When is the Present?

[Arcane]

Is there such a thing as an absolute present time or is there only the past and the future?

Sure, we say Today is the present or "right now" is the present, but by the time you can think or say the words "right now" what you thought was the present is already in the past.

You can take it as far down as the nanosecond and beyond, but can you really pin down when the Present is?

It is interesting when you think in terms of Time and how we move through it. It seems that we are only constantly shifting from the past into the future and there really is no present.

As I typed each letter of this, each letter was in the future, then as soon as it was typed it was in the past.

Silly, I know, but I wondering about things like this heh.

[antoniseb]

Is there such a thing as the an absolute present time...

When is the present? Do you mean now?

[Lepton]

Is there such a thing as the an absolute present time or is there only the past and the future?

Sure, we say Today is the present or "right now" is the present, but by the time you can think or say the words "right now" what you thought was the present is already in the past.

You can take it as far down as the nanosecond and beyond, but can you really pin down when the Present is?

It is interesting when you think in terms of Time and how we move through it. It seems that we are only constantly shifting from the past into the future and there really is no present.

As I typed each letter of this, each letter was in the future, then as soon as it was typed it was in the past.

Silly, I know, but I wondering about things like this heh.

I would think you might get more of an answer of the type you want from a philosopher or a priest.

[Extravoice]

It is always the present. It is never the future, and never the past.

[archangelabove]

It is always the present. It is never the future, and never the past.

Exactly.

You never exist in the future or the past. You ALWAYS exist in the present.

Does it matter what the present is then? You can not define it completely. It just always is.

[LotusExcelle]

Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now, now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then!
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
Dark Helmet: How soon?
Video Operator: Sir!
[Dark Helmet has becomed far too confused and everyone now ignores him even though he's center screen]
Dark Helmet: What?
Video Operator: We've identified their location.
Dark Helmet: Where?

[archangelabove]

Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now, now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then!
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
Dark Helmet: How soon?
Video Operator: Sir!
[Dark Helmet has becomed far too confused and everyone now ignores him even though he's center screen]
Dark Helmet: What?
Video Operator: We've identified their location.
Dark Helmet: Where?

LOL Perfect.

[mugaliens]

When is the present? Do you mean now?

I think he means now.

No, wait, not that now... this now... like, now.

Seriously, mathematically, and physically, present isn't the infinitessimal demarcation between past and future. Rather, it's a single instance of Planck time, which is 1/5.39x10^-44 seconds in duration.

Supposedly, according quantum mechanics, it's the small divisible unit of time. However, I found the following intriguing:

"...according to news reports, analyses of Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field images in 2003 brought up a possible discrepancy. Images should have been blurry at very far distances, but the news articles stated that they were not, challenging the theory that Planck time is indeed the smallest measurable unit of time in the universe." - Quote from Wikipedia, and it's sources, below:

"Hubble Pictures Too Crisp, Challenging Theories of Time and Space". Space.com (2003-04-02).

Lieu, Richard; Hillman, Lloyd W. (2003-03-10). "The Phase Coherence of Light from Extragalactic Sources: Direct Evidence against First-Order Planck-Scale Fluctuations in Time and Space". The Astrophysical Journal 585: L77–L80.

Ng, Y. Jack; Christiansen, W. A.; van Dam H. (2003-07-10). "Probing Planck-Scale Physics with Extragalactic Sources?". The Astrophysical Journal Letters 591: L87–L89. The American Astronomical Society.

Perceptually, however, the "present" has a much broader scope, and generally includes whatever's on a person's mind at the time. Thus, even though you're in the here and now, if you're dwelling on past events, you're "reliving the past." Similarly, you could be thinking about the future. While you're doing either, to you, they're your present, or at least your present focus, rather than your focusing on the physical present, ie, what's going on around you.

A more normal viewpoint fixes the "present" as whatever's going on now. Like right now, there are several things in my "present." I'm typing. I'm chewing my spaghetti bolognesa, and thinking about posting it in the Post Your Dinner thread. I'm concentrating on making this make sense, so I'm real-time editing while I'm typing.

To me, all those things are my "present."

[antoniseb]

Seriously, mathematically, and physically, present isn't the infinitessimal demarcation between past and future. Rather, it's a single instance of Planck time, which is 1/5.39x10^-44 seconds in duration. ...

Well sure. delta-x * delta-t is a constant. So when you ask "When is Now?", you should also ask "Where is here?", and the answers will combine with a known amount of minimum uncertainty.

