjectively be a moving point on the timeline in which the undetermined future becomes the determined past. Showing that science has begun to actually successfully investigate the aspects of "now" which go beyond those characteristics shared by "here" WOULD begin to counter the hypothesis.

Again that aspect of science would be physiology and perhaps some psychology, other than that it’s just philosophy which ain’t science.

Sometimes scientists deal with this by labeling the experience of "now/past/future" just an illusion, and I actually believe that within the current scientific framework that may indeed be the "correct" answer (just as consciousness may be, from a physical scientist's viewpoint, an illusion). And not entirely unlike the "correct" answer that within the realm of real numbers, there is no square root of -1; mathematics had to expand to complex numbers before it had traction on that (or on what what arcsin of 4 would be). Until then, "now" has no objectively measurable aspect that would satisfy a physicist, and may be labeled an "illusion" not yet explained. This is at least a sort of answer, even if a bit more hand waving that I am looking for, but doesn't put the shoe on the wrong foot.

Wrong, again I (as well as others) gave you a number of “objectively measurable aspect that would satisfy a physicist” for “now”. Again the problem seems to be that there simply isn’t just one, which is apparently what you want for whatever reason.

One of the brief summaries I like as a definition when dealing with belief oriented folks, is "reality is that which sticks around whether or not you believe in it". I find the value of science is that by making a feedback loop of knowledge seeking which incorporates that reality feedback even when doing so is psychologically uncomfortable, it has been extraordinarily successful in explaining much of the subjective universe as well (compared to other approaches of explaining the world). The irony here is that the experience of "now", "future" and "past" seem to be quite resilient - you don't need to "believe" in them or have an explanation or model, for them to "stick around".

Who isn’t “belief oriented” a belief is simply a proposition that you consider currently to be true. Even if you consider some proposition to be false then you consider its negation to be true. Knowledge is just a subset of beliefs that have supporting evidence. However, once again this is just a philosophical discussion.

You can still, of course, ignore and discount those experiences. But the motivation in doing so is, interestingly enough, in my experience more similar to new age belief motivation than to the motivations behind scientific endeavors. More to provide comfort to the human psyche seeking to feel that its current models of the universe are completely explanatory, than to that wild edge of knowledge seeking (most often occupied by science) which accepts some discomfort when the familiar models show explanatory limitations.

AND that is not hypocrisy on anybody's part. The subjective phenomenon of "now/future/past" really doesn't fit (yet) into the scientific framework (according the the hypothesis under discussion and so far not disputed); the tools of that framework do not (yet) have any traction on the question. So, scientifically, the problem "might as well" not exist if its out of scope. It's not just obstinancy or dogma which prevents scientists from tackling the problem.

However there's a distinction which can be made between "My current tools provide no traction in explaining that phenomenon", and "therefore that phenomenon doesn't exist". The latter jump is not itself scientific or rational. For what I perceive as largely psychological reasons, it becomes important to some folks to excise any blemish in the scope of their toolkit. Case solved, nothing to see here folks, move along. I have no problem understanding that, as I have exactly that same framework (faith in the scientific method, disdain for the unfalsifiable hypothesis) as part of my intellectual toolkit. It's not something which needs to be explained to me; my first toolkit of preference is also scientific. I've just come to see it as an interesting question when the toolkit is (so far) insufficient, rather than as threatening. (Unlike, say, a creationist, I welcome the ongoing shrinking of the gaps in what science can explain, and I'll be excited rather than dismayed when or if there is some scientific light shown on the subject at hand). While respecting science as much as anybody I know, I have no need to discount or ignore any current gaps. And I find the full explanation of the subjective phenomenon of "now/future/past" to be such a gap.

In fact, all this arises because I guess I continue to have enough faith in science to not exclude the possibility that there will at some point be some scientific explanation, to feel that it's worth continued scientific scrutiny rather than relegating it forever to the limbo of mere conflicting opinions.

Meanwhile, it has been fun.

Yep those shoes and that “traction” of yours walked you right into that philosophical rambling above. Why do you keep pretending what you want is any form of science?

 

[sol invictus]

I think the most amusing part of this conversation is the unseen irony.

