past present future

[michel123456]

Here is my understanding of what are the past, the present and the future.

 

_We know that everything we observe is in the past. We know that an object observed far away is also an object as it was long ago. And we know that the closer the object is, the more close to the present.

So the past is there all around me;I am the observator. And the closest objects are very close to my present. The very closest thing to me , myself, my own body, is in the present. Only me, as the observator, is in the present.

 

You, the observator next to me, you will be in your own present. And I, not being part of your present, I am lying in your past. As you are lying in my past.

 

If I go on drawing a line from the past to the present, I'll have to draw a line coming from outside of myself (from the universe 12 billions years away), and getting to me. And I can draw an infinity of such lines that will be disposed radially around me. As being the observator, I am also the center of my personal observable universe. As you are the center of your personal observable universe.

 

Now, the line I was drawing is coming from oustide, and stops at me, in the right center. Along this line are measured times and distances. Positive time, and positive distance, of course.

If I could continue and make an extension of this line, it would go "inside me". That would be the place where I could find the symmetrical instance of the past, called the future.

So, the future, as it looks, is inside me, as an observator of the universe. As your future is "inside" you, because you are another observator of the universe.

But that has nothing to do with observation. It is more transcendental.

 

With all reservation:

the Past, as it looks, lies outside the objects.

the Present is the object, and perfect present is point-like.

Future lies "inside" the objects.

 

You must have some comment.

[Mr Skeptic]

But you don't have a point body. Your body is in your past too, as are the neurons in your brain.

[Bob_for_short]

With all reservation: the Past, as it looks, lies outside the objects.

the Present is the object, and perfect present is point-like.

Future lies "inside" the objects.

I agree about the past and the present with the following reservation: Any instant of time t is in fact a short interval sufficient to collect a reasonable picture from bits of information observed as a flow (flux) of finite density. Like a photo - it needs some time interval to be of good quality.

I disagree about future. We cannot find our future inside ourselves but only with waiting for it. Reducing the observer decreases the retardation to zero but nothing permits to attain the future, in my opinion.

[salcicha]

The future is a belief that cannot be ever physically proven. The second you see the future even through time travel, it becomes the present because you are observing it. So every second of every day the future is being created as the light hits the atoms of everything in different ways, but is being turned into the present.

 

Perhaps the future is what we cannot see. Space, or the sun itself. Perhaps within light itself is the future, because it already hits itself and extends beyond all at the same time.

[michel123456]

But you don't have a point body. Your body is in your past too, as are the neurons in your brain.

 

Correct.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I agree about the past and the present with the following reservation: Any instant of time t is in fact a short interval sufficient to collect a reasonable picture from bits of information observed as a flow (flux) of finite density. Like a photo - it needs some time interval to be of good quality.

I disagree about future. We cannot find our future inside ourselves but only with waiting for it. Reducing the observer decreases the retardation to zero but nothing permits to attain the future, in my opinion.

 

The flux concept is something i have to think a little bit. at first sight it seems like a circular definition: time is an interval of time.

 

As for the future, you are right in the sense that "nothing permits to attain the future" meaning "the future is not observable". But it is conceptuable (is there such a word?)

 

If you forget for a while my description of the future, and stick to only what you agreed, the past & the present:

make a sketch for t=0

make the developpement for t=1

You will see that the point-like present comes from the past & go into the present, on his way to the future.

The diagram is dynamical.

It comes from the outside (past) to the point (present).

[Bob_for_short]

The flux concept is something i have to think a little bit. at first sight it seems like a circular definition: time is an interval of time.

Yes, we have to observe our clock and other objects. Such an observation occurs via collecting many photons. Everything we observe is compound, complex, non redusible to one "pixel" so we need reliable frame images of our "film". Each "frame" has some minimum exposition time.

 

As to future, we may extrapolate/calculate future events if we have a good theory and good initial data.

[Galindo]

Nice attempt

[michel123456]

You're welcome.

 

The "dynamic" of this view is the most astonishing.

The present is continously sliding into the past. We know that.

 

In this little presentation, the sliding is not along a single line. The usual Time-line has been replaced by an infinity of radial time lines having at their center the observator.

When the observator "slides" into the past, he changes. Following the radial concept, the observator is constantly expanding into the past. Or, inversely, because things don't go TO the past, but FROM the past, we have to say that the observator is constantly shrinking into the future.

 

Pause.

Before continuing and jumping into conclusions, there is something strange here.

If the observator was always shrinking into the future, he should be able to see his own trace into the past, as a boat leaving a trace upon waters.

 

How come that we cannot see ourselves in the past?

[Mr Skeptic]

What observer? What is so special about observers here?

[Bob_for_short]

..How come that we cannot see ourselves in the past?

Yes, we can. With help of our memory, movies, and other means to store the recorded data.

[DrP]

Bob - do you mean like photographs or written records of your works for example?

[Bob_for_short]

do you mean like photographs or written records of your works for example?

 

Yes, to a great extent yes.

[michel123456]

Yes, we can. With help of our memory, movies, and other means to store the recorded data.

 

Hm, yes.

But I meant something else. If you look around you, you are looking to the past ,right? Maybe very very close past, but still the past. Why can't you see your own image in the past?

Explaining:

You are V(Vladimir), your friend W (William) is next to you.

You see W in the past. Inversely W observes V in the past too. None of them can see each other in the present.

But since you can see W in the past, why not yourself ?

If W sits at a distance of 300.000 km from you, you see him as he was 1 sec ago in the past. The past 1 sec ago is sphere around you of radius 300.000 km.

But you yourself were existing 1 sec ago. And obviously, you are not placed upon this sphere. So why can't you see yourself in the past?

[Bob_for_short]

I cannot see myself in the past because there is no delay or retardation between me and me.

 

On the other hand, I can look in the mirror and see me in the past and at some distance, if you like.

[michel123456]

I cannot see myself in the past because there is no delay or retardation between me and me.

 

On the other hand, I can look in the mirror and see me in the past and at some distance, if you like.

 

So you agree that to see yourself in the past, you have to put some distance.

Since there is no distance between you & you, you cannot see yourself in the past.

Using a mirror, you put some distance between you & your own image, and as a consequence, you see yourself in the past.

The distance creates the delay.

Correct?

[Bob_for_short]

The distance creates the delay. Correct?

Correct. But even with c = infinity (classical mechanics) the past makes sense as a "memory" of series of "present" (instant) events. It's the clock running that distinguishes different moments of time and ranges them in a series.

[michel123456]

Correct.

Good.

You should have stopped your comment there.

 

But even with c = infinity (classical mechanics) the past makes sense as a "memory" of series of "present" (instant) events. It's the clock running that distinguishes different moments of time and ranges them in a series.

 

The point is the classical perception don't make sense to me.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Bob.

You may have noticed that I am trying to post my conceptions in a step by step procedure. When i put everything in block, the refusal is in block too.

There are many logical consequences of the concept of Time as I presented here & in other posts, consequences I have serious difficulties to manage.

 

The question of why we cannot see ourselves in the past is basically independent and can be answered using the traditional concept of spacetime.

 

If you are not afraid to go into dirt, there is such an explanation in the trash can of this forum, first in the catalog. I cannot insert these ideas again without breaking the rules.

There, it is simply suggested that there are a lot of things that we cannot see in the past.

But for being in the trash can, it must be wrong. I suppose. Without being convinced. I'd like your comments on it. Thanks.