Does the past is real?

[Coelho]

Once, a friend of mine, asked me a question that i couldnt answer properly. Since then, i agree with him, but still am open for a good answer.

He asked "do you have any CONCRETE proof that the past REALLY existed"?
Like... the universe could have been created right now, as it is now. If we were created as we are now, with all memories already into our minds, how we could be sure that this memories were real, that they really refer to events that happened? How can we be sure that they are not only memories into our mind?
Note that im talking about everything and everybody and all the universe being created at the same time, so asking other people, or looking at the stars, or whatever just wont work.

Well... i couldnt answer. Since them, i couldnt believe any more in the realness of the past. I think there is a movie (blade runner?) where they put memories into the mind of androids to fool them and make they think they were real humans, or somewhat like it... so, what assures us that its not the same with us? If anybody have a good answer to it, please!!! :confused:

[sd6515]

Ummmm the pyramids, carbon dating, archaeological finds, written history proven to be from 1000's of years ago, dinosaur fossils, cave writings, the constant movement and changes cause by techtonic plates, mountains constantly changing, earthquakes, proof iceburgs carved out and changed the landscape, family trees(lineage), fossils in general, sandstone do I really have to go on I really hope you were really high when you wrote this lol I mean this is ALL CONCRETE proof and only a very short list
I mean even now as we speak the world is changing I geusse if you were really out there you could think the universe was created then all evidence was planted and then we just spontaneously appeared with memories but come on no one is that dumb lol

[dragonrider]

It's funny that you ask this question because I was just thinking about that yesterday. I posted something about it on the Crazy Stoned Idea Thread in the Experiences forum. When I was a kid I got this idea that maybe I had just been created a second earlier and all my memories had been implanted into my mind. I thought maybe all the past didn't really exist or maybe the reality I percieved wasn't actually real.

I had this idea before I had seen any movies about memory implantation or virtual reality. When I saw Blade Runner, I loved it. Part of the reason I liked it so much was because of the androids (they call them replicants in the movie) and the fake memories that they give them. The replicants only live a few years, so they ease them into their lives by giving them the fake memories. By the end of the movie, you are not sure if maybe the Deckard character, the main character whose job it is to hunt down and kill escaped replicants, is maybe himself a replicant. It is a great movie.

One of the things about these kinds of questions is that you will probably never know for sure the answer. It's more of a philosophical than practical question. From a practical point of view, you have to live your life like the past is real and that reality as you experience it is real.

It's the difference between subjective reality and objective reality. Subjective reality is the reality that you personally experience. Objective reality is the reality they way it actually is, independent of how you experience it. So maybe the objective reality is that the universe was formed in a Big Bang 15 billion years ago and has played out since then according to the laws of physics, or maybe the universe was created a second ago and all your memories were implanted into you, or maybe the universe is the dream of some super stoned alien, or maybe it is all just a virtual reality program or hologram. But your subjective reality is that you were born, you lived your life to thie point, you have your memories and the experinces that you have every day --- from a practival point of view, you have to live based on that subjective reality. But that doesn't mean it's not interesting to speculate about the nature of the objective reality!

Another intersting question is if the universe was just formed and your memories implanted, what is the purpose? Who did the implanting and why? Are they trying to trick you? Is it some kind of test? If you ask too many questions will they just erase your mind? Be careful!

[TheGreatBenzino]

Ummmm the pyramids, carbon dating, archaeological finds, written history proven to be from 1000's of years ago, dinosaur fossils, cave writings, the constant movement and changes cause by techtonic plates, mountains constantly changing, earthquakes, proof iceburgs carved out and changed the landscape, family trees(lineage), fossils in general, sandstone do I really have to go on I really hope you were really high when you wrote this lol I mean this is ALL CONCRETE proof and only a very short list
I mean even now as we speak the world is changing I geusse if you were really out there you could think the universe was created then all evidence was planted and then we just spontaneously appeared with memories but come on no one is that dumb lol

Kk while reading your post! i was impressed, then it happened....

let me explain it to you how i thought (in my head) hmmm this kid has some real facts to prove his side of the arguement..WAIT :wtf: WHAT THE FUCK!

after i read that you believe no one is this dumb... i lost all respect for your answer... why is it that he questions what you call reality, as conspicuous. He has a right to question what he thinks is questionable. NOW you have a right to debate his answer, but soon as you cut him down by sayig thinking that is "dumb" you lose all your credibility.

For you AMAZING question, i dont have an answer for you. I believe the past is real but how it got there i have no fucking clue. now i am a christian and believe in god, but the fact that he woke up one day said BOOM water boom trees, BOOM mountains, BOOM homosapiens (not what they were called when they first began on earth) who have such complex functions that millions of years down the road we still wouldnt even understand most. seriously think of the brain.. FUCK are you kidding me SOO CRAZY. i just can comprehend what happend years before us to invent electricity, space travel AMAZING!!!

so next time you give a GREAT answer (much props), just dont get negative..

:bigsmoke: -STAY LIT, QUESTION EVERYTHING!

[sd6515]

after i read that you believe no one is this dumb... i lost all respect for your answer... why is it that he questions what you call reality, as conspicuous. He has a right to
well read it again i was respond to what i said when i said this

I geusse if you were really out there you could think the universe was created then all evidence was planted and then we just spontaneously appeared with memories but come on no one is that dumb
not to his originall question I myself have had that same question when i was REALLY stoned and was not in anyway responding to his question by saying it was dumb I was saying that a theory no one existed to creat or plant anything but did and then we spontanopusly appeared with all memories and proof was dumb in response to the physical proof not the question or anyones right to ask any question of anykind is dumb

[TheGreatBenzino]

well read it again i was respond to what i said when i said this

not to his originall question I myself have had that same question when i was REALLY stoned and was not in anyway responding to his question by saying it was dumb I was saying that a theory no one existed to creat or plant anything but did and then we spontanopusly appeared with all memories and proof was dumb in response to the physical proof not the question or anyones right to ask any question of anykind is dumb


HAHAHA all this makes me laugh soo hard. you said dumb like 84 times! hahaha i wasn't trying to cut you down either, basically after i got done typing all that i realized it wasn't worth it but then i realized that i came to far not to post it! MUCH LOVE TO EVERYONE! and we are ALL RIGHT!

[sd6515]

and the creation as said in the Bible does not eliminate evolution if you know that the word that we translated into day from its' original language can also be translated as eons I myself am a christian and believe this is the way it was meant to be worded you know like in the first eon he created, not nesciarilly a day.
Once again I did not mean to be insultive to him more so i meant it to be towards my sarcastic theory and appologize for the miscommunication on my part.

[sd6515]

HAHAHA all this makes me laugh soo hard. you said dumb like 84 times!
RFLMAO I said dumb ONCE after I wrote a sarcastic theory and meant it towards my sarcastic theory
and wrote that i hope you were really high because this is one of the most common stoner discussions on earth and that i hope you were really high, next to hampster nipples a long running joke with my buddies, long story, this comes up more then anyhting

[TheGreatBenzino]

and the creation as said in the Bible does not eliminate evolution if you know that the word that we translated into day from its' original language can also be translated as eons I myself am a christian and believe this is the way it was meant to be worded you know like in the first eon he created, not nesciarilly a day.
Once again I did not mean to be insultive to him more so i meant it to be towards my sarcastic theory and appologize for the miscommunication on my part.