My original hypothesis could be restated thusly: while science has been spectacularly successful in explaining an objective basis for much of the subjective universe we experience, it appears to have no handle on the concept of "now", "the future" and "the past" beyond acknowledging a directionality to time (but not dividing point). It grapples with the subjective experience of a moving "now" point where the future becomes the past only from the outside, as an arbitrarily specified location on the time axis no different than an arbitrary location on a spatial axis".

The main "counter argument" to this hypothesis seen here in various guises is that scientifically, this "now" is nothing more than an arbitrary point on the time axis no different than an arbitrary location on a spatial axis". (smile) I've been challenged to more scientifically describe what this "now" is with the implication that, within the realm of science, unless I can define it more meaningfully, it really doesn't exist (in science) and I'm engaging in (scientifically) meaningless speculation. This is amusing because *I'm* the one saying that it doesn't appear to be possible to even formulate a concept within physics relating to the subjective experience of "now", and then I'm being challenged to do what my hypothesis suggests it beyond science's (current) scope, or to concede. The shoe couldn't be much more on the other foot.

It's intuitively obvious to many people (probably everyone prior to Galileo) that there is a unique, universal rest frame. After all, when you push something it aways stops after a bit. Speeds should be defined relative to that frame, and clearly there's something special about it. Right?

Wrong. That intuition is flat-out wrong, it's an incorrect view of the world. The correct view is that we all live on a giant ball hurtling around the sun (which is hurtling around the center of the Milky Way), and that motion doesn't affect our experiences on earth in the slightest.

I think your intuition about "now" is the same. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't see anything ironic about it. What is a bit ironic is your apparent inability to grasp the possibility that you might be blinded (by a limited experience of the word, just as people are about relative motion unless they are taught to think systematically about it).

 

[Zeph]

I think your intuition about "now" is the same. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't see anything ironic about it. What is a bit ironic is your apparent inability to grasp the possibility that you might be blinded (by a limited experience of the word, just as people are about relative motion unless they are taught to think systematically about it).

Hmm. I guess that patience has degenerated enough that people really are not reading what I am writing very carefully, and sometimes responding more to what they are projecting. I don't blame them, I suppose, the thread has gone on for a while. But I don't think people have actually understood *what* I found amusing.

Anyway, I consider credible your hypothesis that my intuition about "now" may be due to a limited perspective, or at least quite credible enough to be worth fleshing out and exploring. If that could be developed into an explanation of the mechanisms for the subjective sense that there is a moving dividing point between future and past, it would indeed satisfy my original question. However, I find your analogy with the apparent flatness and stability of a local terrestrial reference frame takes us only so far - enough to open the doors to "maybe this sense of a subjective 'now' is similarly only a local limitation", but does not flesh out any further mechanism or evidence or model. That is, you and I can clearly explain the "why" behind the local terrain seeming superficially flat rather than spheroidal and fixed rather than rotating. We can also explain why newtonian physics "seems" a pretty accurate description of the world in many common environments, even tho we know relativistic physics is more accurate. And so on - the mechanism behind these local illusions is not mere hypothesis but well understood.

So I will grant that it's possible that there is or will be a scientific explanation for the subjective experience of a moving dividing point between future and past, which is based on a similar "short perspective". In fact, my guess is that this might be a fruitful avenue of approach. But the existence of some mechanism behind such a "local illusion" has so far only been posited, not described or linked to evidence based physical theory.

So I don't see myself as "blinded" about that *possibility* at all. I will freely concede the possibility that our limited perspective plays a part in some illusion of "now". I am more than happy to consider explanations of mechanisms which would logically result in such an illusion. I believe you may be mistaking my position that "I haven't yet seen any evidence for any such explanation" for "I cannot consider such a resolution possible". I'm really not being dogmatic or inflexible here.

Nor have I been intending in any way to be insulting or shrill. I do realize that my persistence in not finding certain offered framings satisfactory can seem obstinate or bullheaded to some - it could appear that I'm just foolishly reciting the same dumb thing again and again as if pure repetition and insistence would hold weight against the sensible explanations of the cogniscenti. I can certainly see how my apparent unfathomable incalcitrance might seem irritating, and that it could seem past time that I just admit my naivete and wrongheadedness.

