Talk:Present

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Time
Time Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.

I wrote the original text for "Present as Illusion". I derived the information from Brian Greene's book. I am far from a physicist. Please read with a suspecious eye and correct any mistakes if nessacary. Thanks. JesseHogan

As a physicist, I definitely flag a lot of thisfor serious revision. To use physics to discuss these things really, *really* requires the utmost understanding of things like relativity and quantum field theory. It is, for instance, utterly false to claim that relativity predict paradoxes. Quinkysan 16:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Since you feel like it needs an expert's peer review you can just put the tag {{Expert}} at the top of the page. this will put it in a category for pages that need help from an expert. And since your actually a physicist why not make the changes you feel need to be made. It would sure be welcomed.JesseHogan 05:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the sufficient expertise to get things absolutely right. It's a very tricky area, and it's not my field. I will, however, tag it as you recommend. Quinkysan 16:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] A Philosphical Problem

Many Philosphers have also pondered on the difficult question: "How is that all (sentient) beings experience "now" at the same time?" There is no logical reason why this should be the case and no easy answer to the question.

If I punch you - we both feel it NOW - and if I cut down a Cherry tree - we (the tree and me) both experience this now - albeit in our different ways.

Re: the above new section - Can you cite a philosopher who has this pondering?
(Philosophy) Professor Manser of Southampton University - my Philosophy Professor. Brookie: A collector of little brown things 15:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually me as well - it has worried me for a long time! Brookie: A collector of little brown things 15:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Professor Brookie. Will you be accepting the $1 million dollar speaking fee? A passing mention by a teaching professor is not philosophic consensus. Does he cite anyone? - Or was he just challening you to think it through? Not everything in a philosophy class is intended as fact. - Tεxτurε 16:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC) and discuss
Make the cheque payable to "Brookie" - yes i'm up for the fee; who said anything about a concensus - just the opposite : rather something to worry about - hence the point about pondering - that's what Philosophers do! Brookie: A collector of little brown things 19:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, Einstein has proven that this is not true. Different people perceive time differently. - Tεxτurε 15:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I would be surprised if we didn't preceive time differently - this doesn't mean we don't preceive it at the same time. It must be self evident if I cut the tree down that it experiences this at the same time as I make the cut - it doesn't happen a week later - the same goes for your nose! Brookie: A collector of little brown things 15:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
What are your conditions for "now"? It's quite stretched to say that the decision to punch, movement of arm and body, impact, sensation of pain and subsequent decision to move away (at least a second in time) is "now". Which action in this list are you indicating was experienced at the same time? The impact? I'm willing to bet the sensations are not simultaneous down to moment. - Tεxτurε 16:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll see you outside - then we can work out the conditions for now! Brookie: A collector of little brown things 19:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
<duck> You can't put your "many philosophers" into the article unless you find some notable philosophers who actually said this. Find a reference and it is a valid part of the article. Find none and you are writing fiction. (Different classroom... two buildings down, second floor...) - Tεxτurε 19:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
this might contribute something to the present discussion ... See here Courtland 04:27, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
I've sacked the "many philosphers" - and re-posed it as a question. Hopefully this will be OK! :) Brookie: A collector of little brown things 08:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I tried to clarify this concept. Hopefully I'm on the right track. I don't know of any noteable philosophers why have pondered this. JesseHogan 19:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you may ponder this as a "problem", it is, however, false. Sentient beings do not always experience 'now' at the same time. In fact, it is a question for the philosophy of mind if they ever experience 'now' at the same time. Wireless99 13:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tense and Tenseless theories

Surely there should be some discussion of the tense and tenseless theories in this essay. Tense time is based solely around the 'now' state, while tenseless denies its existence. I'd write a paragraph, but I haven't got the time at present. As for that 'philosophical problem' thing, I've never ever come across that (I'm an undergraduate philosophy student), and if it does indeed exist, I think you're going to have to refine it a bit. Right now it sounds more like a teen pot smoker's consideration, than a professional philosopher's.otashiro 06:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now as a Current Event

Surely this topic should be given a "current event" tab, as it is currently occuring? -Wunderbear

Ha ha - Nurg

[edit] Time in Einstein's Special Theory

Therefore, if we define "present" to be the collection of events that are simultaneous with a given event, then "present" is only subjectively defined.

Rubbish. "Present", even in Einstein's theory, is an objective definition for each observer. There is no subjectivity to it. Furthermore "events" in SR are "events" for all observers. What Einstein was referring to was the notion of a Universal Present, which does not exist.

Absolute simultaneity of events, as Einstein predicted in his theory, does not exist. Each observer measures a different time difference between two events, if those observers are in uniform relative motion with each other. However Einstein proved that the spacetime distance between two events was invariant, so that all inertial observers measured the same value.

Einstein himself, in a letter written to the widow of a close friend, remarked that "the present was a delusion, albeit a persistent one" --81.151.13.200 10:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "subjective" is not the right word (should be "relative"). Have rewritten the physics section, and amongst other things, have changed all references to "objective" into "absolute". Have a look. JocK (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current template

Should we have the current tag at the top of this article since this is a current event? 4.235.132.80 16:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed before. The answer is NO. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! I made that joke. ¬_¬ --Wunderbear 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias to theory of evolution?

I'm just saying, "The notion of "now" may be better understood as an unrealistic concept that has evolved in humans and animals to give us an understanding of reality useful only to the extent necessary for survival." is quite biased towards the theory of evolution.

[edit] Formatting Quotes section

The layout of the Quotes section is a mess. Not sure how to get that formatted right. Anyone? JocK (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks Yamara. -- JocK (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. -- Yamara ✉ 19:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)