Eons make more sense! hahahaha, but still who has the knowledge to be like "this is a brain, really you will never find out to use it to its full potential, but ummmm good luck"

[dragonrider]

Ummmm the pyramids, carbon dating, archaeological finds, written history proven to be from 1000's of years ago, dinosaur fossils, cave writings, the constant movement and changes cause by techtonic plates, mountains constantly changing, earthquakes, proof iceburgs carved out and changed the landscape, family trees(lineage), fossils in general, sandstone do I really have to go on I really hope you were really high when you wrote this lol I mean this is ALL CONCRETE proof and only a very short list
I mean even now as we speak the world is changing I geusse if you were really out there you could think the universe was created then all evidence was planted and then we just spontaneously appeared with memories but come on no one is that dumb lol

I think the universe works pretty much the way science is finding it works. All the historical and scientific evidence that you mentioned are consisitent with each other and reinforce the same kinds of conclusions about how the universe works.

But the original question had more to do with concrete proof for the reality of reality itself. That can't be proven. As long as the universe was internally consistent in all of its physical laws, history, and scientific evidence, then there would be no way to prove that the universe was not just created a second ago, or just some kind of crazy simulation. The logical thing to think is that it was not a simluation, but you can't PROVE that it's not a simulation just becasue the universe is internally consisitent --- it could just be a very good internally consistent simulation.

Now if there was some kind of internal inconsistency, then you would have good reason to question whether reality was the way you thought it was. That's not what we find, so there's not a lot of reason to question the reality of the past, but it doesn't mean you can't.

[sd6515]

Eons make more sense! hahahaha, but still who has the knowledge to be like "this is a brain, really you will never find out to use it to its full potential, but ummmm good luck"
I completely agree very good point there is so much we don't don't know and to claim we do or that we never will is ridiculous and why I love question like what this thread started with but I love this point.

[TheGreatBenzino]

kk i counted and you only said it three times, hahahahaha 3..84 in my reality there is no difference hahahahahahahaha. :postgood: ALL OF THEM, and who says STONY PONIES are stupid, and lazy!

[dragonrider]

... next to hampster nipples a long running joke with my buddies, long story, this comes up more then anyhting

I think you are right. This kind of thing comes up a lot.

Once they invented the holodeck on Star Trek, the writers couldn't resist going back over and over again to the theme of whether or not what you eperience is actually reality or not. In one episode they were transporting some people inside the holodeck without their knowledge (for totally good reasons) and they started having techical problems. So the simulation started to break down and parts of the real holodeck started to show through. We never get any glimpses of a outside uneiverse that's not consistent with the one we live in, so we have no good reason to question our subjective reality. But it is still fun to do so!

One of the things I think is interesting is, if you want to believe the universe is somehow being faked up by some kind of external force, then there has to be a reason for it. Maybe it's a sinister reason like in the Matrix, or maybe it's a benign reason like in this Star Trek episode. But if you believe the universe is mostly just due to physics, then there doesn't have to be a reason --- it could have just happened bacause physics allowed it to happen.

[sd6515]

I fear I jump the gun and made myself sound to judgemental on this topicI wanted to more state my reasons that I used to convince myself back when I used to think about this all the time I used to really work myself up over this question and get almost into a panic over all aspects of reality I really like this point you made dragon and really like how we are all able to still stay civil even though i came on too strong and could have made this a nasty thread lol but love all the views and points that have come out. and as always question everything you want and hold true to your beliefs

[sd6515]

kk i counted and you only said it three times, hahahahaha 3..84 in my reality there is no difference hahahahahahahaha
I'm still at a loss because I have read my original post over and over and can only count once at the very end.
sorry for the double post

[Hardcore Newbie]

Last Thursdayism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism)

The parody belief that the world was created last Thursday with the appearance of age.

[TheGreatBenzino]

not to his originall question I myself have had that same question when i was REALLY stoned and was not in anyway responding to his question by saying it was dumb I was saying that a theory no one existed to creat or plant anything but did and then we spontanopusly appeared with all memories and proof was dumb in response to the physical proof not the question or anyones right to ask any question of anykind is dumb there i tried to bold all three "dumbs" its just they way the paragraph flows that makes it seem like you used the word a lot! OPTICAL ILLUSION!!!!!

[Coelho]

Hardcore Newbie, thanks for this link! Now i know where my friend did read this idea... its from Bertrand Russel...


The five-minute hypothesis is a skeptical hypothesis put forth by the philosopher Bertrand Russell that claims the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included. It is a commonly used example of how one may maintain extreme philosophical skepticism with regards to memory. It appeared in his 1921 book Analysis of Mind.

(from Five minute hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_minute_hypothesis))

I did read all posts, and there is some very interesting responses... i will reply them as soon as possible... meanwhile, lets the discussion keep going! :thumbsup:

[sd6515]

TGB oh I thought you were talking about my original post bc if you count that I said it 4 times lol

[sd6515]

that stuff about being created by the Queen Maeve the Housecat and saving those who were nice to cats and damning evildoers to the never-cleaned Eternal Litterbox is hillarious though not trying to be insultive but that definately made me laugh. Is this meant as a joke though?

[TheGreatBenzino]

TGB oh I thought you were talking about my original post bc if you count that I said it 4 times lol

:S2: Seriously i am way to baked to read that again! I'm still hurting!hAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[dragonrider]

The original question in this thread was about whether there was any way to prove our memories really happened or were they just put into our minds --- is reality the way we remember it or just some kind of simulation. I think reality is pretty much the way we experience it, but I like the question anyway.

But it occured to me that some of the same kinds of issues come up for creationist ideas for the origin of the universe. I don't believe in creationism becasue there is so much scientific evidence for the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and the evolution of species. Some people who have tried to convince me of the creationist origin of the universe have told me that God created the universe only a couple of thousand years ago and he killed off the dinosaurs and other extinct species in the Great Flood, or that carbon dating doesn't work because the world was different in the past, or the Great Flood changed the chemistry. I never could believe any of that because of what I said earlier about the universe being internally consistent. I don't believe the laws of physics changed over time. Creationist ideas that involve the Great Flood or some other mechanism for obscuring the scientific evidence are not internally consistent with other scientific evidence. They are subject to scientific testing and can be disproven.

Other creationists have told me God created the universe only a couple of thousand years ago, but he put all the fossils in the ground and all the sedimentary rock and other geological and carbon date evidence in place as if the universe was much older. That idea is a lot more similar to what we are talking about here. As long as you think God created an internally consistent universe with a fake past that is consisitent with the evidence we see today, then there is no way to PROVE that he didn't create it a few thousend yeas ago, or even just a minute ago. From the point of view of PROVING it, there is no difference between that kind of creationist idea and the idea of a Matrix-like virtual reality. You can't prove either one is not true. Both ideas are outside of science because they cannot be tested.

If you want to believe the universe is internally consistent but is fake, then you should ask why. Why would God create a fake past and evidence for bilions of years of history if the universe was only a few thousand years old? Or why would some race of aliens create a virtual reality for us to live in? I can't really figure out a reason why God would not just either make the universe 15 billion yaears old or make it 6 thousand years old and leave it at that. There's no good reason to make it 6 thousand years old but make it look 15 biliion years old. But the aliens are a totally different thing! They might create a virtual reality just to keep us their willing slaves, or use our brains as batteries, or do freaky alien sex on us.

[sd6515]

The original question in this thread was about whether there was any way to prove our memories really happened or were they just put into our minds --- is reality the way we remember it or just some kind of simulation. I think reality is pretty much the way we experience it, but I like the question anyway.