While I will freely admit that I could be barking up the wrong tree, I'll explain a bit about why I'm not yet convinced of that, on yet a different metalevel. The following is NOT cited as evidence for the correctness of my hypothesis, but only as explanation for my apparent irrational obstinancy. In my educational history, I have never had a grade of less than A in a science or math class unless I stopped attending for lack of interest. My SAT scores were 800 in all math and science tests (albeit only 781 in verbal skills) and my ACT scores were above the 99.9 percentile. I have ranked second in Florida in the national math tests back in high school, approached cold without preparation. And - in the course of that I had many experiences in which an entire classroom was convinced that answer A was correct, while my conclusion of answer B turned out to be objectively correct in the end. So I don't quickly abandon every notion I have just because a few people become scornful and defensive. On the other hand, I've also often been dead wrong, so I also assume that I may be again at any time, and the number of people who disagree with me has a lot of weight in the end, even if I'm not immediately cowed by it. I cite the above not out of ego, but as explanation for how I evaluate things, weighing my insights as fallible yet demonstrably sometimes worthwhile in the end (based in part on the feedback in those cases where there IS some objective measure). I've had a large number of experiences in life when some notion of mine which others dismissed as "naive" or "dumb" turned out to be of value when the right others looked deeper. (As well as times when it did not). This gives me very little confidence that I *must* be right, but makes the possibility that I *might* be saying something meaningful a credible hypothesis to me, despite the mild scorn of the smug.

(I was however seduced away from my expected career in the physical sciences or math by the lure of the computer many years ago, so I would call myself more of an intelligent layman in Asimov's terms, than a scientist; I left physics after following the derivation and implications of special relativity but before learning tensor analysis and delving into the actual mathematics of general relativity. For that and most of quantum physics, I rely on the best tutorials of others, rather than having followed the full mathematics myself. So there are others here with more domain knowledge and I actually do respect that).

It so far appears that folks are offering the same explanations I myself considered previously, and that it has been difficult to explain why I have found those explanations unsatisfactory. This lack of my agreement that the case is nicely wrapped up has been interpreted as my "just not understanding yet", either through lack of intelligence/education or an inflexible personality or whatever. While that may indeed turn out to be the case in the end, it's not my current best estimate of the situation; I still perceive that my questions have some meaning when we get past the first non-answers. I still consider it a credible possibility that there are subleties in what I'm admittedly grasping to exposit which have not yet been understood by some of those becoming impatient with me. I will assume that the fault is mine in attempting to explicate something at or beyond the edge of my abilities, rather than anybody else's for not being sharp enough to intuitively grasp it.

If it appears to you that I'm simply dense, or that I am blinded to any but my own explanations by an inflexible mind, that is probably a misanalysis of this discussion. I may still be way off track, but I also might be actually be trying to describe something which is difficult enough that it takes some active attempt to understand rather than discount, in order to be conveyed.

It's not important to me to convince anybody of that; I've been offering these thoughts in search of fellow "curious characters" rather to prove any fixed point. If I've seemed argumentative, it has been in trying to avoid what I perceived as misinterpretation of the questions I raised, or premature pseudo-resolution, rather than because I have a fixed answer I am pushing. I never sought a "debate". The only "winning" result for me is if I or somebody else actually learns something new, or a seed is planted which will later bear such fruit. I have been so learning (more in terms of having your intelligent if not always friendly or respectful sounding board to refine my questions upon, than in terms of new explanations).

If anybody here seeks similar payoffs but has only managed to reinforce what they already "knew" and has found no iota of insight or interest, I regret their having wasted their time. Those who engage in such discussions in pursuit of different payoffs (helpfulness to others, being "right" or superior, reinforcement of comfortable models) may or may not have satisfied them.

Sol, thanks for being one who does admit the possibility of being wrong, despite your quite apparent great knowledge.

Cheers,
Zeph

 

[Zeph]

It literally had me laughing out loud this morning (in a friendly way, not hostile or scornful). There seems to be at least some mild "frustration" with me in being so obtuse as not to "get" that scientifically, "now" is just like "here" and thus there is no scientific traction for any experience of "now" which is unlike "here" - when in fact THAT WAS MY VERY POINT.

