Conceptually, what is "the Future"?

[MinorityOfOne]

Tom, I agree that as long as the concept "present" is defined independently of "past" and "future", it is probably all right to define the latter terms in relation to the former.  I think that the reason your definitions struck me as circular is because you initially had defined all three of them, including "present", in terms of each other.

I think Tom is on precisely the right track in relating "past" and "future" to "present". There are certain types of concepts which *must* be defined in terms of each other -- specifically, those that denote a place within certain kinds of relationships. In defining a relational concept, you must identify what the referent is related to and in what manner. So, for example, think of "parent" and "offspring". You can certainly construct definitions that don't use the same words -- "a parent is one who has a child", "an offspring is one who has a mother and father" -- but the interreference of concepts is still there. If you tried to get around it, you'd end up removing the meaning of the concepts.

"Past" and "future" are like this: they denote a relationship to the present. So the circularity criticism is misleading. In fact, the nature of the concepts in question *demands* a certain sort of circularity, but not a vicious sort.

[AshRyan]

I think Tom is on precisely the right track in relating "past" and "future" to "present".  There are certain types of concepts which *must* be defined in terms of each other -- specifically, those that denote a place within certain kinds of relationships.  In defining a relational concept, you must identify what the referent is related to and in what manner.  So, for example, think of "parent" and "offspring".  You can certainly construct definitions that don't use the same words -- "a parent is one who has a child", "an offspring is one who has a mother and father" -- but the interreference of concepts is still there.  If you tried to get around it, you'd end up removing the meaning of the concepts.

"Past" and "future" are like this: they denote a relationship to the present.  So the circularity criticism is misleading.  In fact, the nature of the concepts in question *demands* a certain sort of circularity, but not a vicious sort.

As I said before, I agree. It was only when Tom was defining not only "past" and "future" in terms of the "present", but also "present" in terms of "past" and "future" that I was objecting to his definitions as circular. But then he corrected the error by eliminating the unnecessary references to "past" and "future" in his definition of "present", and I retracted my objection. I agree that the concepts of "past" and "future" are relational, and therefore must necessarily be defined in relation to the "present". And so long as "present" is defined in some other way, then I agree that there is no circularity there.

[MinorityOfOne]

Good, that's one down then. Next topic? ;-)

[Tom Rexton]

Also, I'm not sure that we should make the definition relative to some conscious being.  After all, the future is the future; what hasn't happened yet hasn't happened yet, regardless of whether it will have happened relative to some future moment of perception.  I don't think we can assume the continued existence of conscious beings in the future--even though it is perfectly fine to assume the existence of a future.  If all conscious life were to cease, time and the future would continue to exist (even though the concepts of "time" and "future" would not).  So maybe our point of reference should be outside of our own perception.  In other words, I think we can abstract away consciousness--I don't think it is essential to definitions of "time", "future", etc.  (The same goes for "past"--what has happened has happened, and that will continue to be the case regardless of whether there are entities capable of remembering it.  And "present"--what currently exists currently exists, regardless of whether there are any entities capable of perceiving it.)

Time exists independently of consciousness and would continue to exist without it, but "past", "present" and "future" would not because they refer to the states of existence that is temporally relative to a conscious being.

Without consciousness there would only be the state of existence that continuously changes from one to another through time, but that state could not be categorized as "past", "present" or "future", because there would be no reference point from which to determine the past and the future, in much the same way that one cannot say that entity y is traveling at x mph if there were no referent point z relative to which the speed of y is measured, even though y would still exist. The present is the reference point for determining which state is the past and which is the future. But the present is not just any state of existence, it's that state of existence that a conscious being perceives. If there were no consciousness, there would be no "present" state of existence--only the state itself.

[J.M.S.]

Time exists independently of consciousness and would continue to exist without it, but "past", "present" and "future" would not because they refer to the states of existence that is temporally relative to a conscious being.

...now THAT's a conclusion!

Ash, again you criticize without thought. Metaphysics is what is, and science does its best to discover and prove what is is. If you want to describe what the future is WITHOUT HUMAN PERCEPTION the best you can do is refer to the latest scientific findings. If you want to explain what future is to a human, especially his ability to use his cognitive abilities to 'predict' what the future will be. I know that this is a philosophy board, but you can't limit yourself to 'playing philosopher' in your answers when someone asks 'what is the future'. Strike two.

