Talk:Present

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - Tεx τ urε 16:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC) and discuss[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, Einstein has proven that this is not true. Different people perceive time differently. - Tεx τ urε 15:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - Tεx τ urε 16:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

<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...) - Tεx τ urε 19:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Now as a Current Event

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

Ha ha - Nurg

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)[reply]