But it occured to me that some of the same kinds of issues come up for creationist ideas for the origin of the universe. I don't believe in creationism becasue there is so much scientific evidence for the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and the evolution of species. Some people who have tried to convince me of the creationist origin of the universe have told me that God created the universe only a couple of thousand years ago and he killed off the dinosaurs and other extinct species in the Great Flood, or that carbon dating doesn't work because the world was different in the past, or the Great Flood changed the chemistry. I never could believe any of that because of what I said earlier about the universe being internally consistent. I don't believe the laws of physics changed over time. Creationist ideas that involve the Great Flood or some other mechanism for obscuring the scientific evidence are not internally consistent with other scientific evidence. They are subject to scientific testing and can be disproven.

Other creationists have told me God created the universe only a couple of thousand years ago, but he put all the fossils in the ground and all the sedimentary rock and other geological and carbon date evidence in place as if the universe was much older. That idea is a lot more similar to what we are talking about here. As long as you think God created an internally consistent universe with a fake past that is consisitent with the evidence we see today, then there is no way to PROVE that he didn't create it a few thousend yeas ago, or even just a minute ago. From the point of view of PROVING it, there is no difference between that kind of creationist idea and the idea of a Matrix-like virtual reality. You can't prove either one is not true. Both ideas are outside of science because they cannot be tested.

If you want to believe the universe is internally consistent but is fake, then you should ask why. Why would God create a fake past and evidence for bilions of years of history if the universe was only a few thousand years old? Or why would some race of aliens create a virtual reality for us to live in? I can't really figure out a reason why God would not just either make the universe 15 billion yaears old or make it 6 thousand years old and leave it at that. There's no good reason to make it 6 thousand years old but make it look 15 biliion years old. But the aliens are a totally different thing! They might create a virtual reality just to keep us their willing slaves, or use our brains as batteries, or do freaky alien sex on us.

and it is at this point I make my exit I've learned my lesson about discussing religion creation and all with VERY misinformed people the only thing in this post that holds any truth towards religion is when you said you were told. Because as even stated earlier in this thread the term days in the Bible does not mean days but is a translation from a word that also means EONS which means that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive and just because everyone would rather fight there side then realize they are actually arguing the same circumstances but misinformed does not mean that true educated and open minded Christians like all I know and assosciate with do not agree with these crazy fundalmentalist creating stories of how we were made simply because a word was translated as day instead of eon. God did not place fossils on the earth and all that was stated and true educated Christians do not believe this either and it is very insultive for you to assume that that is what we believe when it is simply not true and unfair to assume and state this.

[TheGreatBenzino]

yeah, it started as a question got into an agruement, that got settled, and started going good, then .....BOOM it died thread sewn, snipped, and forgotten.

[psychocat]

This only makes me think of one thing and that is the question of how do you know anything is real?
We could all be figments of your imagination and then again you could all just be figments of mine.However if that were the case you would all be 18 year old females and I would be ruler of the world.

[dragonrider]

and it is at this point I make my exit I've learned my lesson about discussing religion creation and all with VERY misinformed people the only thing in this post that holds any truth towards religion is when you said you were told. Because as even stated earlier in this thread the term days in the Bible does not mean days but is a translation from a word that also means EONS which means that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive and just because everyone would rather fight there side then realize they are actually arguing the same circumstances but misinformed does not mean that true educated and open minded Christians like all I know and assosciate with do not agree with these crazy fundalmentalist creating stories of how we were made simply because a word was translated as day instead of eon. God did not place fossils on the earth and all that was stated and true educated Christians do not believe this either and it is very insultive for you to assume that that is what we believe when it is simply not true and unfair to assume and state this.

Look, I absolutely did not want to start an argument or ruin this thread. I did not mean to offend you or anyone else. I get your earlier point about eons versus days. And I would never presume to tell you what you believe.

I was refering to what I have been told by other people who I have had these creationist conversations with and trying to relate it to the original question of the thread, which was probably a big mistake considering the kind of emotion it stirred up. Anyway, I have had plenty of conversations with Christians who believe that the universe is billions of year old, created over vast expanses of time (eons!) and that evolution occured over that time. That sounds like maybe it's a little more in line with what you believe, but I will not try to characterize your personal beliefs.

I have had other conversations with other people who believe in the exact literal truth of the creation story in the Bible. I think you just referred to those people as "crazy fundamentalists." Harsh, Dude! Anyway, my experience has been that if you bring up things like the fossil record with someone who belives in the literal story, they will bring up the flood or some other biblical event that they think explains some alternative for how the fossils got there, or they will say that God put them there. That is my experinece. I'm not saying you think that or any other particular person or class of people think that. I'm saying I've had that conversation more than once.

To get back to the point of the original thread, if a person believed God just created the 15 billion years of fossil record and put it in the universe, even though he only created the universe 6 thousand years ago, then there is no way to disprove it. Just like there is no way to prove we don't live in the Matrix. I don't believe that God created a fake fossil record (and it desn't sound like you do either), and I don't believe in the Matrix, but I can't PROVE either one is not true.

Again I'm sorry if I offended you. I wasn't really responding to anything you wrote. It took me so long to write my post that I don't think your stuff about eons and such like was even posted when I started. I defnitely was not responding to your post.

[sd6515]

alright and my bad for coming on so hard but I think it has a lot to do with recently leaving a very harsh thread that was shut down that was full constant insults and assumptions of the christian religion. I am sorry if I came on too strong as well.
Also when I refer to crazy fundamentalist it is not just what they believe in but how they act on it forcing religion down everyones throats, refusing to listen to reasonable arguments, telling all non christians they are damned to an eternity in hell(to me a funny thing to say because if someone doesn't believe in your God why would they believe in your hell) and all in all giving the christian religion a bad name through there actions not just there beliefs. Similar but in a much less drastic or extreme way that Islam is a peaceful religion but fundamentalists Islams go around blowing things up as "part of there religion" making a lot of uneducated people think they are a religion of hate which is FAR from the truth.
Again I am sorry for coming on so strong just residual effects of a previous bad thread I guess.

[TheGreatBenzino]

Hey kidz I am over this depressing thread lets liven this bitch up! waht is your favorite thing to do high

Mine is PING PONG! SOO dope! i am soo much better high!

[sd6515]

Play Wii Sports WAY better high

[Coelho]

Well... many posts after... im here again.
You are right, we (still) cant prove that we live (or dont) into a Matrix, or into some alien simulation, or whatever. Soon i will arrive there. But first:
Somebody mentioned self-consistency of the universe... well... i think its not a very good way for testing it... as we humans have a very bad tendence to close our eyes to what we cant understand, or dont want to see... for example, take the things called "paranormal", like psychokinesis, telepathy and such... or the so-called "miracles", present in every religion... well, most scientists will say that this things doenst even exist, so they wont bother to search and see if they are real or not. And it happens with everybody. When we see a thing that dont fit our view of world, we simply discard it as "illusion", "hallucination", and so. Doing this, we keep our world consistent, even if the proofs of its unconsistency were right before our eyes.