[AshRyan]

...now THAT's a conclusion!

Ash, again you criticize without thought. Metaphysics is what is, and science does its best to discover and prove what is is. If you want to describe what the future is WITHOUT HUMAN PERCEPTION the best you can do is refer to the latest scientific findings. If you want to explain what future is to a human, especially his ability to use his cognitive abilities to 'predict' what the future will be. I know that this is a philosophy board, but you can't limit yourself to 'playing philosopher' in your answers when someone asks 'what is the future'. Strike two.

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't criticize Tom's views (and I doubt he took it that way, although I suppose I could be wrong...Tom, let me know if I've offended you somehow). I said: "I'm not sure that we should make the definition relative to some conscious being." That is called discussion (you might want to try it some time). I was not criticizing, nor even arguing with him. I simply wasn't sure whether I agreed with his view, and gave reasons why.

Frankly, I'm getting really sick of your needlessly confrontational attitude. It would be all right if it was based on something, like if I actually had groundlessly criticized Tom (although I'm not sure why it would be your business to get involved in that)--but since it isn't, it seems like you're just trying to pick a fight.

Knock it off or beat it.

Now, perhaps we can get back to some rational discussion of the topic at hand...

[AshRyan]

Time exists independently of consciousness and would continue to exist without it, but "past", "present" and "future" would not because they refer to the states of existence that is temporally relative to a conscious being. 

Without consciousness there would only be the state of existence that continuously changes from one to another through time, but that state could not be categorized as "past", "present" or "future", because there would be no reference point from which to determine the past and the future, in much the same way that one cannot say that entity y is traveling at x mph if there were no referent point z relative to which the speed of y is measured, even though y would still exist.  The present is the reference point for determining which state is the past and which is the future.  But the present is not just any state of existence, it's that state of existence that a conscious being perceives.  If there were no consciousness, there would be no "present" state of existence--only the state itself.

Tom, why are "past", "present", and "future" meaningful only relative to a conscious being, if "time" isn't? You say it's because there would be no reference point from which to determine the past and the future, but wouldn't the reference point simply be the particular point in time? If time is linear and exists independently of consciousness, then it is certainly intelligible to say that the future is the state of existence that follows causally from the present state--without reference to any state of consciousness.

I'm not sure I understand the basis of the claim that "If there were no consciousness, there would be no 'present' state of existence--only the state itself." Are you saying that without consciousness, different points in time cannot be differentiated? But if they can, if time exists independently in external reality, then certain points in time could be described as "future", "past", or "present" relative to other particular points in time as the frame of reference, which would exist whether or not they were perceived by some consciousness. If we look at the future of some particular existent, rather than just "the future" in general, I think this becomes obvious. It makes perfect sense to say that some distant galaxy has a past and a future (as well as a present state of existence), even if no one is currently perceiving it or ever has (or even if no entities capable of perception had ever existed).

[Tom Rexton]

Tom, why are "past", "present", and "future" meaningful only relative to a conscious being, if "time" isn't?  You say it's because there would be no reference point from which to determine the past and the future, but wouldn't the reference point simply be the particular point in time?  If time is linear and exists independently of consciousness, then it is certainly intelligible to say that the future is the state of existence that follows causally from the present state--without reference to any state of consciousness.

I'm not sure I understand the basis of the claim that "If there were no consciousness, there would be no 'present' state of existence--only the state itself."  Are you saying that without consciousness, different points in time cannot be differentiated?  But if they can, if time exists independently in external reality, then certain points in time could be described as "future", "past", or "present" relative to other particular points in time as the frame of reference, which would exist whether or not they were perceived by some consciousness.  If we look at the future of some particular existent, rather than just "the future" in general, I think this becomes obvious.  It makes perfect sense to say that some distant galaxy has a past and a future (as well as a present state of existence), even if no one is currently perceiving it or ever has (or even if no entities capable of perception had ever existed).

But you must have consciousness in order to select a particular point in time as your reference point for determining the past and the future.

A "point of reference" presupposes a referrer just as a "value" presupposes a valuer. The point itself will still exist but not as a reference point for the past, present, and future because there were no referrer; just as the object of value would still exist but would not be a value because there were no valuer.