[KaiYeves]

When is the present?

After the cake, but before the pinata.

[kleindoofy]

(Depending on which philosophical theory one subscribes to) the past and the future exist only in the mind and have no physical consequence.

Huh? But I can see the photons that came from a star billions of light years away, so I'm seeing the star in the past, what it *was*. - No, I'm seeing the photons in their present existence. I'm seeing the 'now.'

But wait, the dinosaur fossils show me that they once lived, I can see it. - No, the dinosaurs exist only in their present state as fossils.

The distant stars and the dinosaurs exist now. What we see is now. The past, which was at one time the present, doesn't exist. It existed once, but is now immaterial, only something in our heads.

The 'bummer' is that we humans are damned to never experience the present. By the time our senses have reacted and our brain has created a cognitive state of experience, the present has long since fleeted away. Our own present is the past in our heads.

Tempus fugit.

[Sam5]

(Depending on which philosophical theory one subscribes to) the past and the future exist only in the mind and have no physical consequence.

Huh? But I can see the photons that came from a star billions of light years away, so I'm seeing the star in the past, what it *was*. - No, I'm seeing the photons in their present existence. I'm seeing the 'now.'

But wait, the dinosaur fossils show me that they once lived, I can see it. - No, the dinosaurs exist only in their present state as fossils.

The distant stars and the dinosaurs exist now. What we see is now. The past, which was at one time the present, doesn't exist. It existed once, but is now immaterial, only something in our heads.

The 'bummer' is that we humans are damned to never experience the present. By the time our senses have reacted and our brain has created a cognitive state of experience, the present has long since fleeted away. Our own present is the past in our heads.

Tempus fugit.

Very interesting.

The light from the stars and galaxies is like an old movie. The bump, bump, bump of the photons on our eyes is like the frames of an old movie.

The dinosaur bones is a different kind of “movie”. I was at a place one time that showed dimetrodon tracks from 280 million years ago. I’ve got a few of the tracks, very small, that I brought home with me. The strange thing is, the tracks are also like movie frames, since I could see the step, step, step, the dimetrodons made 280 million years ago. Very interesting.

[Whirlpool]

Oogway said : " Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the present. "

[Arcane]

The 'bummer' is that we humans are damned to never experience the present. By the time our senses have reacted and our brain has created a cognitive state of experience, the present has long since fleeted away. Our own present is the past in our heads.

Tempus fugit.

EXACTLY!

I mean come on guys, at least read my thread before responding (kleindoofy aside). Does no one on these boards have any imagination? Are you all too wrapped up in your mathematics to imagine anything? If so, then /heavy sigh.

My OP said that most think of the present as "right now", yet people are responding and sayin "right now" is the present. It's as if people read the thread title and don't even bother reading the thread....

We cannot perceive the present, by the time you perceive it, it is in the past.

Come on, open your minds.... I dare yah.

[astromark]

Examine your understanding of now. It is not any moment anticipated. For that is the future. It is also not lost in the past. It is the right here right now. At the present time you are reading this.... now that moment has passed into history. This moment is still the present. It is always right now... I do not live in the past...and norr do you... If you keep analyzing what this moment is... it will just get smaller and smaller... you will implode into a nano particle and be lost.

[Jens]

We cannot perceive the present, by the time you perceive it, it is in the past.

My initial reaction to the thread was that this is maybe nothing more than an issue with words. But I don't know, it may be that this deals to some extent with the problem that Zeno was thinking about, whether time is continuous or not. IIRC there is somebody recently who published a paper supposedly refuting Zeno in a philosophy journal, and I think he argued essentially that there is no such thing as a moment in time, i.e. that there is only change but never any moment. This would imply that there is no such thing as the present.

[Arcane]

My initial reaction to the thread was that this is maybe nothing more than an issue with words. But I don't know, it may be that this deals to some extent with the problem that Zeno was thinking about, whether time is continuous or not. IIRC there is somebody recently who published a paper supposedly refuting Zeno in a philosophy journal, and I think he argued essentially that there is no such thing as a moment in time, i.e. that there is only change but never any moment. This would imply that there is no such thing as the present.

Thank you Jens.... That is exactly correct in my opinion. When you really break it down and think about it, there really is no present.

[Arcane]

Examine your understanding of now. It is not any moment anticipated. For that is the future. It is also not lost in the past. It is the right here right now. At the present time you are reading this.... now that moment has passed into history. This moment is still the present. It is always right now... I do not live in the past...and norr do you... If you keep analyzing what this moment is... it will just get smaller and smaller... you will implode into a nano particle and be lost.

