Future

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

Is there a future?

Definitely Yes
6
50%
Definitely No
0
No votes
There is and isn't
4
33%
I don't know
2
17%
 
Total votes : 12

Future

Postby Neerowolf » Thu Jan 01, 2004 9:34 pm

Is there a future?

You choose first, and I'll argue if need be. I'm not going to tell you my position until later, so you can choose for yourself.
User avatar
Neerowolf
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:37 am
Location: none.

Postby Roadkill » Thu Jan 01, 2004 9:45 pm

well, it really depends. do you mean like a fixed future, one you could possibly travel to? No, unless you look at it from the perspective that just because matter exists it could assemble itself into your prediction.

Really, who you kidding if you think there is a fixed future?

But as far as personal futures, or future of an orinization or species -- there always is. Things can only go forward.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby TerraFrost » Thu Jan 01, 2004 9:45 pm

sure, there's a future. whether or not we'll be involved in it, i have no idea, but i would tend towards believing that we will be. some argue that as technology increases, so to do the number of ways with which a single individual can destroy our species, but... the number of ways in which they can fail in their attempt will also be increased, and... unless your attempt to destroy the species is successful the first time around, it is going to sorta make future attempts harder. we do tend to learn from mistakes, after all, and i would say a vulnerability that could lead to self-anniliation is quite a mistake, heh.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Roadkill » Sun Jan 04, 2004 9:13 pm

bah, i prefer to think that a succesful species is self destructive, and spends eternity trying evolve despite that
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Neerowolf » Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:01 pm

Ok, I feel like stepping in now.

What I was asking doesn't need to be specified. If you look at it, we conceive a future.

Now, if you use 2 contrasting theorys, you can understand this better.

Now, if you say, we have a future, time is a never-ending cycle. Time is never ending, but doesn't it have to start? I mean, you can go on forever, but don't you need to start at one point? No matter how far back you travel, time needed to start somewhere.

Or, more specificly, our concept of time. Everything we believe is a concept. Now, if theres a second party out there, what do they think? Maybe they have different ideas. I mean, everything we believe isn't necessarily true, but then again, what is truth?

This is getting trippy, so back on track. Now, lets say time absolutely stops. Do we have a future? You could say that we have a future anyways, as it would keep going on in time, just without anything happening. But then, how would time move at all? I mean, we made the concept of time. Maybe our ideas of past, present, and future are wrong.

If you say, we could have a future five minutes from now, and once we get there, it proves we have a future, but then again, to do that, you would have to leave the present behind completely, which is impossible. The only way to prove that you have an absolute future is to go forward in time by some means, and then come back. Then you could be sure. But the problem with that is that you don't know whats ahead of you, if anything is, and if so, whats ahead of that.

By this, you have to say that you don't know whether there is a future in general. I, however, say that there is and isn't a future. The future is only a concept, and it depends on how you look at it. Also, none of you are wrong, parsay, seeing as this is my opinion. You have your own.

What you say?
User avatar
Neerowolf
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:37 am
Location: none.

Postby Roadkill » Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:40 pm

Time can't stop. It can only move forward. And because it always moves forward at a relatively constant pace, it seems to stand still, because we have gotten so used to it. Or here's an even more interesting idea -- perhaps time is constantly accelerating at a constant rate, which, because it affects all, remains undetected to us. But it would explain why perhaps feel pressed by time.

I think are pattern of that that says "there must be a beginning" is flawed here. Because we have never found a beginning. Just a bunch of explanations that are in themselves paradoxes. (If big bang is right, what set it off, and how did it get there to begin with? - If god made the universe, who made god?).

Actually, there's a thought. Perhaps the big bang didn't need a big ball of matter (which is probably smaller than a dime because of the forces of gravity). Perhaps space, itself, is energy. And everything that happened only caused a chain reaction that compressed this space. Whee... now there's a thought. Because with that idea, if the uiverse is constantly expanding, we are losing energy, and in a few trillion to the billionth powers of years, we have become entirely dissipated back into pure space (or pure potential energy). We don't necessarily need a starting point for this chain reaction, just a physical law that prevents this from ever completely happening. There are 2 problem's with this theory. First, there is no start (which perhaps isn't necessary), and second, it cannot really be proven (or easily proven, anyway). The only scary thing about this theory is that, like a chemical compound in our body (or gasoline to become specific) may brake down over time, we can use enzyme's to speed this reaction up. Destroying an atom can yeild a huge amount of energy to someone who wants it, but outward flowing energy must touch other atoms or energy, which could upset a large portion of our universe, causing drastic movements to balance the effects, and ultimately bringing the end that much closer. though there really isn't an end, if there is a physicall law that prevents an end from ever happening.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Neerowolf » Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:55 am

Roadkill wrote:Time can't stop. It can only move forward. And because it always moves forward at a relatively constant pace, it seems to stand still, because we have gotten so used to it. Or here's an even more interesting idea -- perhaps time is constantly accelerating at a constant rate, which, because it affects all, remains undetected to us. But it would explain why perhaps feel pressed by time.