---

IMPORTANT REVISION OF DEFINITION

I just remembered that a conscious being does not perceive the present.(!) I was thinking about this last night and then it came back to me that light waves, sound waves and the electro-chemical impulses that transmit the coverted signals from the senses to the brain do travel at definite speeds. (Of course the transmission of signals from the senses to the brain takes but a few pico or nanoseconds, but that's beside the point, which is that they are not transmitted instantaneously.)

This is most evident with sound. The farther away you are from the source, the further back in time you hear. This is the same with light, although the distance between the source of light and the observer must be millions of miles or more, in order to see seconds, minutes or even billions of years into the past. The best example would be the sun. We perceive the sun as it was about eight minutes ago, NOT as it is now.

I can't believe I forgot to take this into account. Now, I have to redefine the present.

[AshRyan]

But you must have consciousness in order to select a particular point in time as your reference point for determining the past and the future.

Sure, you must have consciousness to conceptualize anything. But just because no conceptual ideas would exist without consciousness, doesn't mean that the concepts' referents in reality would not exist; to cite that fact as a justification for requiring consciousness to be included in one's definition of a supposedly external fact of reality is to commit a primacy of consciousness error.

A "point of reference" presupposes a referrer just as a "value" presupposes a valuer.  The point itself will still exist but not as a reference point for the past, present, and future because there were no referrer; just as the object of value would still exist but would not be a value because there were no valuer.

I disagree. It seems that you're using "point of reference" here to describe relational concepts (e.g., relative points in time, designated "past", "present", and "future"). But it simply is not true that all relational concepts require a consciousness to endow them with objective meaning in relation to that conscious entity in the way that value requires a living entity. The things being related may all be independent of any conscious observer; they may be non-conscious aspects of existence that stand in relation to each other in a certain way, as I believe points in time to, objectively and independently of any perceiver. As another example, an object can be said to be "above" or "below" another object given that they stand in a certain relation to each other, dictated by the law of gravity, the shape of the earth, and their relative positions. This in no way depends on any conscoius "referrer" to establish a point of reference. I still don't see how time would any more so.

I think the following is a perfect example of why consciousness is not essential to (and therefore cannot properly be a part of) definitions of "past", "present", and "future":

We perceive the sun as it was about eight minutes ago, NOT as it is now.

You're acknowledging that the sun has a past and present (and will have a future) state of existence independent of our perception of it.

[Tom Rexton]

It was my false definition that got me into that erroneous conclusion. I'll think about this more and see how the present can be defined without in terms of a conscious being.

[AshRyan]

I think that the confusion may have also partially arose from not fully distinguishing between the two initial questions posed in this thread: What does the concept "future" denote? and How can the future be projected?

As I've argued, I don't believe the first question requires consciousness as part of its answer; the second, however, clearly does. Perhaps you didn't clearly grasp the distinction between the two questions, and that was what led to your assumption that consciousness was crucial for the first as well. [edit]Maybe not, I just noticed that you aren't the one who started this thread and posed these two questions to begin with.[/edit]

That said, I don't think the definition of "present" has to be all that complicated. Something along the lines of, "the state of existence at any given point in time" would probably suffice. And then your definitions of past and future, as the states of existence causally leading to and following from the present (dropping the unnecessary references to being perceived), seem fine to me.

The second question, about how the future can be projected, is another matter altogether.

Some of the people who were initially involved in this thread haven't commented in a while. I would love to hear some of their thoughts on these issues.

Edited August 31, 2003 by AshRyan

[Tom Rexton]

If the present is the state of existence at any given point in time, how is it determined that this certain instant (point) in time--i.e., NOW--is the present and not any one of the others in the infinitely long time-line?

Please elucidate because my mind is just stuck at this point.

[AshRyan]

If time is a continuous, independently existing flow of causal relationships, then our perception of it is not necessary to say certain moments of it happened in the past, or are currently occurring (or have not happened yet). Whatever particular moment that is currently occurring is the present. This is not simply a matter of my perspective, but an objective fact of reality. To ask, why this point in time, "and not any one of the others in the infinitely long time-line?" is to assume that there is no such thing as time as an objective phenomenon--it assumes that there is no objective difference between things that have already occurred, things that are now occurring, and things that have not yet occurred. That is to say that everything happens simultaneously, that everything that will ever happen has already happened, and is in fact now happening. If you distinguish between things that happened previously in a causal chain, and things that will happen in that chain (but have not yet happened), and realize that such causal chains exist independently of one's own (or anyone's) conscious perception of them, then there is no difficulty in distinguishing between past, present, and future as objective concepts, independent of consciousness.