And we arrive at the matrix question... well... i dont know if we live in a computer-based simulation, but im sure (its my own belief, mind you) that we call "reality" is only a product of our minds, not a "real" thing. What we see is not the world itself, but the electromagnetic waves recieved by our eyes, and interpreted by our brain. So, we are very far from the "reality" itself. Its not my idea, it comes from long long ago... Buddha already said that the world is a illusion, Plato talked about its cave, don Juan Matus also said the same... and, interestingly enough, some days ago a member of cann.com had an very interesting experience, where he supposedly reached the nirvana and did see the "real" nature of the things... and his description is very similar to many other descriptions of this kind of experience, and thats why i really believe that he really did see the "true" nature of reality.
If you wish to read it, look at:
http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/133110-i-think-i-may-becoming-insane-spiritual-discussion.html

BTW, i know the discussion of the nature of the reality is endless, as well as the discussion of the nature of the past, as well as most (if not all) phylosophical discussions... anyway... if its our duty to discuss, then lets do it!

[sd6515]

I can start by saying that most scientist do not think that religon doesnt exist infact most the opposite. But when it really comes down to it reality is what you percive to be real and concrete so if you believe that we where just out on this earth with all memories and so forth "installed" in us then that is your reality same if you believe scientific proof, reality is subjective. However I choose to put my faith in science and religion and where they meet but even that is my own reality and belongs to only me. It is my "safe place" my reality not yours or anyone else and wouldn't impose it on anyone. And all aspects of life from perception of pain to perception of reality are yours to explore, accept and own. Perceptions of reality differ as much as perceptions of pain ex. I personally percive the pain of a tatoo as a slight discomfort and have gotten one in all of the most painful places from the most which contary to popular opinion is the center of the calf to the least right on the forearm, but just because the pain is nothing to me doesnt mean my wifes pain is ignorable or not valid and I belive the same is true when it come to perception of reality because it all comes down to perception who are we to even say that green to me is green to you as far as we percive it if i percive green as your red and red as your green when we both look as red we both percive it to be red because regardless of how we see it we have been taught that it is red so we say it is red. and on the other end if we choose to pervcive reality tv as real or an autobiography as real and truth then that is our reality and NO ONE has the right to judge our reality of anything and all should stand up and defend there reality I mean even schizos and such think what they see and hear is real and what right do we have to say it isn't when we can't see through there eyes and believe what they believe. Reality by definition is what you define as real and believe so in "reality" how can anyone judge, criticize or otherwise refute ones own perception of reality beyond comparing it to there own or societies general consensuses of what is real and what is stupid and delusional.
Sorry to go on and on but I feel to force anyones perception on anyone is inappropriate because the same way you feel towards there perceptions would in turn be the way they feel towards yours and our society as a society say that general consensus is right and if that were the case the usa wouldn't exist and the world would still be perceived as flat.

[Coelho]

Well... im sorry if i passed the impression that i was forcing my view of reality into anyone... that was not my remotest intention... i agree with you that reality for each one is what each one chooses to believe as "real".
I only wished to say that the common-sense reality, or the reality that most people shares, is not as real as we think it is. Only because we agree with the "reality" of it dont mean that its real.
Of course, most people chooses to believe that the reality shared by other people, the common-sense reality is real... its a personal choice, of course. But the mere fact that its the viewpoint adopted by most people dont mean thats the only one, or the right one. And so, it shoud not be forced into anyone, not even the schizos.

[sd6515]

I think we are on the same page and wasn't refering to you or anyone in paticular with my post just the way that society general percives that the general consenus is right and all others should "fall in line" from religion to colors even though they are rarely disputed but I feel obligated to say I definately was not speaking to anyone in particular especially not you.

[tha_green_ghost]

The past doesn't exist,....but it used to!:stoned:
Time doesn't exist either, it's just a way of keeping record.
There is only one instant which is "now" constantly/infinitely being renewed as the future .
Karma is created by the output of energy each action sets off.

This universe is basically a chaotic machine and no one knows where it came from but it had to have come from something ,that came from something etc...

However, the universe couldn't have just been created like a few minutes ago because the evidence and record of the "past" is still here and continues to be here in this instant.

P.S.Did that make any sense? I'm really stoned (haha)

[Hardcore Newbie]

The past doesn't exist,....but it used to!:stoned:
Time doesn't exist either, it's just a way of keeping record.
There is only one instant which is "now" constantly/infinitely being renewed as the future .If the past no longer exists, what is it that makes it no longer exist, if not time?

Actually I maintain the opposite view, that the past exists forever. If the universe is in fact infinite, then the past travels throughout the universe, just as when we look into very distant galaxies, we actually see what these galaxies were like millions and even billions of years ago because of how long it takes light to travel.

So the past exists forever, it just depends on your vantage point.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

the past is a dream, the future is an old wives tale made up to get children to eat their vegetables and the present is too fleeting to be of much consequence. right now is already moment in the past that didn't even exist before we watched it slip away.

[imitator]

How do we know that we exist? How do we know, assuming that we do exist, that what we percieve around us is real?

There is never going to be a point in time where we can prove 100% that we are real, and that everything around us is real. We can come incredibly close, but again, no matter what, there will still be theories and possibilities which cant be proven/disproven, which means we cant know for certain.

The 5min theory, or Thursdayism, or any of the other variations are very plausible theories, which would be incredibly difficult to disprove in almost any scenario, because of how they frame the theory, and what the theory covers. If all your memories were inserted into you 5 minutes ago, even though you remember all these things, you just started to exist 5 minutes ago.

Its a perfect example of how flawed we as humans are, and how flawed all of our perceptions really are. Movies like Bladerunner and The Matrix really showcase these problems, although most people dont ever really look that deep into the movies to see the underlying theme. Hell, half the people I talk to never really thought into the Matrix at all, just thought it was a kickass sci-fi action film. /sigh

That being said, I think that the past is subjective in a way, to each individual. Ever heard the phrase, "the victor writes history"? If you look into that, you can see some startling things.

First off, for the sake of argument, lets assume that in some time in the history of mankind, a victor rewrote history to suit their purpose, and changed it from what the truth actually was. If thats the case, and this new "truth" is handed down for hundreds of years, you reach a point where that falsehood actually becomes a reality to all those who have heard it.

Now does that mean that the entire world, or at the very least all those who believe this falsehood, are living in a false reality? Its obvious that the reality they live in is different then the "actual" reality that exists independant of people and their perception... but if that idea is true, and that would indicate that they are living in a false reality, wouldnt that mean the entire world is likely living in a false reality?

I just in the middle of writing this up had a conversation with one of my coworkers, and found out that Paul Revere was not the man who did all the major work riding to cities to spread the news. Can any of you name the man who did do the riding? How many people do you know of who know that, who know that Paul wasnt the person who did all the work?

Just one example of the majority of the people living in a false reality.

And unless we were actually there during every event in history, we have no way of ever knowing what really happened, or if it ever really happened at all.

Hell, a recent event can show this well too. Al Gore, if you ask the average person, they will tell you that he claimed to have "created the internet". Is that true? Not at all, but it was spun, and repeated enough that a large majority have accepted it as fact, but its not fact. Or is it? We cant know, unless we were there at that moment, in person, when he made the statement. Otherwise, we are accepting what others tell us as the truth, but as we know... the "truth" isnt always the truth, and people are suspectable to "changing" things, and trying to sell it as the truth still.

Im done rambling for the moment...

[dragonrider]

I agree that our perception of reality is not the complete picture of the "real" reality. Like in Plato's cave, we see the shadows of the higher reality. We only experience the model of reality that our brain constructs out of the input from our senses.

