An interesting statement involving time: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » An interesting statement involving time » An interesting statement involving time

An interesting statement involving time
"The future has never been closer than it is now"

Page: 1 2 3

An interesting statement involving time

Pajamas
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 30, 2005
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 9

Posted 04/07/06 - 10:51 PM: Subject: An interesting statement involving time	#1
"The future has never been closer than it is now." I have been considering this statement and pondering. It seems if one takes a Kantian approach to Time then the statement is necessary and eternally true (as long as there are people around). I was considering whether it was a tautology or not and because it is contingent on Time i have come to the conclusion that it indeed is not a tautology, but then, how can a statement be eternally true and not tautological? I am sure there is a simple analysis to this statement that would clear things up, but I am at a loss, any ideas?

Pajamas
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 30, 2005
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 9

Posted 04/07/06 - 11:01 PM:	#2
It should be noted for clarification that "the future" is not meant in terms of "beyond the present" but rather a certain point in the future, not any one definite point though.

SizarieldoR
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 10, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 54

Posted 04/11/06 - 07:45 AM:	#3
I disagree, because Physics knows time-travel (note: ONLY IN THE FUTURE), so relative to the "time traveller", who wants to test this hypothesis, the time instant we do this statement, the "fixed point in the future" do noot have a constant time interval between them. On short - a person can get closer to the "fixed point in the future" if he wants to do so.
Any fool can know. The point is to understand. - Einstein

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 04/19/06 - 07:46 AM:	#4
If you wish to go into the physics of the subject, the future has always been one Planck unit of time away.

Savantly Idiotic
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/20/06 - 08:57 PM:	#5
This statement means 2 things. 1) The Future has never been closer"..The minimum limits measured in amounts of time for the definition of "The Future" is constant. In other words the future is always a set amount of time away from the present. If there is any time difference, then it is not the present moment, and therefore; is the future. 2) "the future has never been closer than it is now" The statement as a whole is conveying the idea that the future may never come, so learn to enjoy the present. sorry about the puncuation

tkster95
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Location: Ohio
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 30

Posted 04/20/06 - 10:25 PM:	#6
The statement "the future has never been closer than it is now" is only consistently true if each time questioned and answered, the concept's understanding is negated. I know that sounds confusing but here's what came to mind when i heard the question: what if someone in the past said the statement of a future, now, that is two min away. But in the mean time said the statement again but one min later. This future is closer to the second answer. I don't know... I quess i'm missing the point of the statement though. Carpi diem... I think i spelled that wrong.
An opinion is like an asshole... everyone's got one. So yeah... i'm an asshole.

myaspectofus
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/22/06 - 08:03 PM: Subject: I believe this also holds	#7
A question answer dichotomy of the author that states that if we are captives of time only in the present, then the future has never been closer. But what of the ossibilities out of body? I do not subscribe to this limitation out of body but I do in the body. What do you guys think?

TESM
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 13

Posted 04/23/06 - 06:52 AM:	#8
I think if we were to simply take the quote literally, the past and future are vast 'spaces' which the latter is siphoned by the 'present' to pass into the former. the future which is closer is just a promulgation of 'change' to which as time progresses, the present either moves forewards along the 'scales of time' or that the future slowly drains into the present into the past. if we are to say 'now', that that is already within the past since you can never truly capture the 'present', the future is closer to now because the future will forever be bound to the perception of now which was brought up as 'fixed points' in time, but this is uneccesary. explanation: as time moves, as we chart and percieve it, that which is the future becomes closer instantaneously than the former movement, regardless of how time is viewed. If we imagine that 10 minutes from now that our uncertain death is 10 minutes closer, than regardless of when we die, indeed the future occurance of our death is 10 minutes closer. Likewise, all that is certain, or can be known as certain is that the past has happened, and that the present 'was' now. We are also assured of a 'future' regardless if we exist to percieve it. If time is to be viewed as an unended and forever changing stream, then the future will always be closer to us 'now' because as we read this, time simply moved along and with it, the future moved closer.

Savantly Idiotic
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2006
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/23/06 - 08:36 PM:	#9
"If time is to be viewed as an unended and forever changing stream, then the future will always be closer to us 'now' because as we read this, time simply moved along and with it, the future moved closer." Well, I don't agree with this at all. I believe that time is like a river, an endless river. At all points along the path of the river, the river is there. Each individual molecule is moving along the river, but the river itself (all the water molecules seen as one system) does not move. It is Us; the tiny water molecules, that move along time. This belief makes it impossible to believe that time moves as was suggested. There are two ways to view this statement. "never been closer" Could imply that at some point in the past the future was farther away. Or it could mean that the future has always been the same distance away, and so it has never been closer. The first one I have a problem with, because if at some point in the past the future was farther away, then that would mean a definite end of/to time. That would mean that this statement does not hold true in every instance of Time. If this was spoken on the last second of existance, there would be no future, so it would be false. If time was infinite, then the "future" by the first implication view, would never get closer. You can't get closer to infinity. Now is the only time there ever is. The future is imagination and the past is only memory. Now, is the only Time that we have.

universalanomaly
has returned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
Location: Being
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 125

Posted 05/12/06 - 02:16 AM:	#10
As noted above, the terms of this statement are ambiguous and could have different meanings. If "future" refers to a specific and fixed point in time that will eventually become the past, for example, the year 2010. Then the statement, "The future has never been closer than it is now." is true now for me. If time is not constant (as described in the Theory of Relativity), that is all I can say- it is true for me, because "present" then, does not have objective meaning. If "future" is meant in the general sense as all time ahead of the present, then the statement is meaningless because future is not a specific time that we are moving towards.
Taking evolution as the starting point for morality is no different than claiming the laws of physics are necessarily good because they are the laws of physics. "Any desire is imperative to the extent of its amount; it makes itself valid by the fact that it exists at all." William James

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.