I wonder if the future is fixed. Not quite the same as fate, since fate implies we can know our future, and nothing we can do can change it. We can't second-guess our fate, and deliberately change it, since then how do we know that what we changed it to wasn't our true fate all along? But are the future and the past as real as the present? Is time really an illusion, and we are really a bead on a 4-dimensional wire?
To me, it seems silly to give the "now" a greater reality than either the past or the present. That would mean that what is "real" is constantly changing. Absolutely, what we perceive is constantly changing, but that is because our brains are a part of that physics. Our brains have a physical state that changes with time, and only represents the "now". That does not mean that "now" is the only thing that exists, it is just an illusion that our minds play on us.
If we believe in an objective reality - a reality outside of our minds, and a reality independent of who is witnessing it, then reality is not dependent on perception. Therefore, a caveman's "reality" is no less real than our current or future reality, even though it happened at a different time to now, and was seen through different eyes.
There is also a fundamental problem with "now". "Now" doesn't exist, it really refers to a short, not even instantaneous, duration of what we are perceiving. According to special relativity, two events cannot happen simultaneously in an absolute sense - simultaneity is dependent on the observer.
We just have a small mind capable of only perceiving a limited number of things at a time. In the same way that we are limited temporally, we are also limited spacially. But we don't seriously doubt the existence of a house in the next street just because we are separated from it spacially. The "here" is no more real than the "there", analogously, the "now" is no more real than the "then". It is just a matter of perspective.
If "now" is as real as "then", then the future is also as real as now. The only difference is the apparent uncertainty that the future holds. The only difference is that we have knowledge of the past, and that information flows towards the future, never to the past. In the future, all of the past is fixed. But the past of the future includes our future, which is therefore fixed? When we reach the future, the only thing that changes is our knowledge of it. The future is perhaps there all along.
But is the future uncertain, or just unknown? Are there multiple possible futures, or is there just one? There is no way to tell the difference. Soon enough, we find ourselves in one future. Ockam's razor would suggest that having one future is a better hypothesis than having multiple futures. If we really did have multiple futures, are there then multiple versions of myself in the future? If we ended up in only one future, then were the other futures real possibilities, or not really possibilities at all?
Can we really influence our future? It may seem obvious that we can "cause" something to happen. But this is only true if our minds are external to physics, and are not subject to the same laws of cause and effect. As soon as our brains become a part of physics, then we have about as much free will as a falling rock. If we imagine for a moment that our brains are only subject to the laws of chemistry, and that our minds are conjured only by our brains, then there is no space for free will.
What is physics anyhow? It seems fundamentally governed by mathematics. Is that all there is to it - mathematics? In that case, what else needs to be real? Instead of being dynamic 3-dimensional objects, aren't we just static 4-dimensional objects with an attitude problem?
Our minds play a lot of tricks on us. We think we have free will even though we may just be powerlessly watching life unfold before us. We imagine it is incredibly important for us to behave in certain ways, even though it is not. We imagine the now is more real than the future or the past, even though is is not. We think the things around us are real, when they are merely a reconstruction of electrical nerve impulses. We think it matters.
To me, it seems silly to give the "now" a greater reality than either the past or the present. That would mean that what is "real" is constantly changing. Absolutely, what we perceive is constantly changing, but that is because our brains are a part of that physics. Our brains have a physical state that changes with time, and only represents the "now". That does not mean that "now" is the only thing that exists, it is just an illusion that our minds play on us.
If we believe in an objective reality - a reality outside of our minds, and a reality independent of who is witnessing it, then reality is not dependent on perception. Therefore, a caveman's "reality" is no less real than our current or future reality, even though it happened at a different time to now, and was seen through different eyes.
There is also a fundamental problem with "now". "Now" doesn't exist, it really refers to a short, not even instantaneous, duration of what we are perceiving. According to special relativity, two events cannot happen simultaneously in an absolute sense - simultaneity is dependent on the observer.
We just have a small mind capable of only perceiving a limited number of things at a time. In the same way that we are limited temporally, we are also limited spacially. But we don't seriously doubt the existence of a house in the next street just because we are separated from it spacially. The "here" is no more real than the "there", analogously, the "now" is no more real than the "then". It is just a matter of perspective.
If "now" is as real as "then", then the future is also as real as now. The only difference is the apparent uncertainty that the future holds. The only difference is that we have knowledge of the past, and that information flows towards the future, never to the past. In the future, all of the past is fixed. But the past of the future includes our future, which is therefore fixed? When we reach the future, the only thing that changes is our knowledge of it. The future is perhaps there all along.
But is the future uncertain, or just unknown? Are there multiple possible futures, or is there just one? There is no way to tell the difference. Soon enough, we find ourselves in one future. Ockam's razor would suggest that having one future is a better hypothesis than having multiple futures. If we really did have multiple futures, are there then multiple versions of myself in the future? If we ended up in only one future, then were the other futures real possibilities, or not really possibilities at all?
Can we really influence our future? It may seem obvious that we can "cause" something to happen. But this is only true if our minds are external to physics, and are not subject to the same laws of cause and effect. As soon as our brains become a part of physics, then we have about as much free will as a falling rock. If we imagine for a moment that our brains are only subject to the laws of chemistry, and that our minds are conjured only by our brains, then there is no space for free will.
What is physics anyhow? It seems fundamentally governed by mathematics. Is that all there is to it - mathematics? In that case, what else needs to be real? Instead of being dynamic 3-dimensional objects, aren't we just static 4-dimensional objects with an attitude problem?
Our minds play a lot of tricks on us. We think we have free will even though we may just be powerlessly watching life unfold before us. We imagine it is incredibly important for us to behave in certain ways, even though it is not. We imagine the now is more real than the future or the past, even though is is not. We think the things around us are real, when they are merely a reconstruction of electrical nerve impulses. We think it matters.
Comments