But now we have more and more tools to extend our senses, and we can begin to understand more and more about the "real" reality that we never could have understood with just our senses we were born with. For example, using only your senses, you could percieve a certain limited picture of what a plant is, but if you get a microscope, you can see that it is composed of cells and microscopic structures. If you use more powerful instruments, you can understand the molecular structures and chemical properties of the plant, and you can understand the life processes that go on inside the plant. Even more powerful tools and you can begin to understand the atomic and subatomic structure of the matter that makes up everything, including the plant. Using telescopes and other tools, you can look across space and back in time and begin to understand where those atoms and particals came from. If you put it all together in your mind, soon you have an understanding of that plant that goes far beyond what you could personally sense. Then the model your mind constructs includes more than just the input from your senses.

That's not to say that scinetific investigation is ever going to allow you to fully experience the "real" reality, but it definitely gives you an understanding beyond your own senses.

The other route some people take to understand higher orders of reality is through religion, prayer and meditation. I think that when people talk about things like the "real" reality, they want to personally experience it, not just understand beyond what they can see and feel. When people talk about experiencing "nirvana" they are talking about directly experiencing the higher reality. I've never decided for myself whether I truly belive in the nirvana experience or not. Without getting into the chemicals involved, I have experienced what I felt to be transcendental states. But I'm not sure they were any more "real" than the ordinary reality that I experience through my senses.

Certainly many people have experienced things that can not be explained with our standard common-sense models --- paranormal events, visions, nirvana experiences, miracles. etc. I would never discount anyone's personal transcendantal experiences, or their search for having those experiences, or their feelings for what they mean. But it seems like trying to have it both ways if you say that our day-to-day experience of reality is just an illusion and these other exceptional experiences are not. I'm a natural sceptic, so it seems more logical to me to say that our day-to-day experience of reality may be an illusion, but it is a decent model for reality, and the exceptional experiences that don't fit the model are probably illusions too, maybe even more so. Hopefully our common-sense model can be expanded to include an understanding of such experiences beyond just dismissing them as hallucinations, just like it now includes subatomic particals that could not have been imagined in the past.

[imitator]

Of course, I agree with you entirely in regards to "paranormal" events that happen. The fact that we know so little means that we shouldnt be so quick to dismiss things we dont understand.

If you had told someone from 500 years in the past some of the things that are common place for us, I would imagine that they would view it just like some in todays day and age view "paranormal" events.

Skepticism is an important thing, but if you apply it to everything without any waiver you will find yourself in a very hairy situation. We cant really know for sure about anything, but we can know what has happened without being disproven so far... and it doesnt matter if this reality that each person experiences is real or not, you are still experiencing and interacting in it...

Its a balancing act, we need to be questioning everything around us, but we also need to be able to still be functional in whatever reality we may be in. Alot of the time, we only find people who are sitting at the extremes of either side, or better put... we only really notice those who are on the extreme fringes of each line of thought.

[dragonrider]

The 5min theory, or Thursdayism, or any of the other variations are very plausible theories, which would be incredibly difficult to disprove in almost any scenario, because of how they frame the theory, and what the theory covers.

Thank you for putting that so succinctly. That is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier when I got in so much trouble with the religious misunderstanding. By framing the theory in such a way that everything is consistent with everything we observe today and everything we can project into the past, it is impossible to DISPROVE the theory that the past was somehow manufactured.

But to me, the fact that a theory cannot be disproved, does not necessarily make in plausible. The problem with these kinds of theories is that they bring in an element that is not necessary. They make things more complicated than they need to be. If you say the universe came into being, proceeded according to physical laws that have remained unchanged over time, life eveloved, I was born, and my life is pretty much like I remember it, that is the most simple explanation. If you say that it only seems like that is what happened, all the evidence is consistent with that model, but actually the universe was created 5 minutes ago and all your memories were implanted, then you have brought in the element of whatever force did the creating and implanting. The second model is so much more complicated than the first, that is seems implausible, even if it cannot be disproven.

[imitator]

Thank you for putting that so succinctly. That is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier when I got in so much trouble with the religious misunderstanding. By framing the theory in such a way that everything is consistent with everything we observe today and everything we can project into the past, it is impossible to DISPROVE the theory that the past was somehow manufactured.

But to me, the fact that a theory cannot be disproved, does not necessarily make in plausible. The problem with these kinds of theories is that they bring in an element that is not necessary. They make things more complicated than they need to be. If you say the universe came into being, proceeded according to physical laws that have remained unchanged over time, life eveloved, I was born, and my life is pretty much like I remember it, that is the most simple explanation. If you say that it only seems like that is what happened, all the evidence is consistent with that model, but actually the universe was created 5 minutes ago and all your memories were implanted, then you have brought in the element of whatever force did the creating and implanting. The second model is so much more complicated than the first, that is seems implausible, even if it cannot be disproven.

Exactly.

"The abscence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

Just because we cant disprove something doesnt mean it is true, but on the same note, just becuase we cant prove something doesnt mean its not true.

5 min theory, Thursdayism, Dreamer theory, all these things... they are possibilities. But the problem with them is we will never be able to prove them to be true. It doesnt mean they arent true, and arent real possibilities, but in most situations they are not brought up because of their very nature, and the fact that they usually bring a discussion to a halt. You cant really argue these kinds of ideas and theories, they are built almost with that very principle in mind.

As far as them being implausable, Im not sure I agree with that so much. What makes them that way, besides peoples misconceptions and ignorance? The very idea of them is that they are incredibly plausible, because they cant be proven and within them they contain everything needed to work. But we cant ever really call them fact, because there is no way to prove it. But idk if Id say it makes them implausable persay. I may have misunderstood what you were saying though... if thats the case, my apologies.

[dragonrider]

Its a balancing act, we need to be questioning everything around us, but we also need to be able to still be functional in whatever reality we may be in.

That is another very good point. I find these kinds of discussions very interesting as a philosophical exercise. But as a practical matter, you pretty much have to live your life as if everything you experience is real! Don't tell the IRS, "Taxes, like all reality, are an illusion." Otherwise you will soon experience the "illusion" of prison.

[imitator]

That is another very good point. I find these kinds of discussions very interesting as a philosophical exercise. But as a practical matter, you pretty much have to live your life as if everything you experience is real! Don't tell the IRS, "Taxes, like all reality, are an illusion." Otherwise you will soon experience the "illusion" of prison.

The problem is, over time, people took the balancing act needed as a sign that proper questioning and debate was a problem, and discarded it.

The average person doesnt take much time to really question much in their life, at least here in the states. What was a proper balancing act of questioning things while still being functional in "this" reality, has turned into no questions and accepting this reality and going about life.

Its really hard, in most anything, but especially with this situation, to find people who are "moderate" in their actions, who are able ot balance the two, instead of going to the extreme on one side or another.

[dragonrider]

As far as them being implausable, Im not sure I agree with that so much. What makes them that way, besides peoples misconceptions and ignorance? The very idea of them is that they are incredibly plausible, because they cant be proven and within them they contain everything needed to work. But we cant ever really call them fact, because there is no way to prove it. But idk if Id say it makes them implausable persay. I may have misunderstood what you were saying though... if thats the case, my apologies.

I don't think you misunderstood me, but I don't mean to say "implausible" as a way to diminish the discussion of these kinds of ideas.

I meant I find these kinds of theories unlikeley to be true because they bring in an element that is not necessary to explain the phenomenon. But that is exaclty why they are interesting! My gut feeling is that the simplest theory is usually correct, but it is an interesting philosophical exercise to think about an alternative explanation that is constructed in such a way that it cannot be disproved, but intruduces an unexpected element.