Astromark, while I was reading that I was about to read each word (Future), once read, it was in the past. Never was there a moment in time when I was reading it. I was either about to read a word or had already read it.

[Arcane]

I would think you might get more of an answer of the type you want from a philosopher or a priest.

Lepton, I am beginning to think you are correct. Science does not have the answers I seek and I am barking up the wrong tree with most of my questions. Science may never have these answers.

I am merely looking for some friendly discussion, but apparently this is not the place for it.

I will try to find a philosophy board instead. When I have a real science question that can be exactly defined by preexisting mathematics I will come here.

Thanks anyway.

[Neverfly]

Lepton, I am beginning to think you are correct. Science does not have the answers I seek and I am barking up the wrong tree with most of my questions. Science may never have these answers.

I am merely looking for some friendly discussion, but apparently this is not the place for it.

I will try to find a philosophy board instead. When I have a real science question that can be exactly defined by preexisting mathematics I will come here.

Thanks anyway.

Arcane, I disagree with Lepton, completely.

In fact, I had to hit the tab and see when and where Lepton posted that- And I think he jumped the gun too.

The OP is perfectly acceptable in science and perfectly answerable scientifically.

So far, several members have put forth there reasoning.

The concept of time is not religious nor philosophical.

In fact, this could easily turn into a Relativity discussion, considering the nature of the OP.

[Lepton]

Arcane, I disagree with Lepton, completely.

In fact, I had to hit the tab and see when and where Lepton posted that- And I think he jumped the gun too.

The OP is perfectly acceptable in science and perfectly answerable scientifically.

So far, several members have put forth there reasoning.

The concept of time is not religious nor philosophical.

In fact, this could easily turn into a Relativity discussion, considering the nature of the OP.

Yet the only answer the OP didn't object to by Jens mentioned what was posted in a philosophy journal. I respect your opinion Neverfly but it is beginning to appear that your main objective is to disagree with anything I post.

[Lepton]

Come on, open your minds.... I dare yah.

Nice way to taunt in Q&A. I wouldn't expect serious answers after that post.

[Argos]

If you look around the room you´re in you see that objects are placed at different distances. There´s the monitor in front of you, and there´s the keyboard, and there´s the painting on the wall and so on. Light takes time to reach you from those objects, so they are not experiencing the same 'present' as you do. Your feet are further from your eyes than your hands are. Even the neuronal synapses that enable you to experience reality take time to configure and reconfigure continually. So, as far as a consciousness is concerned, the present can only be arbitrarily defined as a big enough time span during which you can take a snapshot of reality. Beyond that I´m not sure about its real physical meaning.

[Ken G]

Is there such a thing as an absolute present time or is there only the past and the future?

A lot of the answers have already pointed to the fact that questions like this are extremely ill-posed, because you have not identified what perspective you are taking when you speak of "present time". We've heard answers relating to philosophical, neurological, and quantum mechanical interpretations, which is quite natural. The "take home" message here is that we must not mistake our words, like present, for "things" that we can ask about and expect demonstrable answers independent from our own assumptions and purposes. They are concepts, and these concepts do different things and mean different things in different contexts.

Thus, if your challenge to us is to "open our minds" as to what the present is, my challenge to you is to open your mind to what meaning is-- and the importance of specifying what meaning you are attributing to the concept of "present". In other words, you cannot meaningfully ask "what is the correct meaning of present, and when we give it its correct meaning, does it actually exist". You can ask, "what are the various meanings of present in various contexts, and what value do we obtain by applying that meaning in that context". I'm sorry if that doesn't sound as cut-and-dried as the OP question, but that's just how language works-- to get a better answer, you need a better question. Perhaps the best way to answer you is to help you hone the question until it actually does have some kind of answer, and that may be your goal in asking.

[clint_dreamer]

Yet the only answer the OP didn't object to by Jens mentioned what was posted in a philosophy journal. I respect your opinion Neverfly but it is beginning to appear that your main objective is to disagree with anything I post.

That is common on boards like these. People are very opinionated and passionate about the subjects they are writing about. And that is cool, but everyone should get a chance to speak without being ridiculed too. Just my initial thought after reading the thread.

