How Long Is 'Right Now'

[Occams Barber]

When we talk about Time we often divide it into three parts; Past, Present and Future.

Present has different meanings depending on context. It can mean ‘right now’, today, this year, this decade or even this century.

Present starts where Past ends. Present ends where Future begins. This suggests that Present has a beginning and an end.

What’s the shortest possible duration for the Present? How long is ‘Right Now’?

Discuss.
OB

 

[TuxAme]

It means whatever the speaker wants to portray, so long as the definition isn't violated.

 

[Occams Barber]

It means whatever the speaker wants to portray, so long as the definition isn't violated.

I almost put this in the Science Forum since I see it as a physics question with philosophical overtones.

By 'shortest possible duration' I literally meant what I wrote. In the physical sense what is the shortest period possible for the Present?
OB

 

[Moral Orel]

In the physical sense what is the shortest period possible for the Present?

Planck time. The amount of time it takes for light to travel one planck length.

 

[Noxot]

the present is the current action occurring so it seems quite small, smashed between past and future. motion, process, and change seem realer than "the present".

I was thinking if you measure the smallest part of reality then maybe you could find the present there but once you get so small things are weird. you know, things like superpositions.

here is a short clip of physicist Sean Carroll talking about the quantum stuff.

probably for humans the present has to do with some function of the brain. in that case the present is about a biological process and not so much about the rest of the universe.

 

[TuxAme]

I almost put this in the Science Forum since I see it as a physics question with philosophical overtones.

By 'shortest possible duration' I literally meant what I wrote. In the physical sense what is the shortest period possible for the Present?
OB

Since time is a man-made concept, it's incredibly fuzzy. We can divide time as much as we please. We can always halve any given quantity. You have one minute? I can give you thirty seconds. Thirty seconds? Fifteen, then seven and a half. I can do this all day because there's an infinite range of possibilities between any two numbers and what they represent. You have two cakes? I have one cake, then half...

I will say that the shortest "period" wouldn't be a "period" at all. Imagine a circuit. It's off at one point, but sometime within a minute, it becomes active. It didn't take all of that time for it to become active- one "moment", it wasn't active- the next, it was. It wasn't active at 00:00:5999 (hours, minutes, seconds are being represented), but was at precisely 00:01:00. That precise moment would be the present- even a millisecond prior, it wasn't the present- and a millisecond later, it won't be the present.

 

[jacks]

I've heard it said that the moment is the closest thing to infinity. In the sense time doesn't pass in either one.

 

[TuxAme]

If we could say the words "right now" without any time passing between the start of the phrase and the end, that would truly convey the strictest possible meaning of it.

 

[TuxAme]

The moment is the closest thing to infinity.

So if I have more moments, and a single moment is the closest thing to infinity, I won't be any closer to infinity?

 

[jacks]

So if I have more moments, and a single moment is the closest thing to infinity, I won't be any closer to infinity?

To be honest I really don't get it all either. I think what it is trying to say is in the moment is a timeless state. (You can never stay in it because it is constantly changing.) And that infinity is also a timeless state. (It goes forever so is outside of time.)
That's the best I can do.

 

[Occams Barber]

Planck time. The amount of time it takes for light to travel one planck length.

Are you saying that the Present exists for one Planck unit?

If so (and you may well be right) why not 3 Planck units or 7?
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

the present is the current action occurring so it seems quite small, smashed between past and future. motion, process, and change seem realer than "the present".

I was thinking if you measure the smallest part of reality then maybe you could find the present there but once you get so small things are weird. you know, things like superpositions.

here is a short clip of physicist Sean Carroll talking about the quantum stuff.

probably for humans the present has to do with some function of the brain. in that case the present is about a biological process and not so much about the rest of the universe.

Think about your experience. Are you ever in the Past or the Future? Are you ever in anything other than the Present?

Is it possible that the Present is infinitely long (since you're always in it) rather than infinitely small? Is it possible that the Past and Future don't actually exist?