That is why movies like Blade Runner and the Matrix are so interesting. They question the very nature of our reality, but are constructed in such a way that you cannot fault their logic.

[dragonrider]

Not to get off topic, but can I have a bite of that delicious-looking baby sandwich?

[jdmarcus59]

Kk while reading your post! i was impressed, then it happened....

let me explain it to you how i thought (in my head) hmmm this kid has some real facts to prove his side of the arguement..WAIT :wtf: WHAT THE FUCK!

after i read that you believe no one is this dumb... i lost all respect for your answer... why is it that he questions what you call reality, as conspicuous. He has a right to question what he thinks is questionable. NOW you have a right to debate his answer, but soon as you cut him down by sayig thinking that is "dumb" you lose all your credibility.

For you AMAZING question, i dont have an answer for you. I believe the past is real but how it got there i have no fucking clue. now i am a christian and believe in god, but the fact that he woke up one day said BOOM water boom trees, BOOM mountains, BOOM homosapiens (not what they were called when they first began on earth) who have such complex functions that millions of years down the road we still wouldnt even understand most. seriously think of the brain.. FUCK are you kidding me SOO CRAZY. i just can comprehend what happend years before us to invent electricity, space travel AMAZING!!!

so next time you give a GREAT answer (much props), just dont get negative..

:bigsmoke: -STAY LIT, QUESTION EVERYTHING!
hey some one else from washington, interesting post.

[jdmarcus59]

simple and to the point, I Think There for I am..............lol

[imitator]

I don't think you misunderstood me, but I don't mean to say "implausible" as a way to diminish the discussion of these kinds of ideas.

I meant I find these kinds of theories unlikeley to be true because they bring in an element that is not necessary to explain the phenomenon. But that is exaclty why they are interesting! My gut feeling is that the simplest theory is usually correct, but it is an interesting philosophical exercise to think about an alternative explanation that is constructed in such a way that it cannot be disproved, but intruduces an unexpected element.

That is why movies like Blade Runner and the Matrix are so interesting. They question the very nature of our reality, but are constructed in such a way that you cannot fault their logic.

Ah ok, I understand what you were saying a bit better now.

Personally I feel that both theories you mentioned before though both have the same amount of elements to explain everything. One is saying that the world/universe/life was created a long time ago, and over time all these things happened, and thats where we are right now. The other is saying, 5 minutes ago this was all created, and all these things that you think have happened were given to you at the time of creation to give the illusion of a past.

I really do enjoy philosophical debate on these subjects, because there is no definite right or wrong, just a universe full of possibilities. No one is able to take a "moral" highground so to speak in regards to the subject, as the only thing that matters is how well you can explain what you are talking about. It puts everyone on even ground, if they are willing to truely take part in the conversation...

[imitator]

simple and to the point, I Think There for I am..............lol

But is that true?

Descartes was very flawed in his logic and methodology when he came up with "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum".

He used too many assumptions, and chose to not even consider some aspects simply because they would have been difficult to address.

Dreamer theory is a lovely example of this. If we are a part of some great beings dream, then everything we think is actually just part of the dreamers dream, and we didnt think it, he did. Therefore, your thoughts do not prove your existance, in that situation.

Still, the excercises that he used to reach that conclusion were good excercises for everyone to do at least once in their life. The entire excercise was remarkable, but his conclusion, and the ideas he used and discarded in order to reach such a conclusion were very flawed imo.

[imitator]

Not to get off topic, but can I have a bite of that delicious-looking baby sandwich?

That would be my sandwich sir, although I can give you the recipe for making your own. :p

[tha_green_ghost]

If the past no longer exists, what is it that makes it no longer exist, if not time?

Actually I maintain the opposite view, that the past exists forever. If the universe is in fact infinite, then the past travels throughout the universe, just as when we look into very distant galaxies, we actually see what these galaxies were like millions and even billions of years ago because of how long it takes light to travel.

So the past exists forever, it just depends on your vantage point.



Honestly, that makes sense BUT what we see in these crazy ass telescopes when looking into galaxies like these is actually only light that reflects back taking light years to travel and sends us the resulting image... it's not actually the past,
however it is a record of the past.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Honestly, that makes sense BUT what we see in these crazy ass telescopes when looking into galaxies like these is actually only light that reflects back taking light years to travel and sends us the resulting image... it's not actually the past,
however it is a record of the past.Tomato, Tomahto :) Basically the same thing, I say.

It's all in the vantage point. To us, if we observe something that explodes a light year away, it's new news, but if you're at the point of the explosion, it happened a year ago.

Extrapolating on your view, we could say that we've never observed anything in the present, only records of the past, as light and sound always take some time to travel to our senses, regardless of how small.

not that that matters, or that there's anything wrong with that, it's all on how you want to view the world.

[tha_green_ghost]

Yeah, I agree. It's all about how you look at things. There are so many aspects to view this subject from. I'm glad we can discuss this respectfully.

After all, we are all human and curious about this world/universe. -PEACE

[palerider7777]

i love how most people try to find and believe in anything but the truth they go out of there way to try and prove it wrong ....

[tha_green_ghost]

i love how most people try to find and believe in anything but the truth they go out of there way to try and prove it wrong ....


whatever yo'

[palerider7777]

and btw what's "does the past is right " mean??

[sd6515]

It means he was REALLY HIGH:rasta: when he wrote this RFLMAO:D

[imitator]

i love how most people try to find and believe in anything but the truth they go out of there way to try and prove it wrong ....

If there was a universal, known truth, people wouldnt be spending their time asking what the truth was.

I am happy that you have found your truth, I truely am, but I think its very petty of you to belittle those who havent found their truth, and very ignorant of you to assume that only your truth is the correct one and the rest of us are wrong.

[imitator]

u don't really warrent a response, u always have some dumb shit to say to try to twist my words to mean something they don't. and there is only 1 truth no matter how u dance around it. what i said is most people are always on the fence and seem to go out of there way to prove something wrong. and most don't even know anything about what they trying to disprove. but it don't matter as the always seem to call out for help when they need it, or blame the 1 they "don't believe in" and curse him because there life is'nt working out thats what im saying. and no im not gonna get in to a pissing contest as it takes to long to reel this beast out so there u go.

A pissing contest? I could have sworn it was a thread discussing things, must have missed that memo.

You state that there is one truth, only one, no matter what. Thats a fine statement, but one that can not be backed up with actual evidence.

Is there something wrong with spending your time trying to prove what you see around you wrong? Wouldnt you end up reaching the same "conclusion" as the one you have reached, assuming your beliefs are correct? If what they are trying to prove wrong is a truth, then its impossible to prove it wrong using any kind of sound logic, and the more time that a person spent trying to prove it wrong, the more they would realize that it wasnt wrong, no?

Is everyone, or even a majority, all blaming the same person/place/thing/item?

I am trying hard to avoid discussing any of your personal beliefs, as they have been discussed before, and its more then likely pointless to try to rehash that discussion. But is it safe to assume that your comments about ignoring the "one truth" and "blaming the 1 they dont believe in" are references to your beliefs and faith?

It is fine to use your beliefs as the basis for your point/arguement, its nigh impossible to not do so in some manner when having a discussion. Even stating that you believe something to be the truth in this world... but you are attacking and insulting others if you state that only your truth is the true one, and nothing else can exist. Thats what I am saying, and you may not have intended to come off like that, but I dont think I was the only one to read that from what you said.