Wait so now your point is that “now” is just like "here" when just in the last paragraph you were claiming “multiple fundamental differences”. No wonder you’re laughing in "frustration".

Hey, the man, relax a little.

I'm not frustrated, I said I was feeling friendly, not hostile or scornful. My amusement is with the human condition, which we all share, myself included. I was also hypothesizing from the tone I perceive that some others might be slipping into (perhaps unnecessary) frustration, but I wasn't 'laughing in frustration' as you misread me. You really haven't been reading very carefully; I don't mean that so much as a put-down, as to describe that if you tried a bit harder to understand in a friendly manner, you might not need to be so reactive to things I didn't actually say upon closer reading. Unless you prefer sniping at phantoms more than engaging with other thoughtful (even if horribly incorrect viewpoints, I invite a bit closer reading before reacting.

Likewise, it seems that you really missed what I found ironic. There's no inconsistency there. Let's try it point by point:

I asserted (for discussion purposes) in effect that science seems able to explain only as much of the subjective phenomenon of "now" as DOES fits into an analogy with "here" and that any further characteristics of the concept of "now" which DO NOT fit into that analogy are weakly handled if at all. (Paraphrasing).

Some others responded to the effect that (in their scientific framing) "now" was just like "here", and discounted (from their scientific framing) that there was any scientifically meaningful characteristics of "now" beyond those which analogize with "here".

This was agreeing with my hypothesis, not disagreeing, yet they appear not to have read closely enough to realize that.

Pay careful attention to the adjective "scientific" and the adverb "scientifically" in my quoted and unquoted sentences. Those were carefully used as important qualifiers, the omission of which could have indeed made my sentence seem to contradict earlier assertions. I have agreed from the start that "scientifically" there is little distinction between "now" and "here" (at least in terms of our current understanding, unless there's something new I haven't yet encountered but can hope for).

So let's just be totally clear that the conception of "now" which is well handled in science is indeed very analogous to the concept of "here". It's just an arbitrary point in 4 space, made special if at all by some observer whose worldline passes through there and who thereby gives it undue weight. Everybody here gets that, and I've seen no serious disagreement. Really. And certainly not from me! That's exactly what I learned in science.

However, the concept of "now" as a moving point where the undetermined future becomes the determined past, is a primary experience of almost all highly conscious beings to the best that we can tell. It might be explained as an illusion someday, but it doesn't go away just because we don't have a mathematical or physical model of it yet. THAT concept of "now" is NOT closely analogous to "here" and is thus outside the realm and tools of science, so far. It's hard to even translate this concept into scientifically meaningful terms, so it appears to be "nonsense" with regard to the scientific method, again so far.

And yes, that broader (or more subjective) concept of "now" does have several fundamental differences from "here", which the more limited "scientific" concept of "now" does not.

Yet I find some of the quantum mechanical edges of science do seem to be grappling with phenomena not formerly within the realms of traditional science, and I find it worth asking from time to time whether theorists have made any progress in scientifically addressing the broader concept of now, past and future. That's why I ask here.

"No, that's still outside the tools of science, check with the philosophy department" is one perfectly reasonable answer. No scorn or frustration needed. No harm, no foul, for asking.

On the other hand, Sol Invictus and others have suggested that the subjective "now" could be illusion. I too find that credible and would welcome a scientific description of the mechanisms behind such an illusion, as we have for many other subjective or local framework illusions. I easily concede that might a a fruitful approach; I just don't see that it has yet borne scientific fruit.

Two further rough suggestions of mechanism have arisen here (and elsewhere). One is that in effect C is a pretty big number; in physical space we tend to interact mostly with things around the light-nanosecond to light-microsecond scale, but time in the seconds to hours scales, which are disparate. That is, the scales of the time axis and the spatial axes are very different in the "everyday life" that imbues our consciousness, and this disparity of scale explains the subjective illusion of "now". While intriguing, upon examination I do not find that sufficient "mechanism" to explain the putative illusion, tho further discussion would be welcome.

The other is that entropy increase at near infinite rates, such that our consciousness cannot project certainty even a femtosecond forward, but the correspondingly lower entropy of the past allows us to have a fixed and immutable past extending billions of years. I'm still weighing this one. I haven't so far encountered any mathematics supporting the concept that entropy is increasing at such near infinite rates, so I'm not sure but that this proposed explanation is more than hand waving. I also don't see any full picture of how this ties to the subjective experience of now as the junction of future and past, but I'm still considering it and plan to do more reading.