Again, imagine a planet with no life on it, that no conscious entity has ever perceived. It is easy to ascribe time relationships to it, to say that certain events (volcanic eruptions or whatever) happened in the past, are presently happening, or will happen in the future. This is because the causal relationships that make up the flow of time exist objectively, whether or not some intelligent being has set up a standardized unit by which to measure time.

[MinorityOfOne]

By the way, hi. :-) Lost my internet connection for a month after moving into a place with no working wires, but all is well now.

The debate for a few posts, back at the end of August, centered around whether it is the case that time is observer-independent but tenses are not, or whether both are observer-independent. I think there's a false premise here. Remember the tentative definition I gave for time, which I think most people agreed is valid: "Time is the measurement of (non-simultaneous) action using a single, regularly repeating occurance as the standard."

Let me emphasize. Time is a *measurement*. Chop away at the rest of the definition if you like, but if you think I'm right about that, then bear it in mind as a premise for the rest of this post. Time is a measurement.

That means that time IS, in fact, observer-dependent. It's consciousness-dependent, because, simply put, unconscious things don't measure stuff. What IS independent of consciousness are the facts that underlie the concept of time: the fact that things move. Motions & actions are the mind-independent facts involved in time; their measurement is the part that is mind-dependent.

One confusion that hit me while I was thinking about this might be worth bringing up. I thought: "Ok, but what about relationships? Aren't they real? Isn't there a fact of reality, that the duration of the Earth's revolution around the sun is a particular percentage of the duration of a light's trip from Alpha Centuri to Earth, for example? Aren't these facts that would be true, regardless of whether or not anybody were there to measure them?"

In order to answer this, I had to think a little harder about what constitutes a metaphysical relationship. I don't have a definition to propose, though maybe somebody else does. I now tend to think, though, that a metaphysical relationship is dependent on some sort of causal connection. For instance, my can of coke is on top of my desk. If my can of coke were removed, it would have some effect on the desk. Some atoms would fly off with it, there'd be a negligible change in gravitation, etc. In other words: in a metaphysical relationship, if you change one part, you change the other.

An epistemological relationship doesn't have this characteristic, necessarily. If you slow down the Earth's orbit around the Sun, you don't change the speed of the light travelling from Alpha Centuri. They bear a relationship, but it is one which requires a concept as an intermediary: their relationship is that they possess characteristics which can be viewed as units in a related group of facts.

I still don't feel totally clear on this topic, but I feel like I've made progress. I'm interested in criticisms or ideas, particularly if anybody thinks my distinction between metaphysical and epistemological relationships is off the mark.

[bbrown]

One confusion that hit me while I was thinking about this might be worth bringing up.  I thought: "Ok, but what about relationships?  Aren't they real?  Isn't there a fact of reality, that the duration of the Earth's revolution around the sun is a particular percentage of the duration of a light's trip from Alpha Centuri to Earth, for example?  Aren't these facts that would be true, regardless of whether or not anybody were there to measure them?"

An epistemological relationship doesn't have this characteristic, necessarily.  If you slow down the Earth's orbit around the Sun, you don't change the speed of the light travelling from Alpha Centuri.  They bear a relationship, but it is one which requires a concept as an intermediary: their relationship is that they possess characteristics which can be viewed as units in a related group of facts.

You are exactly right in distinguishing metaphysical from epistemological relationships. You can't say show me "furniture" or "love" or "Objectivism" because these things don't exist per se as entities. They are abstractions based on aspects, characteristics, or entities in reality after a variable-sized chain of reasoning. "Time" is another concept that abstracts a relationship that definitely exists in reality. The concept itself, though, is decidedly not metaphysical—Einstein to the contrary.

If you talk about a day being 24 hours, the amount of time it takes the Earth to rotate on its axis, then we know that such a measurement would be too short for a day on Jupiter. If a Jupiterian met a Terran and spoke of a day, the two would be talking about vastly different periods of time. It's possible that the Jupiterian may not even base his measurement of time on the rotation of Jupiter along its axis. He may instead choose to base it on the spinning of an atom of cesium.

