How Long Is 'Right Now'

[Occams Barber]

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.

I understand what you're saying although at one stage the past did exist, although, at the time, it was the present therefore it didn't exist as the past.

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).

Agreed -we are all time travellers of a sort (Where did I park my Tardis?)
OB

 

[Serving Zion]

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

If it is anything like the "day" mentioned in Genesis, and indeed used throughout the scriptures, it would probably be a contextual variant.. whereas I have heard new-age sayings such as "there is no such thing as the past or the future, there is only the moment of now".. which in a sense is their way of saying that the past and the future shouldn't be our focus, because contentment is about being satisfied - and that can only happen in any present moment. But past and future are real words with real meanings, and those meanings cannot be just discarded like that. Instead, a more proper speech would identify what it is about the past and the future that makes them worthless as compared to the present moment (which itself is a wrong thing to say - the present is a result of the past, and the future will become the present, itself being a result of the past and whatever happens before that time comes to pass).

.. I'm sure this topic belongs in a different category though ..

I understand what you're saying although at one stage the past did exist, although, at the time, it was the present therefore it didn't exist as the past.

Well, we can't actually access the past, all we can access is information about the past - be it as written records, artifacts or recalled comprehensions (memories).

Agreed -we are all time travellers of a sort (Where did I park my Tardis?)
OB

This actually has serious consequences though, because what is the thing that is preventing a person from living in the present (that is, to pre-emptively interact with reality before perceiving it?).

 

[SkyWriting]

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

Scientifically it doesn't exists at all. "Time is fleeting".
But I'd say the length of time you consider the past
and the future, then make a decision based on that,
could be considered the present.

 

[drjean]

Perhaps the length of the "present" is the amount of time it takes for one to realize they are living (it)?

 

[dreadnought]

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

You answered your own question, didn't you, and it was a good answer, I thought.

 

[Chinchilla]

Wouldn't it be Planck time ?

 

[Occams Barber]

Wouldn't it be Planck time ?

One unit of Planck time is probably the minimum duration of the Present. This leaves open the actual duration of the present - could it be two or more Planck units?

Listening to others who contributed to this thread I reached several tentative conclusions:

• The Present lasts for a duration of one or more Planck units
• We experience the Present as an ongoing series of short duration 'scenes'. I use a stroboscope as a metaphor. Aristotle did something similar with his Arrow Paradox
• The Past originally existed as the Present. Apart from this it has no ongoing existence.
• The Future does not exist and will not come into existence until it becomes the Present

I am now patiently waiting for my Nobel Prize to arrive in the mail.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

You answered your own question, didn't you, and it was a good answer, I thought.

I agree.

I am constantly amazed at my own cleverness.
OB

 

[dreadnought]

I agree.

I am constantly amazed at my own cleverness.
OB

I amaze myself sometimes, also.

 

[dreadnought]

I agree.

I am constantly amazed at my own cleverness.
OB

I amaze myself sometimes, also.

People should pay more attention to us.

 

[Serving Zion]

I use a stroboscope as a metaphor. Aristotle did something similar with his Arrow Paradox

It seems to me that there must always be some blur on each frame.

 

[Occams Barber]

It seems to me that there must always be some blur on each frame.

'Blur' suggests motion and motion indicates the passage of time. If the Present lasts for the shortest possible duration of time (one Planck unit) then blur is not possible.

The term 'blur' is also human related. I think we need to careful in differentiating between the actual duration of the Present verses human perceptions of time.
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

People should pay more attention to us.

I told the Night Nurse at the Nursing Home the same thing last week. She mumbled something about Relevance Deprivation and sent me back to my room.
OB

 

[Serving Zion]

shortest possible duration of time

I detect this to be the basis of our differences. I do not assume that it is possible to find a shortest possible duration of time.

Maybe you could explain it to me in an easy way (as I am not trained in Physics) - why do you assume it is not possible to divide the Planck?

 

[jacks]

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

Oh no, somebody quoted my post and asked a question! And here I am not knowing what in the world I'm talking about.

Perhaps "time" doesn't exist at all. (This would solve a lot of problems...) Funny I was just kidding about time not existing, but then in order to sound more intelligent than I am, I did what all good on-line participants do I Goggled it. And guess what apparently there are arguments for time really not existing.
HERE, THERE and EVERYWHERE!

 

[Occams Barber]

I detect this to be the basis of our differences. I do not assume that it is possible to find a shortest possible duration of time.

Maybe you could explain it to me in an easy way (as I am not trained in Physics) - why do you assume it is not possible to divide the Planck?

I'm not a physicist SZ so I won't pretend to understand the details.

A Plank unit is the time it takes for light to travel the distance of one Planck length in a vacuum. Where I'm in trouble is in understanding how Max Planck derived the concept of a 'Planck Length'. However he did it, it's generally accepted (by science) that one Planck unit is the minimum possible time interval, although I believe that there is still room for argument. A Planck unit can also be expressed as a fraction of a second but I'm not sure if my PC has enough decimal places.

To go back to your 'blur' issue - if a Planck unit is the minimum time interval and we were able to watch a moving object for one Planck unit, the object would appear to be absolutely stationary - hence - no blur. In principle, this is the same concept articulated in the Arrow paradox you brought to my attention.
OB

 

[dreadnought]

I told the Night Nurse at the Nursing Home the same thing last week. She mumbled something about Relevance Deprivation and sent me back to my room.
OB

I've had the same problem here in the pyschiatric ward.

 

[Occams Barber]

Oh no, somebody quoted my post and asked a question! And here I am not knowing what in the world I'm talking about.

Perhaps "time" doesn't exist at all. (This would solve a lot of problems...) Funny I was just kidding about time not existing, but then in order to sound more intelligent than I am, I did what all good on-line participants do I Goggled it. And guess what apparently there are arguments for time really not existing.
HERE, THERE and EVERYWHERE!

Never underestimate yourself. You have moved from 'not knowing nothing' to challenging the arrogance of a pretentious 'know all' like me.

The next time someone casually asks you to explain the nature of time - you will be prepared.
OB

 

[Landon Caeli]

maybe there is no time. And things just happen and occur at various rates; light, sound, growth, planetary revolutions, human perceptions, etc.

...Is time an abstract concept?

 

[Landon Caeli]

I hope this turns out to be one of those circular things, where it is... But it isn't!

...Where you go so far right..? You end up on the left!