I think are pattern of that that says "there must be a beginning" is flawed here. Because we have never found a beginning. Just a bunch of explanations that are in themselves paradoxes. (If big bang is right, what set it off, and how did it get there to begin with? - If god made the universe, who made god?).

Actually, there's a thought. Perhaps the big bang didn't need a big ball of matter (which is probably smaller than a dime because of the forces of gravity). Perhaps space, itself, is energy. And everything that happened only caused a chain reaction that compressed this space. Whee... now there's a thought. Because with that idea, if the uiverse is constantly expanding, we are losing energy, and in a few trillion to the billionth powers of years, we have become entirely dissipated back into pure space (or pure potential energy). We don't necessarily need a starting point for this chain reaction, just a physical law that prevents this from ever completely happening. There are 2 problem's with this theory. First, there is no start (which perhaps isn't necessary), and second, it cannot really be proven (or easily proven, anyway). The only scary thing about this theory is that, like a chemical compound in our body (or gasoline to become specific) may brake down over time, we can use enzyme's to speed this reaction up. Destroying an atom can yeild a huge amount of energy to someone who wants it, but outward flowing energy must touch other atoms or energy, which could upset a large portion of our universe, causing drastic movements to balance the effects, and ultimately bringing the end that much closer. though there really isn't an end, if there is a physicall law that prevents an end from ever happening.


I understand what you're thinking, but how do you know time cannot stop? Its proven when moving at the speed of a bullet, everything slows down, so isn't it possibly to some degree that time can stop? Besides, thats theoretical, and even if we humans say its not possible, thats our opinion. We may be smart among this planet, but on the whole, humans are stupid. There are so many things we don't understand.

Also, how can the universe go infinitely in the past? Think about it for a second. I mean, if you go so far into the past that there is nothing at all, then how did It show up? I mean, the universe can't go on forever backwards, even if we say so.
User avatar
Neerowolf
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:37 am
Location: none.

Postby Roadkill » Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:13 am

ah, there's the error. You are confusing speed with time. Speed can be altered in perception (which is distance traveled in a certain amount of time) as you move faster, and that is because you are covering the distance faster, (covering distance in more time), and not because time speeds up for that bullet, or light beem. Faster than light travel will only make percepted time different, not actual time. IF you are looking at a planet through a microscope, that is light years away, and you see a baby born. YOu can get in a space ship that travels several times the speed of light and get there, only to find the baby is a teenager now. Why? light took more time to reach you.

Never confuse time with speed. TIme is an element to speed, but speed is not an element to time.

But the universe can rebound. Take a room, and say that everything existed in that room. Put 500 bouncing balls in there. The walls, since they theoretically don't exist (but do for this demonstration) do not absorb energy. These balls bounce around the room, hitting eachother. Because energy cannot leave the room, the balls never stop bouncing. SOme may come to a stop, but there's always energy held within the other balls, and air. All this energy has to keep traveling. Potential energy doesn't exist, because there is no opposing force. Say all the balls but one stop bouncing. BUt that last ball holds all the energy in the room (and thus is moving extremely fast), and so by hitting another ball it constantly keeps everything in motion. THis demonstation, of course, cannot happen in real life, because we have too many variables we cannot control (the natural laws of physics), and we cannot isolate energy that wants to move, or prevent it from moving without introducing more variables.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Apollo » Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:41 am

there was a show on this on nova and you should go to http://www.PBS.org look it up and vote.
Kings start the war... archers win the war.

Emissary of the PointyShiney
Captain of the Guard and Lord Marshal of the Archers of the pointy shiny
User avatar
Apollo
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 5:13 pm
Location: hell on earth

Postby Roadkill » Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:48 am

too damn lazy, sorry :p
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Gigafrost » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:14 am

Also, how can the universe go infinitely in the past? Think about it for a second. I mean, if you go so far into the past that there is nothing at all, then how did It show up? I mean, the universe can't go on forever backwards, even if we say so.

Two things:
1) How do you know there was a time when there was nothingness? This is a logical error, since there is no reason to believe there was a time at all when the universe was simply nothing.
2) Further still, since this is the only premiss given for the finite existance of the universe, that argument is also no longer logically valid either. (It's not a proof that the universe is infinite, fyi)

As for speed being a part of time...Suprise, I certainly hope you understand the reasoning behind the Theory of Relativity, because what you're saying is completely against it. What evidence or reasoning, then, do you have that as one's speed approaches the speed of light that time doesn't ACTUALLY change around them? Please, since you seem to understand the reasoning behind relativity, do explain it in detail, and why such reasoning is wrong.