That's what's so utterly laughable about people devoting thoughts to time travel. It's bizarre on the face of it. That's the black hole that Einstein's theory of relativity ultimately takes cosmologists down and it's rather pathetic. I'm not prepared to scrap Einstein's theories totally—since I'm not a phyisicist by any stretch—but the notion of space-time strikes me as ludicrous.

[MinorityOfOne]

If you're interested, this is why I was somewhat worried about that distinction. Even given the recent proof that gravitational effects are not propagated instantaneously (at least, I'm told it's been proved), it still remains true as far as I know that any movement of an object has gravitational effects on all other physical objects, at least eventually. So if any motion affects every other object, then the distinction I made doesn't really work. *Everything* is metaphysically related to *everything else*. (As for metaphysical relationships involving consciousness, I'll pass for now. :-) Suffice to say that it wouldn't affect the point I was trying to make, even if the same didn't hold true.)

What might still be true is that the facts subsumed in the concept of time aren't all metaphysically related in a relevant way. So maybe this isn't a problem. But I'd still like to hear any thoughts on this anybody might have, because it could turn out to be an important distinction for some purposes. So I'd like to get it right.

p.s. I don't know enough detail about the Special Theory to evaluate it, but I agree, time travel is ludicrious. It amounts to a total rejection of causality.

[AshRyan]

The debate for a few posts, back at the end of August, centered around whether it is the case that time is observer-independent but tenses are not, or whether both are observer-independent.  I think there's a false premise here.  Remember the tentative definition I gave for time, which I think most people agreed is valid: "Time is the measurement of (non-simultaneous) action using a single, regularly repeating occurance as the standard."

Let me emphasize.  Time is a *measurement*.  Chop away at the rest of the definition if you like, but if you think I'm right about that, then bear it in mind as a premise for the rest of this post.  Time is a measurement.

That means that time IS, in fact, observer-dependent.  It's consciousness-dependent, because, simply put, unconscious things don't measure stuff.  What IS independent of consciousness are the facts that underlie the concept of time: the fact that things move.  Motions & actions are the mind-independent facts involved in time; their measurement is the part that is mind-dependent...

Matt,

I don't think that the fact that time is a measurement means that it is "observer-dependent." After all, concept-formation is a process of measurement, so you could say that all of our concepts are measurements. If you simply mean that time is a concept specifically of measurement, I'm still not convinced that your conclusion follows. After all, length is a concept of measurement, but we would say that length is an attribute that is objective (although the units of measurement we use are certainly dependent on us). In the same way, time is objective and exists independently of any conscious observer...it simply wouldn't be measured by any standardized unit.

[MinorityOfOne]

Not really, though. There's a difference. There's no reasonable way you could say "Furniture is the measurement of chairs, tables, desks, etc..." and have a definition of the concept. The measurement is essential to the process of forming that concept, but is not essential to the content. By contrast, time *is* the measurement of non-simultaneous action.

What I'm really warning against, anyway, is reification of time. Here's an analogy. You brought up length. Imagine if a bunch of people started saying "We're in length. I wonder what exists outside length? I mean, if there's a length, it must have an end, but an end presupposes something on the other side." (Maybe they do -- think of the discussions of cosmology.) "If you can have positive length, why not negative length? Why couldn't something be negative three inches long?" Etc.

Yeah, it's silly... but no more silly than what happens when people start thinking time is something other than actions as measured by people. It's certainly not *just* those actions; and it's certainly not *independent* of those actions. Absent a definition that views it as a *perspective* on those actions, you get this idea that it's some weird thing outside of us that we're in, and which can be subject to all sorts of context-dropping nonsense.

[AshRyan]

Well, the units are certainly completely dependent on the conceptual consciousness doing the measuring. So the move you are making would certainly be appropriate in regard to specific units of such measurement (e.g. week, day, hour, second, foot, meter, etc.--although there is often an objective basis for those units). However, the measurable attribute itself (whether time or length or whatever) is something that is fully objective and should be defined as such. The phenomenon that we denote with the word "time" (as well as that denoted by "length", etc.) did exist before there were any conceptual consciousnesses (even if the unit "hour" did not). After all, the measurable attribute had to exist independently of any observer in order for an observer to come up with units by which to measure it. I think that concepts denoting other measurable relationships such as "length" should certainly not be defined as relative to the observer, and I still see no reason why this should be any different for "time".

Edited October 26, 2003 by AshRyan