I have always been a "curious character", temperamentally not unlike Feynman even if far less brilliant intellectually. I seek out others of like temperament. My hypothesis is that some of them will gravitate towards non-dogmatic skepticism. I'm coming to another hypothesis which is that they might tend to avoid online skeptical forae for some strange reason. (wry but not hostile grin).

 

[Zeph]

However, the concept of "now" as a moving point where the undetermined future becomes the determined past, is a primary experience of almost all highly conscious beings to the best that we can tell.

If anybody's reaction to the above is along the lines of "You can't prove that!" then again you are reinforcing the original hypothesis - that it's hard to even describe the above assertion about the broader conceptionof time scientifically. That concept of "now" seems to be outside the traditional scope of science, so far.

So does that make it false? In mathematics it has been proven possible to have true statements which cannot be proven within the tools of the system. This could be true of the physical world as well. And of course, because some aspect of the universe is today beyond the tools of science doesn't mean it will always be. So let's label the quoted assertion "unknown" rather than "disproven", so far.

However, I would really love to hear from anybody who does NOT experience time as being divided into a shrinking future and a growing past, or for whom the future is as known as the past, or whose awareness simultaneously exists at multiple points on the timeline, or who doesn't experience "now" as changing, or whose consciousness moves "backward" relative to others, or any other variation.

"Now" as a moving point of transformation from future into past seems to be very near to universal, across cultures. I've yet to meet anybody with a fully functioning brain who doesn't experience the universe in this manner, but I'd be very up for doing so.

So the assertion is not yet proven scientifically (and may never be), but it is in theory falsifiable and it hasn't yet been falsified that I know of. And there are a LOT of datapoints, wherein people describe their experience of future, past, and present in similar ways consistent with this broader concept of "now". This gives it enough solidity to be worth considering, worth trying to fit into the framework of science when and if it ever becomes possible.

(And it still be fit into the framework someday as a well explained "illusion")

Zeph

 

[Zeph]

The reference point is just as arbitrary to "we humans" as it is to "science". That's the essential point that keeps escaping you. Yes, when you wrote that comment 2012 was to your future. But it's also (probably) true that where you wrote that comment, the arctic circle was north of you. See?

Context 1. Yes, I take that as the step one. In that way, "now" is quite similar to "here", I think we all agree. It is indeed a very powerful and useful way of understanding the world.

Context 2. Here's the followup distinction which I haven't heard much acknowledged, and which I'll frame to this analogy. The arctic circle may or may not be north of both of us. Jan 12, 2012 2am PST is however in the future for both of us. (And for some very long period will be someday be in the past for both of us; the transition may vary by some microseconds). Of course, that's "merely" because we happen by some strange coincidence to always share an approximate t position which is pretty close to each other, even while our latitudes are completely independently chosen. There is no sense in which our latitudes change together in any way, even roughly. There is a strong sense in which our t locations change together (albeit never exactly so for reasons well accepted by all). There is no sense in which my latitude + 1 arc-second can be guaranteed to be greatly different in quality than my latitude - 1 arc-second, but the situation with my t location +/- even a small delta are extremely different in fundamental ways, being future and past. In these ways, "now" is not very similar to "here".

Repeatedly going back to context 1 is not responsive to context 2. Using an analogy which is limited to context 1 is not helpful to context 2.

Work with me a little here; read the above to see if there might be some kernel of meaning which can be teased out, rather than looking for some quick way to reframe and discount. I may in the end be wrongheaded in my understanding, but if so not so simplemindedly that your analogy actually addresses the core of where I've stepped off the path. I totally understand the ways in which "now" is like "here" and repeating those again won't enlighten us. Addressing the ways in which there are differences might.

And remember what looks to you like my intransigence and unwillingness to understand your viewpoint, might equally look from the other end like your repeating the same old things without trying to see whether I might be making some point other than what you THINK you understand and have dismissed. (Yes, I understand that the asymmetry is that you are right and I am wrong, but other than that )

kind regards, Zeph