Now as for your reasons for not wanting to dicuss this with me, personally I find them nothing but a bunch of bullhonkey, but to each their own. Id hope you would be able to handle having a discussion with someone who might not agree with what you believe. Id hope you would be able to have a discussion with someone without constantly harping on past subjects discussed, or past things said.

If thats not the case, then I apologize for wasting your time, and I will put you on ignore so that I dont accidently respond to anything else you post, as I dont really pay attention to who is saying what when I reply.

[dragonrider]

Actually I maintain the opposite view, that the past exists forever. If the universe is in fact infinite, then the past travels throughout the universe, just as when we look into very distant galaxies, we actually see what these galaxies were like millions and even billions of years ago because of how long it takes light to travel.

So the past exists forever, it just depends on your vantage point.

Some believe that our experience of time, one moment at a time, is only due to the fact that we cannot percieve the wholeness of time. In that theory, time is not really a series of moments strung together. All time --- past, present and future --- all of them exisit forever, and at the same "time." Time is just another dimension, like the spatial dimensions that we recongnize as space, but for some reason we experience time as a flow and can only percieve it a moment at a time. But in reality it exists in its entirety, just like space does.

[palerider7777]

A pissing contest? I could have sworn it was a thread discussing things, must have missed that memo.

You state that there is one truth, only one, no matter what. Thats a fine statement, but one that can not be backed up with actual evidence.

Is there something wrong with spending your time trying to prove what you see around you wrong? Wouldnt you end up reaching the same "conclusion" as the one you have reached, assuming your beliefs are correct? If what they are trying to prove wrong is a truth, then its impossible to prove it wrong using any kind of sound logic, and the more time that a person spent trying to prove it wrong, the more they would realize that it wasnt wrong, no?

Is everyone, or even a majority, all blaming the same person/place/thing/item?

I am trying hard to avoid discussing any of your personal beliefs, as they have been discussed before, and its more then likely pointless to try to rehash that discussion. But is it safe to assume that your comments about ignoring the "one truth" and "blaming the 1 they dont believe in" are references to your beliefs and faith?

It is fine to use your beliefs as the basis for your point/arguement, its nigh impossible to not do so in some manner when having a discussion. Even stating that you believe something to be the truth in this world... but you are attacking and insulting others if you state that only your truth is the true one, and nothing else can exist. Thats what I am saying, and you may not have intended to come off like that, but I dont think I was the only one to read that from what you said.

Now as for your reasons for not wanting to dicuss this with me, personally I find them nothing but a bunch of bullhonkey, but to each their own. Id hope you would be able to handle having a discussion with someone who might not agree with what you believe. Id hope you would be able to have a discussion with someone without constantly harping on past subjects discussed, or past things said.

If thats not the case, then I apologize for wasting your time, and I will put you on ignore so that I dont accidently respond to anything else you post, as I dont really pay attention to who is saying what when I reply.


no im quite sure u knew who u were responding too don't play that card

[imitator]

no im quite sure u knew who u were responding too don't play that card

I still dont even know who you are.

I am sure you left me negative rep at some point in time considering your attitude towards me, but since they only let you view a limited amount, I cant see any from you. And without rep to some thread to give me a clue as to some discussion we had, all I know is that you have a dislike for me for some reason.

[Adjacent]

Descartes is rolling in his grave right now.

Cogito ergo sum, my friends.

[TheGreatBenzino]

kk ladies and gentlemen. this thread is SHIT! its over, done with.... the question is is the past real???? well i say NO. (what for?) cuase i dont care, it passed. so basically everything you wrote was fake cause it is now in the pass!

[imitator]

kk ladies and gentlemen. this thread is SHIT! its over, done with.... the question is is the past real???? well i say NO. (what for?) cuase i dont care, it passed. so basically everything you wrote was fake cause it is now in the pass!

So you are saying that since its already happened, it isnt real anymore?

And yes, I know, it was a troll on your part, but next time, at least learn how to spell PAST. S isnt even near T, so there is no excuse. :thumbsup:

[TheGreatBenzino]

Man, Your not even worth my time. you are the FIRST hater i have seen on this site. You will find anything, to bitch about. Your area must be dry....smoke a bowl relax.


oh and.....PAST!

[Reefer Rogue]

Je pense, donc, je suis.

How do we know that car is real? *dies*

[afghooey]

Some believe that our experience of time, one moment at a time, is only due to the fact that we cannot percieve the wholeness of time. In that theory, time is not really a series of moments strung together. All time --- past, present and future --- all of them exisit forever, and at the same "time." Time is just another dimension, like the spatial dimensions that we recongnize as space, but for some reason we experience time as a flow and can only percieve it a moment at a time. But in reality it exists in its entirety, just like space does.

I've been thinking about this, and it raises some interesting questions..

If the future already exists, what becomes of novelty, spontaneity, and choice? From our perspective of reality, our limited view of the fourth dimension, these things make sense. But if everything has already happened, so to speak, outside of the confines of our limited perspective, then our fates are already determined, no?

[Bluntmasterbabe]

Okay, is it just me, or is that title nonsense..."Does the past is real?"...must be a typo:D

As for the subject, I think its better for me to not respond is the spirituality section because I'd rather not get into an argument over religion. To each their own:)

[afghooey]

Okay, is it just me, or is that title nonsense..."Does the past is real?"...must be a typo:D

English is not Coelho's first language.

That said, he actually has better English skills than a lot of people who do speak English as their first language. :stoned:

[palerider7777]

Man, Your not even worth my time. you are the FIRST hater i have seen on this site. You will find anything, to bitch about. Your area must be dry....smoke a bowl relax.


oh and.....PAST!

u might want to watch out, he's good at ratting/reporting people that he can't get his way with. so watch out as he's always starting trouble and no one says a thing to him. and when u piss him off he'll act like a lil kid and start trying to find stuff wrong with u, like u did'nt spell this just right or that. u know how kids in grade school act when they don't get there, way opps i guess theres another point headed my way for speaking, meanwhile this joker here trolls all over this site to find someone to smart off to any chance he gets, and noone says a thing. lol just beware what u say on here thats all im gonna say.

[Bluntmasterbabe]

Who the h*ll is Coelho??:D

[dragonrider]

I've been thinking about this, and it raises some interesting questions..

If the future already exists, what becomes of novelty, spontaneity, and choice? From our perspective of reality, our limited view of the fourth dimension, these things make sense. But if everything has already happened, so to speak, outside of the confines of our limited perspective, then our fates are already determined, no?

That is a good point.

It would seem that if this model were true, then the future is determined. But we percieve that we do make choices and our choices do make a difference to the future --- I've always believed that. So maybe this idea is just wrong. Or maybe there is some way that we have free choice within our moment-by-moment perspective, but when you look at the entirety of time from outside of our moment-by-moment perspective, we have already made our choices. Is that possible?

It always gets crazy when you try to look at things outside of the way you experinece them in your everyday life. Basically, you have to live your life as if reality is the way you experience it and your choices matter.

[dragonrider]

Who the h*ll is Coelho??:D
Coelho is who started the thread and wrote the title you asked about.
Beyond that, Coelho is a mystery....

[Bluntmasterbabe]

Oh...Lmao...duh:D

Man...I'm stoned...:S2:

[imitator]

Man, Your not even worth my time. you are the FIRST hater i have seen on this site. You will find anything, to bitch about. Your area must be dry....smoke a bowl relax.


oh and.....PAST!

Lol, this is a good one, a troll who doesnt realize he is being trolled.