Since I've posted, I'll say my thought: I believe we can't determine whether there's a future or not, but if I'll have to say what I believe, then I'll just go with an inductive reasoning and say there will be.

EDIT: Okay, now that I'm no longer rushed by dinner, and I've had a good chance to think about it some more, I will retract that inductive decision I made on the basis that the "sample size" used gives very little reason to believe that the conclusion is true, and so I must simply stay at the "cannot be determined" stance.
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby Roadkill » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:49 am

Explain the theory of relativity. I've heard of it, but please understand, i only just finished physical science. Dont get itno physics till a year from now.

But, that's my belief so far, unless i find reason to believe otherwise.

Give ma law that explains why time would change just for a particle.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby Javafrost » Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:01 am

Be here now.
Here now be.
Now be here.
"Endeavor to persevere." -- Lone Watie, The Outlaw Josey Wales
User avatar
Javafrost
Recruit
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:08 am

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:02 am

If you say, we could have a future five minutes from now, and once we get there, it proves we have a future, but then again, to do that, you would have to leave the present behind completely, which is impossible. The only way to prove that you have an absolute future is to go forward in time by some means, and then come back. Then you could be sure. But the problem with that is that you don't know whats ahead of you, if anything is, and if so, whats ahead of that.


so you're saying that there may come a time in which time just randomly stops, in what would pretty much amount to an act of defiance, by nature, of science, and that at the moment right before time stops, we wouldn't have a future? sure, it's possible, i guess. induction would suggest that anything is possible. however, induction also suggests that only one thing is really probable. for example, it is *possible* that you will wake up tomorrow as a member of the opposite sex. it just isn't very *probable*. if you believe that there is and isn't a future because of the mere inductive possibility, then you must also believe that you are both male and female. of course, for some reason, i doubt that you believe that, and likewise, there's really no sound reason for you to believe that there is and isn't a future.

I understand what you're thinking, but how do you know time cannot stop? Its proven when moving at the speed of a bullet, everything slows down, so isn't it possibly to some degree that time can stop?


don't forget that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. similarily, time can't slow down any more than it already does, at the speed of light.

ah, there's the error. You are confusing speed with time. Speed can be altered in perception (which is distance traveled in a certain amount of time) as you move faster, and that is because you are covering the distance faster, (covering distance in more time), and not because time speeds up for that bullet, or light beem. Faster than light travel will only make percepted time different, not actual time. IF you are looking at a planet through a microscope, that is light years away, and you see a baby born. YOu can get in a space ship that travels several times the speed of light and get there, only to find the baby is a teenager now. Why? light took more time to reach you.


you are obviously not aware of the twin paradox.

EDIT: Okay, now that I'm no longer rushed by dinner, and I've had a good chance to think about it some more, I will retract that inductive decision I made on the basis that the "sample size" used gives very little reason to believe that the conclusion is true, and so I must simply stay at the "cannot be determined" stance.


i don't see the sample size as any reason to say it can't be determined. consider the following. i'm twenty years old. ignoring leap years, that makes me almost seven thousand days old, one hundred seventy five thousand hours old, more than ten million minutes old, almost six hundred million seconds old, and so on and so forth. even assuming that seconds were the smallest unit in which time could be broken down, the fact that there have been six hundred million instances in which time did have a future is enough to make me think that the very next instance of time will have a future, as well.

now, to say that there will be some instance of time which did not have a future, you would have to also assume that there would be no instances of time after that one instance, and that that one instance would be the only instance. based on the six hundred million instances of time having a future that i have experienced, a single instance of time without a future wouldn't leave any room for doubt.

now, one could assume that the data set should consist of instances of time that have had a future, and instances of time that may or may not have a future (ie. future instances), but... i don't think that can really be done without assuming that time exists for those instances, in the first place.

Give ma law that explains why time would change just for a particle.


to quote from scienceworld, "time dilation is a counterintuitive consequence of special relativity." (source). if you want to understand *how* time dialation occurs, as per the theory of special relativity... i believe it has to do with the fact that space and time are represented on the same tensors, with which many of the conclusions of special relativity are made. to be sure, i suggest you read einstein's 1905 paper in which he discusses it. you may find it here:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Neerowolf » Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:13 pm

Damn, Terra...

Please put in at least enough effort to form one full sentance per post. Thank you.
User avatar
Neerowolf
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:37 am
Location: none.

Next

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron