If there is supposed to be a past , present and a future, then how can mathematics dissprove this.
Let me explain
What is the present? If u say NOW then it already has gone into the past, ex. someone has a stopwatch with 0.0000000000000000000000 dec places. When you say NOW you can never get it to all 0’s. Its always .000005 or .00003 sec later
when you see things you are seeing how they looked like a super fraction of a second in the past, because light takes time to hit your eyes from the object
so there is a past and a future, but no present?
(A friend asked me to post this, ill pass the answer on to him)
Thanks
Some mathematical models have a real-valued parameter t. The value you’re interested in, t[sub]0[/sub], is the present. The past corresponds to t < t[sub]0[/sub], and the future corresponds to t > t[sub]0[/sub]. That’s all.
Any suitable definition of “past”, “present”, and “future” has the set of points in the “present” lying on a 3-surface in spacetime, which thus has measure zero. That is: if you pick any point at random, the probability that it will be in the “present” is zero.
[ul][li] In the past, I was watching Conan[/li][li] At present, I’m on SDMB[/li][li] In the future, I’ll be in bed.[/ul][/li] [sup]Screw the math![/sup]
In the present, Marty McFly is in high school with his girlfriend Jennifer. In the past, he is called Calvin Klein and kisses his mother at the dance. In the future, he floats around upside down.
Past is where time keeps on slipping as it passes an observer in the present. This, of course, is not the case for anti-observers such as the Steve Miller Anti-Band, which is properly an anti-band. For them, time keeps on slipping into the future.
Exactly. Since time (seems to be) ever-moving into the future, it is impossible to have a nonmoving ‘now’ in sense. In much the same way a person is a moving car is never able to define ‘here.’
Technically, there’s no such thing as a “line” in geometry - after all, a line has no width, but if it doesn’t, how can you see it? An actual line would be invisable, an assumed entity between two points. And yet they’re still very useful.
The present is the same thing. It doesn’t really exist, but it does the job.
Technically, there’s no such thing as a “line” in geometry - after all, a line has no width, but if it doesn’t, how can you see it? An actual line would be invisable, an assumed entity between two points. And yet they’re still very useful.
The present is the same thing. It doesn’t really exist, but it does the job.
That doesn’t mean there is no such thing as a line in geometry. Euclid’s first three postulates reference line segments, and his fifth references lines.
A line is a boundary between two areas. There is no width to it, just length.
The present is the same. It is the boundry between the future and the past.
The Future gets experienced by us (by passing over this boundry) and becomes the Past.
The Future also gets transformed into the Past, even if we’re not there to experience it. (The old “Tree in the Forest” zen riddle).
Just roll another joint and imagine the sound of one hand clapping, dude.
That’s the thing - a line can’t have any width, and therefore cannot exist in a three-dimensional universe, except as an abstract. A line is a theoretical construct, just like the present.
[sup]Screw the math![/sup]