[Serious] Is the Past Real?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Indeed, I am taking the temporary stance that the the past has the same ontological status as the future. That the future does not exist (yet) seems commonplace compared to the notion that the past does in some sense exist. Yet the future as what might be based on present reality seems no different from the past as what could have been based on what is presently available. So why do we think the past is real but the future is not?

Sorry for the double post. I think because part of the definition of real has to include actualization. Things in the past did happen, and now is pure actualization, but the further away from now we look into the future the less it can be actualized.

Here is my secular argument:

There is nothing outside actual physical reality.
Physical reality keeps overwriting itself in the present like a claymation model.
Since actual physical reality is everthing there is no independent remaining record of what actually was remains.
As such, there really is not a definite way things were.
The garden of forking pathes opens in both directions. Possible futures spread before us. At the same time, the number of possible pathes leading to now also expand.

[Angrboda]

Sorry for the double post. I think because part of the definition of real has to include actualization. Things in the past did happen, and now is pure actualization, but the further away from now we look into the future the less it can be actualized.

Here is my secular argument:

There is nothing outside actual physical reality.
Physical reality keeps overwriting itself in the present like a claymation model.
Since actual physical reality is everthing there is no independent remaining record of what actually was remains.
As such, there really is not  a definite way things were.
The garden of forking pathes opens in both directions. Possible futures spread before us. At the same time, the number of possible pathes leading to now also expand.

What about numbers?

[bennyboy]

There is nothing outside actual physical reality.

Physical reality? Like what? The solidity of my desk? The color white? The experience of "down" at my feet?

[Jehanne]

That the future does not exist (yet) seems commonplace compared to the notion that the past does in some sense exist. Yet the future as what might be based on present reality seems no different from the past as what could have been based on what is presently available. So why do we think the past is real but the future is not?

Some future events are absolutely real, but have yet to be observed. For instance, our Sun is 8.3 light minutes away from us with photons leaving its surface this very instant, which we will observe in the future. And, yet, those photons, which were created some 100,000 or so years ago, have just now reached the surface of the Sun.

Now, if you are trying to sneak some of William Lane Craig's arguments into this thread, just know that no scholar thinks as he does. As he has no college or university associated with him and no graduate students, his ideas die with him.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That the future does not exist (yet) seems commonplace compared to the notion that the past does in some sense exist. Yet the future as what might be based on present reality seems no different from the past as what could have been based on what is presently available. So why do we think the past is real but the future is not?

Some future events are absolutely real, but have yet to be observed. For instance, our Sun is 8.3 light minutes away from us with photons leaving its surface this very instant, which we will observe in the future. And, yet, those photons, which were created some 100,000 or so years ago, have just now reached the surface of the Sun.

Now, if you are trying to sneak some of William Lane Craig's arguments into this thread, just know that no scholar thinks as he does. As he has no college or university associated with him and no graduate students, his ideas die with him.

I am a bit insulted since I am presenting a purely secular position and soliciting the opinions of others in a spirit of goodwill.

Anyways, what you are talking about is when multiple events within the universe are considered simultaneous. Are you suggesting perhaps that there is only one eternal now?

[Anomalocaris]

Most religionists don’t come here to present purely secular positions. They come here because in their religion inspired idiocy they imagine they are dexterous enough to use secular sounding position as “gatcha” to help the argument for religion.

[Anomalocaris]

That the future does not exist (yet) seems commonplace compared to the notion that the past does in some sense exist. Yet the future as what might be based on present reality seems no different from the past as what could have been based on what is presently available. So why do we think the past is real but the future is not?

Some future events are absolutely real, but have yet to be observed.  For instance, our Sun is 8.3 light minutes away from us with photons leaving its surface this very instant, which we will observe in the future.  And, yet, those photons, which were created some 100,000 or so years ago, have just now reached the surface of the Sun.

Now, if you are trying to sneak some of William Lane Craig's arguments into this thread, just know that no scholar thinks as he does.  As he has no college or university associated with him and no graduate students, his ideas die with him.

Wouldn’t many world’s interpretation say all future events are absolutely real?

But in classical interpretation, I still don’t see how any future event is not real.    Not having information about it is different from their not being real.

[Jehanne]

Some future events are absolutely real, but have yet to be observed.  For instance, our Sun is 8.3 light minutes away from us with photons leaving its surface this very instant, which we will observe in the future.  And, yet, those photons, which were created some 100,000 or so years ago, have just now reached the surface of the Sun.

Now, if you are trying to sneak some of William Lane Craig's arguments into this thread, just know that no scholar thinks as he does.  As he has no college or university associated with him and no graduate students, his ideas die with him.

Wouldn’t many world’s interpretation say all future events are absolutely real?

But in classical interpretation, I still don’t see how any future event is not real.    Not having information about it is different from their not being real.

The Many World's interpretation is just that, an interpretation, which, in my opinion, is an extravagant one, but, yes, some future events must be regarded as being absolutely real in that they have already happened in another past reference frame.

[Jehanne]

Some future events are absolutely real, but have yet to be observed.  For instance, our Sun is 8.3 light minutes away from us with photons leaving its surface this very instant, which we will observe in the future.  And, yet, those photons, which were created some 100,000 or so years ago, have just now reached the surface of the Sun.

Now, if you are trying to sneak some of William Lane Craig's arguments into this thread, just know that no scholar thinks as he does.  As he has no college or university associated with him and no graduate students, his ideas die with him.

I am a bit insulted since I am presenting a purely secular position and  soliciting the opinions of others in a spirit of goodwill.

Anyways, what you are talking about is when multiple events within the universe are considered simultaneous. Are you suggesting perhaps that there is only one eternal now?

It's the Andromeda Paradox:

[Anomalocaris]

Wouldn’t many world’s interpretation say all future events are absolutely real?

But in classical interpretation, I still don’t see how any future event is not real.    Not having information about it is different from their not being real.

The Many World's interpretation is just that, an interpretation, which, in my opinion, is an extravagant one, but, yes, some future events must be regarded as being absolutely real in that they have already happened in another past reference frame.

Physicists don’t seem to agree the many world interpretation is extravagant.   In fact many seem to regard it as elegantly parsimonious in terms of new unknown underlying principles that must be assumed

If time travel is possible, and nothing in physics says it ain’t, then it seems to me all future event must have already happened in another past reference frame.