[Nadme]

There is no "pinning down" the present because it is fleeting and always flowing into the future. "The present" of initially reading this subject line passed a second later, and the beginning of typing this post {the present then} is now gone...
...as is "the present" of the above typewritten text
...as is "the present" of clicking on Post Quick Reply.

[John Mendenhall]

"...according to news reports, analyses of Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field images in 2003 brought up a possible discrepancy. Images should have been blurry at very far distances, but the news articles stated that they were not, challenging the theory that Planck time is indeed the smallest measurable unit of time in the universe." - Quote from Wikipedia, and it's sources, below:

"Hubble Pictures Too Crisp, Challenging Theories of Time and Space". Space.com (2003-04-02).

Lieu, Richard; Hillman, Lloyd W. (2003-03-10). "The Phase Coherence of Light from Extragalactic Sources: Direct Evidence against First-Order Planck-Scale Fluctuations in Time and Space". The Astrophysical Journal 585: L77–L80.

Ng, Y. Jack; Christiansen, W. A.; van Dam H. (2003-07-10). "Probing Planck-Scale Physics with Extragalactic Sources?". The Astrophysical Journal Letters 591: L87–L89. The American Astronomical Society.

Thanks, Mugsy, I was just now looking for this. Ah . . . well, a moment ago. Or just previous. Never mind, thanks anyhow, I really was looking for that bit about non-foam earlier today. Fascinating.

Regards, John M.

[astromark]

Astromark, while I was reading that I was about to read each word (Future), once read, it was in the past. Never was there a moment in time when I was reading it. I was either about to read a word or had already read it.

We all are telling you the same things... It is you that can not see the idiocy of your view: of which you are perfectly entitled to... The term NOW or the present time does not need to be a fraction of time so small. When talking of humanities achievements we can use the term present day and mean years or decades. Have you not ever used the term 'now days'.
I am able to use the term present day and not mean today. The word now does not narrow down to an instant so much as you might at first think.
Let us put this moment in the past and move on into the future.

[kleindoofy]

With no intent of bringing this discussion anywhere near the dark, murky realm of the ATM, and without commenting on Arcane's attitude, I'd like to push this one step further.

... Time and how we move through it ...

Although perhaps not intentionally, that implies that time - past, present and future - is a standing entity through which we pass, like train tracks, with the future in front of the train and the past behind it, while the train itself represents the present. The future is pre-existent and the past "in storage."

... When you really break it down and think about it, there really is no present. ...

Ahh, Really? One could say that *only* the present exists, and nothing else. One could, in fact, define the present as being synonymous with existence and vice versa. If the past and the future exist only in our heads and are not material, then the present is that which exists.

Aha, but what about that paperclip on my desk? It existed five minutes ago, and unless something very fundamental happens, it will exist five minutes from now. It has a state of past and pre-existence, as well as being presently existent.

Yes and no.

One might find that time itself is not fluid (linear), but simultaneous, i.e. that the future, past, and present existence of the paperclip are in fact all the same thing.

However, one might contrarily find that the paperclip of the past is indeed not the same paperclip of the future, since it has changed on an atomic level, thus only ever being the same paperclip for the single instance of Planck time quoted by Mugaliens above. That would leave the paperclip to only ever having one state of existence - the present.

This isn't exactly new. Heraclitus said long ago "you can't step into the same river twice."

But this all leads, if one will, to a further step: if only the present exists, or the future, the past and the present are in fact simultaneous, then what is time?

Does time exist?

... this could easily turn into a Relativity discussion ...

How true.

Time is a fundamental element of most equations and constants with which we explain our universe. What if that's a fallicy? What if time turns out to be our modern day version of the antique cosmological concept of the 'ether'?

Yes, using time gives us valid results - mostly. But is it possible that we're missing something, using something we call 'time,' which is actually something else and is being used only partly correct? Would a shift in the axioms bring better results, especially in understanding the fuzzy bits?

Time used to be our constant while speed was relative. Now time is relative while speed is our constant (c). Can the next step be to eliminate time from the equation altogether?

Please note, I'm not proposing this: it's just food for idle thought.

Now I have to get back to work. If I don't get some work done in the present, I can't write any future invoices.

[mugaliens]

(Depending on which philosophical theory one subscribes to) the past and the future exist only in the mind and have no physical consequence.

Try telling anyone who is presently experiencing a bullet passing through their brain that "the bullet was fired in the past, it has no physical consequence."

He'll probably say, "next you're going to tell me 'it's only in your mind.'"

Funny thing is, he'd be right. At least for the next 1/800th of a second...