@jacks @TuxAme
I think this reply also relates to your thinking.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

To be honest I really don't get it all either. I think what it is trying to say is in the moment is a timeless state. (You can never stay in it because it is constantly changing.) And that infinity is also a timeless state. (It goes forever so is outside of time.)
That's the best I can do.

If it's any consolation this stuff also fries my brain.

The problem I'm seeing here is twofold;
If the moment is a timeless state and I can never stay in it, how come I'm always in it (the Present)?
Without time you can't have infinity.
OB

 

[drjean]

I assume you are discussing the view from man, and not God? I prefer to try and see things God's way ... which is all at the same "time" (earth word).

We are not somewhere in time... we. just. are.

 

[Moral Orel]

Are you saying that the Present exists for one Planck unit?

If so (and you may well be right) why not 3 Planck units or 7?
OB

The "present" is a relative term, so I wouldn't personally define the present as such a short amount of time. In fact, I would even use it for different amounts of time depending on the context of the conversation. I may say "live in the present" to mean you should worry about making yourself happy today instead of fretting over what may come years from now. But I also may call "the present" the general time period of about right now +- 20 years or so.

You specifically asked for the shortest amount of time we could call the present, and in theory, that is the shortest amount of time anyone could ever measure.

 

[Occams Barber]

I assume you are discussing the view from man, and not God? I prefer to try and see things God's way ... which is all at the same "time" (earth word).

We are not somewhere in time... we. just. are.

Yes - I'm doing Physics rather than Theology.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

The "present" is a relative term, so I wouldn't personally define the present as such a short amount of time. In fact, I would even use it for different amounts of time depending on the context of the conversation. I may say "live in the present" to mean you should worry about making yourself happy today instead of fretting over what may come years from now. But I also may call "the present" the general time period of about right now +- 20 years or so.

I agree that Present in general conversation is defined by context. I also mentioned this in the OP.

You specifically asked for the shortest amount of time we could call the present, and in theory, that is the shortest amount of time anyone could ever measure.

You are quite right to pick me up on my use of shortest and your answer is spot on. What I was trying (unsuccessfully) to get at was "how long is the Present?" but tripped myself up in trying to avoid the issue of contextual interpretations.

If you see my other replies you'll notice that I'm also exploring the concept that the Present is all there is since it's all we (or anything else) actually experience. Following this line of reasoning(?) Past and Future may not exist. I'm starting to imagine Time as a continuous Present (but this could change by tomorrow).
OB

 

[Serving Zion]

What’s the shortest possible duration for [a moment]?

This is the underlying problem in the Fletcher's Paradox!

Arrow Paradox (Wikipedia)

If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless.

— as recounted by Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b5

 

[Serving Zion]

Past and Future may not exist. I'm starting to imagine Time as a continuous Present (but this could change by tomorrow).
OB

Actually, the past can never exist, only the evidence of it having created what we have in the present, and the future is destined to become the present, but what we do in the present has influence on what the present will become.

Most people, interestingly, do not live in the present! .. Most people's existence in the reality is delayed - they live in response to reality, that places them behind the present moment while they wait for light and sound to form the idea in their mind, to which they will act in response! (whatever we perceive through the 5 senses has already happened before the body has encountered the evidence of it and translated it to a perception for the mind).

 

[Occams Barber]

This is the underlying problem in the Fletcher's Paradox!

Arrow Paradox (Wikipedia)

If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless.

— as recounted by Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b5

Thank you SZ. I haven't come across this Arrow Paradox before but its close to what I was thinking. I had a mental image of looking at life through a stroboscope with stop motion providing an effect similar to the stationary arrow.

Where modern physics would differ slightly with Aristotle is the concept of Planck time which @Nicholas Deka brought up in post #4. Where Aristotle needed "duration-less time" Planck came up with the smallest possible unit of time. The difference between them is probably poetic rather than practical.

I'm still stuck with the problem of how long the Present is - one Planck? two Plancks? or many Plancks? Or is duration a wrong concept?
OB