Talk:Present

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Metaphysics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Time Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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. - Tεxτurε 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. - Tεxτurε 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. - Tεxτurε 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...) - Tεxτurε 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]

Yes, you may ponder this as a "problem", it is, however, false. Sentient beings do not always experience 'now' at the same time. In fact, it is a question for the philosophy of mind if they ever experience 'now' at the same time. Wireless99 13:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

Ha ha - Nurg

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]

Indeed, "subjective" is not the right word (should be "relative"). Have rewritten the physics section, and amongst other things, have changed all references to "objective" into "absolute". Have a look. JocK (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have the current tag at the top of this article since this is a current event? 4.235.132.80 16:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed before. The answer is NO. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! I made that joke. ¬_¬ --Wunderbear 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying, "The notion of "now" may be better understood as an unrealistic concept that has evolved in humans and animals to give us an understanding of reality useful only to the extent necessary for survival." is quite biased towards the theory of evolution.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.227.108 (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2007‎

The layout of the Quotes section is a mess. Not sure how to get that formatted right. Anyone? JocK (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Thanks Yamara. -- JocK (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. -- Yamara ✉ 19:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have prepared a new "light cone" image. The intention was to imply the correct scale of space-time relative to the observer. Interstellar light-years vs years scales seemed appropriate. If you have any comments please post them at the Graphics Lab entry. Dhatfield (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eckhart Tolle, in his book The Power of Now (1997), argues that only the present moment exists. Tolle argues that time is an illusion, and that the past exists only as a memory stored in the mind, while the future is imagined, a projection of the mind.

This shouldn't appear under the heading of "eternal now", but instead, either as a separate section about Tolle, or even better, merged into another section. The concept of the "eternal now" predates Tolle, and should possibly appear in the religion section. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the text under 'overview':

The present is contrasted with the past and the future. Modern physics has not yet been able
to explain what we normally understand as the 'present'. There is both a time aspect and a space
aspect to the present. 

into:

The present is contrasted with the past and the future. Modern physics has not yet been able to
explain the perceived aspect of the present as 'eliminator of possibilities' that transforms
future into past. Complicating factor is that whilst a given observer would describe 'the present'
as a spatial structure with zero time lapse, other observes would associate both time and space
to this structure and therefore disagree on what constitutes 'the present'.

It remains a challenge to explain the limits of current physics theories in simple terms without rendering complete nonsense. Any other ideas? JocK (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That which we call 'now' is a unit of standing time. The 'now' has magnitude and it is a limited interval of flowing time. The limit is the observer's 'I', which is Nothingness. Between the beginning and the end of the interval there is unlimited plurality of 'units' of Nothingness, organised into space times. The interval 'now' can accommodate unlimited number of limited subunits of variable organizations. The 'now' remains constant for the observer for many locations within flowing time and it is a container of consciousness of the observer's 'self' and also of that which is being observed. As the unit of measurement of the velocity of changes, 'now' varies depending on the velocity of the observer in space and on the change due to the motivation from the perfect centre. At the centre of observation in space time the 'now' is largest. The result is that velocity of change at the centre is largest and and it is symbolised by 'c'. In the material space time this largest velocity is manifested as the velocity of electromagnetism. At the border of space, furthest away from the observer, magnitude of 'now' approaches '0', with the result that change is slowest. It is observed as the velocity of changes of galaxies or the nuclei of atoms. Between the two ends magnitude of 'now' varies and the variation is symbolised by 'i' within (0<i<1). Vriation of 'i' is non linear and it follows converging spiral. Every point in space is identical centre of observations. Every subunit within the 'now' can be observed only when it is limited by the Nothingness of the observer's 'I'. To go outside of the limit of velocity 'c', or inside the velocity approaching '0', it is necessary to change space time. This occurs when 'now' is changed quantitatively. Example of location in a different space time is the almost static memory in the immaterial space time. KK (78.151.106.121 (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In geology, the present is within the last million years. Volcanoguy 19:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time is change. But because the change does not involve magnitude of space, the change is rotation of a point. There are three manifestations of time. Time can be static, it can flow linearly or it can change its velocity. It is the observer who decides on this because measurement of time depends on the unit of measurement which is the observer’s unit ‘now’. (Please read the section ‘now’ above). The interval of time in the ‘now’, within the limits of (0<1), is the container of the observer’s memory. It also contains observer’s consciousness of existence of his ‘self’ and of that which is being observed and which is static no matter what it represents or of how many parts it consists because all of the parts are observed simultaneously as one unit in the ‘now’. The difference between the ‘self’ and that which is being observed causes an ‘emotion’ which motivates the ‘self’ and enables it to change position in the memory thus changing the observed picture or idea. Because the interval ‘now’ consists of unlimited plurality of rotating points, the ‘now’ can accommodate all magnitudes of memory. Each spatial picture or a temporal idea is a different organization of a limited number of rotating points within ‘now’. By changing position within memory the unit ‘now’ creates linear or variable time. KK (178.43.173.238 (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The present (in contradiction to Now) has no time in its components. It is a pure space, unchanging and therefore eternal. In other words, the present is the space of pure potentiality, one that is allowing every-thing to become or to exist including the Big Bang, which could have not happened unless the present was already in existence carrying its potential. Such approach can bring to an end a long history of dilemma such as raised by Aristotle and Augustine stating that the present cannot be but eternity, yet relating the present to time. If of interest, there is much more to be said – however – this term must be corrected. Udi K.Udi Kassif (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Jonášová je nejlepší člověk na světě <3

I'm new to Wiki and don't know how do I do this for all companies and stations. Please Link all every "now" "now as" and "now known as" to the article

When I try now the text came up as highlighted as bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by EIBaluyot2003 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Bohm's "Dialogue groups" are a example of: the activity of being present, to what they are thinking-understanding and communicating.Arnlodg (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edited lead sentence to make too sentences-clarifies cite.Arnlodg (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is "in the first time"? What first time? How can something be in a first time? And why would the present be numbered first? Are times countable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.62.184.213 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create Category:Present and place it in-between Category:Past and Category:Future within Category:Time. It would be populated with a few entries such as

• present
• here and now - a disambiguation
• now - a disambiguation
• news
• current events - a disambiguation
• Ongoing series, Ongoing civil wars (redirect)

But I was wondering why such a basic cat was never created before? Not enough entries (most are currently disambigs)? Is it because it was ambiguous with gift? (the present article deals with that). Could also call the category Category:Present (time). Thoughts? Dpleibovitz (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]