[dragonrider]

Oh...Lmao...duh:D

Man...I'm stoned...:S2:

I love that kind of conversation!
What were we talking about again?

[imitator]

That is a good point.

It would seem that if this model were true, then the future is determined. But we percieve that we do make choices and our choices do make a difference to the future --- I've always believed that. So maybe this idea is just wrong. Or maybe there is some way that we have free choice within our moment-by-moment perspective, but when you look at the entirety of time from outside of our moment-by-moment perspective, we have already made our choices. Is that possible?

It always gets crazy when you try to look at things outside of the way you experinece them in your everyday life. Basically, you have to live your life as if reality is the way you experience it and your choices matter.

If you follow String theory, and quantum physics in general, they state that if there is no way to determine what is going to happen for certain, 100%, at a specific moment, then everything that was possible to happen at that moment happens, but all in seperate alternate universes.

If this is true, then its possible for the "future" to be predetermined, but for us to still have the illusion of free will, and in some ways, it not be an illusion.

I am not so sure how much I buy into the infinite alternate universes idea, even though it is fundamental to quantum physics... but it is another way to look at it.

[TheGreatBenzino]

Lol, this is a good one, a troll who doesnt realize he is being trolled.

Actually, i wasnt trolling, i posted on this one before... AND i may have judged you on your reply to me, it could of been a sarcastic remark, but after hearing about you, i'm not so sure i jumped the gun. but still with that said.... sorry for the possible character judge, I'll give you another chance.

[dragonrider]

If you follow String theory, and quantum physics in general, they state that if there is no way to determine what is going to happen for certain, 100%, at a specific moment, then everything that was possible to happen at that moment happens, but all in seperate alternate universes.

If this is true, then its possible for the "future" to be predetermined, but for us to still have the illusion of free will, and in some ways, it not be an illusion.

I am not so sure how much I buy into the infinite alternate universes idea, even though it is fundamental to quantum physics... but it is another way to look at it.
I've heard that theory too --- that the universe is constantly splitting into infinite universes. Every possible thing that can happen at any given time actually does happen in one of those universes. In regards to free will, the universe we experience reflects our own personal choices; however, there are an infinite number of universes, containing an infinite number of other possible choices we could have made.

I don't know if I buy it either, but I guess it is useful for explaing some quantum physics.

One reassuring thing that you can take from this theory is that if you ever regret a choice, you can be consoled by the fact that in an infinite number of alternative universes, you made a different choice!

[dragonrider]

Totally off topic, but I am new to online forums, and I was wondereing what "trolling" means?

[trainwreck530]

*BONK* whats up dud!! *throws joints at everyone*

peace pot & p****:cool:


DONNY:stoned:

[imitator]

Totally off topic, but I am new to online forums, and I was wondereing what "trolling" means?

A troll is someone who posts things for the explicit purpose of garnering a specific response.

You know, like someone going to a christian forum and stating that God isnt real, that kind of thing.


but after hearing about you, i'm not so sure i jumped the gun.

Well I am flattered that others are speaking of me, but I think you will find that those who have negative things to say of me have their reasons, but that they might not be the best reasons.

I apologize though if the remark was taken the wrong way, it wasnt my intention. I dont like the idea of anything I post on a message board about pot making anyone upset and ruining their groove and buzz. Once again, my bad man.

[imitator]

I've heard that theory too --- that the universe is constantly splitting into infinite universes. Every possible thing that can happen at any given time actually does happen in one of those universes. In regards to free will, the universe we experience reflects our own personal choices; however, there are an infinite number of universes, containing an infinite number of other possible choices we could have made.

I don't know if I buy it either, but I guess it is useful for explaing some quantum physics.

One reassuring thing that you can take from this theory is that if you ever regret a choice, you can be consoled by the fact that in an infinite number of alternative universes, you made a different choice!

I think its more of a placeholder until we really understand what happens. I think that the infinite universe theory is just a very crude way of describing whatever happens to be taking place. It seems a bit too unrefined at the moment, and while I cant completely discredit it, considering that quantum physics do work, it just seems like its not quite right.

[dragonrider]

My gut feeling is that it is not right either. But have you ever had a close brush with disaster, like being grazed by a speediing car? After hearing about this theory, I couldn't help but feel like maybe I had died in another universe. It was a weird thoguht.

[imitator]

My gut feeling is that it is not right either. But have you ever had a close brush with disaster, like being grazed by a speediing car? After hearing about this theory, I couldn't help but feel like maybe I had died in another universe. It was a weird thoguht.

I was riding in teh backseat of my car while a friend was driving down two track roads in Northern Michigan in the middle of winter... roads were really nasty and we were drifting around the corners, lost traction on one and ended up wrapping the car around a tree... I could see my friend in the drivers seat by looking out my window.

There is a twisted kind of feeling that comes from moments like that, I agree there. It would be an interesting world we live in though if infinite universe theory is how it all works...

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

the past is nonexistant, for it is over before it can be held on to, reality is constantly being created as NOW. the past and the future are outside of the equasion.

the past sets up the present, and the present sets up the future, but only the present can exist, for, as stated before, by the time the present has existed, it is already past, and we've moved on to a further present.

the moments i took to type this response no longer exist, but it was then which this present post was built. without that, the present would not occour.

mindless babble.

[Fallen_Icarus]

This thread is seriously - as has been said before SHIT!

Of course the past doesnt exist!

Look around you!

Do you see dinosaurs?

[imitator]

This thread is seriously - as has been said before SHIT!

Of course the past doesnt exist!

Look around you!

Do you see dinosaurs?

That logic is just so foolproof, I cant believe I never thought of it that way before.

Quick, someone tell all those scientists that those dinosaur bones arent real, because the past isnt real, and doesnt exist!

And remember kids, WWII wasnt real, because the past doesnt exist, so WWII doesnt exist.

And your parents were lying to you when they told you about your great great great grandpa who was dead before you were born. He isnt real, because he doesnt exist.

[imitator]

The five-minute hypothesis is a skeptical hypothesis put forth by the philosopher Bertrand Russell that claims the universe sprang into existence five minutes ago from nothing, with human memory and all other signs of history included. It is a commonly used example of how one may maintain extreme philosophical skepticism with regards to memory. It appeared in his 1921 book Analysis of Mind.

If the past isnt real, then that means that a theory similar to this one must be true.

Now I am not claiming its false, since its impossible to ever prove or disprove, but I just want you to recognize what saying the past isnt real means.

[Hardcore Newbie]

That logic is just so foolproof, I cant believe I never thought of it that way before.

Quick, someone tell all those scientists that those dinosaur bones arent real, because the past isnt real, and doesnt exist!

And remember kids, WWII wasnt real, because the past doesnt exist, so WWII doesnt exist.

And your parents were lying to you when they told you about your great great great grandpa who was dead before you were born. He isnt real, because he doesnt exist.I'm pretty sure Fallen Icarus was being sarcastic, it just didn't cut through as easily as your statements.

[Fallen_Icarus]

That logic is just so foolproof, I cant believe I never thought of it that way before.

Quick, someone tell all those scientists that those dinosaur bones arent real, because the past isnt real, and doesnt exist!

And remember kids, WWII wasnt real, because the past doesnt exist, so WWII doesnt exist.

And your parents were lying to you when they told you about your great great great grandpa who was dead before you were born. He isnt real, because he doesnt exist.

I was actually adding to the stupidity of this post, which yes is a form of sarcasm.

:jointsmile:

[twoguysupnorth]

couldn't that be all part of it?? Just a question.