[Serious] Is the Past Real?

[Belacqua]

If there is no way to retrieve that information from the past using what exists in the present, then there simply is no truth of the matter.

I think that's silly.

"Chaucer ate fish for his final breakfast" is either true or untrue, even though there's no way to know which. There can be truths which humans can never know.

[polymath257]

If there is no way to retrieve that information from the past using what exists in the present, then there simply is no truth of the matter.

I think that's silly.

"Chaucer ate fish for his final breakfast" is either true or untrue, even though there's no way to know which. There can be truths which humans can never know.

Yes, we may never know, but I am going past that. Maybe there is no way to know, even in theory. And if that is the case, it would be neither true nor untrue.

Would you say that the statement 'my last meal will be fish' is equally either true or untrue?

[Jehanne]

If there is no way to retrieve that information from the past using what exists in the present, then there simply is no truth of the matter.

I think that's silly.

"Chaucer ate fish for his final breakfast" is either true or untrue, even though there's no way to know which. There can be truths which humans can never know.

That George Washington was the first United States President is true as saying that the force of gravity is an attractive force.

[Jehanne]

But it also isn't clear to me whether the *past* is determined in QM. If the information from the past mixes with the environment to a sufficient extent, it seems that the past becomes just as probabilistic as the future. When the information is impossible to retrieve, the past would be undetermined.

One observer's future event may, in some instances, be another observer's past event.

[polymath257]

But it also isn't clear to me whether the *past* is determined in QM. If the information from the past mixes with the environment to a sufficient extent, it seems that the past becomes just as probabilistic as the future. When the information is impossible to retrieve, the past would be undetermined.

One observer's future event may, in some instances, be another observer's past event.

Yes, depending on how their light cones behave. That doesn't change in quantum field theory.

More specifically, those things in the past light cone might be undetermined.

[polymath257]

I think that's silly.

"Chaucer ate fish for his final breakfast" is either true or untrue, even though there's no way to know which. There can be truths which humans can never know.

That George Washington was the first United States President is true as saying that the force of gravity is an attractive force.

But what about the 'fact' that there will be a total solar eclipse in 2024 where the path of totality cuts across Mexico and the US? Is this equally true?

[Jehanne]

That George Washington was the first United States President is true as saying that the force of gravity is an attractive force.

But what about the 'fact' that there will be a total solar eclipse in 2024 where the path of totality cuts across Mexico and the US? Is this equally true?

Not necessarily, as a meandering black hole could be snaking its way over to us with a close encounter 12 months from now.

[polymath257]

But what about the 'fact' that there will be a total solar eclipse in 2024 where the path of totality cuts across Mexico and the US? Is this equally true?

Not necessarily, as a meandering black hole could be snaking its way over to us with a close encounter 12 months from now.

Highly unlikely as we have not detected any gravitational anomalies or any accretion disks.

[Angrboda]

What about numbers?

The question of mathematical realism seems independent of one's time theory. Even in presentism there is still the idea of conditions that must always present in all possible worlds. Perhaps numbers fall into that category of being even under presentism. Or maybe I am moderating the presentist position.

The reason I bring up numbers is not to settle the question, but rather to suggest that the limits to what is real extend beyond the tangible or physical. Numbers are not physical, yet we have reason to suspect that they are real. So it would seem that physicality itself likely cannot serve as a litmus test for what is real. That leaves us with questions as to why under this secular theory the past is not considered real. Your secular theory seem mute on that question.

I don't know whether it was you or someone else, but it has been said that the past and the future are ontologically equivalent or mirror images of each other. This doesn't appear to be the case, however, as the past has been, it has existed and makes certain propositions truth apt which the future does not. So while it's tempting to consider them mirror images of each other, I don't think that would be accurate.

[Jehanne]

Not necessarily, as a meandering black hole could be snaking its way over to us with a close encounter 12 months from now.

Highly unlikely as we have not detected any gravitational anomalies or any accretion disks.

Improbable, yes, but, not impossible.