This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation

or join one »

## There are no facts in the future

Fact-oriented behavior is considered rational and methodical by many, especially technocrats. But facts exist entirely in the past. The human future is composed of what we intend to do, what is likely or probable, what we assume and what we believe. The human future is completely devoid of facts. When this simple fact is ignored, it has a huge effect on how people (even technocrats) launch initiatives. People often fail to distinguish between "that's how things are" and "that's how they have been in the past". Shaping the future requires abandoning fact oriented thinking EXCEPT to the extent that facts from the past can shape our assumptions and beliefs. We can look at Oklahoma tornadoes from last week (i.e., a fact) and create an assumption "I should build a better basement shelter" or "I should leave Oklahoma". Neither of these has any facts but the divergent assumptions have a huge impact on the person's future. The tornado doesn't know the difference and doesn't care.

## Lizanne Hennessey 50+

there is but one fact in the future, that no one can deny: and that is death.

## Casey Christofaris 10+

## Lizanne Hennessey 50+

true, I was thinking purely biologically... what happens to our spirit, is indeed an entirely different story.

How interesting, you bringing up how we perceive light. We had a similar discussion a while back, about how we perceive colors:

http://www.ted.com/conversations/18075/why_do_we_perceive_color_as_co.html

I suppose, if the sun dies out, in a few billion years, the concept of light may also die...

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/uspeak/sept_00_uspeak.mhtml

## Casey Christofaris 10+

## Lizanne Hennessey 50+

So, no, light will never die...

## Ashwath Nityanandan

## Lizanne Hennessey 50+

I'm curious, how you can say 'death is probable'. In my opinion, it's the most probable thing in this universe...biologically, I mean. Unless you are suggesting immortality?

## Ashwath Nityanandan

## Casey Christofaris 10+

http://www.ted.com/conversations/13925/is_our_math_wrong_is_it_our_a.html

Ultimately resulting in one being the only "real number" for everything is an individual representation of what that thing is. And then when you bring infinity or eternity back into the picture you realize that within infinity everything is arbitrary. And one could literally be anything.

What is the smallest unit of time you can conceive? A second? A millisecond? Hard to say seeing as how time is relative. Under the right circumstances, hours can fly by and seconds can feel like a lifetime. But unfortunately for physicists, time is not something that can be delt with so philosophically. And since they deal with cosmological forces both infinitesimally large and small, they need units that can objectively measure them. When it comes to dealing with the small, Planck Time is the measurement of choice. Named after German physicist Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, a unit of Planck time is the time it takes for light to travel, in a vacuum, a single unit of Planck length. Taken together, they part of the larger system of natural units known as Planck units.

http://www.universetoday.com/79418/planck-time/

More: http://cosmologistic.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-is-planck-time.html

Its truth that people are afraid of

## Krisztián Pintér 200+

if the past would be in no way representative of the future, this behavior would not have served us, and we would have abandoned it long ago, or rather, we would not have evolved into that direction. the very fact that we, humans, are so successful indicates that there is a correlation between facts of the past and facts of the future.

## Casey Christofaris 10+

## Krisztián Pintér 200+

we wanted our kids to survive. so we got rid of polio, malaria, cholera and all the other diseases. we learned about sanitation.

we wanted to have abundant food. we have now. in the western world, hunger is not anymore an issue. and neither in any peaceful country.

we wanted protection from cold. we made it happen.

## Casey Christofaris 10+

## Arkady Grudzinsky 50+

Survival. Which, ultimately, is futile because we will die anyway. We are in a hamster wheel. Future is like the past, past is like the future, what's above is like what's below and it keeps spinning. The goal is the activity itself.

## Casey Christofaris 10+

What happens when it is man and government stopping our survival?

I am pretty sure you already know I agree with the idea that with in infinity everything is arbitrary

## Arkady Grudzinsky 50+

See above: "The goal is the activity itself." Your questions are the ones that I prefer to avoid. The answer is self-referring like the one I gave. You can get a headache trying to understand what the answer means or trying to find a different one.

Re: "What happens when it is man and government stopping our survival?"

Two possibilities: we either die or survive. Seems to be fairly clear to me. :-)

Yes, when we consider infinity, the possibilities are unlimited. Which seems to be an equivalent of having no possibilities at all.

http://www.zombo.com/

(you need sound to appreciate the profound philosophical meaning of this wonderful web site)

## Casey Christofaris 10+

I am pretty sure I know what the answer means, or should I say as humans we already figured out all the (arbitrary) paths. Right because it is the path that is arbitrary while the answer still remains truth. And as far as existence goes every different answer has always been the same answer. It's about letting go of decisions made long ago.

## Casey Christofaris 10+

"the goal is the activity"

Otherwise it doesn't matter if you are sitting "still"or running a marathon you are doing work

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bolinsky_animates_a_cell.html

## Arkady Grudzinsky 50+

One of my coworkers once noticed: even on a day when you do nothing, it still takes all day to do that :-)

## Ashwath Nityanandan

## Casey Christofaris 10+

If your equal but opposite reaction to self walk up and introduce him or her self would you know right away it was you?

## Time Traveller

In terms of people, you are right, there is no certainty for what is our future. Though that said, I do believe that our futures are created from our actions of today. There are too, exceptions as well. These are not readily explained, however, it has been recorded that some people will get visions of a future event before it happens. As time unfolds, that vision transpires and so effectively they have foreseen a future fact!

I agree that shaping a future does to an extent require letting go of the past, as otherwise you keep getting the same result if you keep doing the same thing. To shape something differently new ways of thinking need to be incorporated and old ideas challenged, with the hope of making new innovations and creations.

All of us live only in the present and as such because the future is always out of our reach it is empty! :D

## Casey Christofaris 10+

http://www.ted.com/conversations/13925/is_our_math_wrong_is_it_our_a.html

## Time Traveller

## Casey Christofaris 10+

Also check out that ted talk it is all right there

## Casey Christofaris 10+

Our maths aren't wrong, its reality itself that defies definition. For example, why is the result of a division by zero is undefined? The reason is the fact that any attempt at a definition leads to a contradiction.

To begin with, how do we define division? The ratio r of two numbers a and b:

r=a/b

is that number r that satisfies

a=r*b.

Well, if b=0, i.e., we are trying to divide by zero, we have to find a number r such that r*0=a. (1)

But r*0=0

for all numbers r, and so unless a=0 there is no solution of equation (1).

Now you could say that r=infinity satisfies (1). That's a common way of putting things, but what's infinity? It is not a number! Why not? Because if we treated it like a number we'd run into contradictions. Ask for example what we obtain when adding a number to infinity. The common perception is that infinity plus any number is still infinity. If that's so, then

infinity = infinity+1 = infinity + 2

which would imply that 1 equals 2 if infinity was a number. That in turn would imply that all integers are equal, for example, and our whole number system would collapse!

So, what now? How about 0/0?

I said above that we can't solve the equation (1) unless a=0. So, in that case, what does it mean to divide by zero? Again, we run into contradictions if we attempt to assign any number to 0/0. Let's call the result of 0/0, z, if it made sense. z would have to satisfy:

z*0=0. (2)

That's OK as far as it goes, any number z satisfies that equation. But it means that the result of 0/0 could be anything. We could argue that it's 1, or 2, and again we have a contradiction since 1 does not equal 2

## Casey Christofaris 10+

But perhaps there is a number z satisfying (2) that's somehow special and we just have not identified it? So here is a slightly more subtle approach. Division is a continuous process. Suppose b and c are both non-zero. Then, in a sense that can be made precise. the ratios a/b and a/c will be close if b and c are close. A similar statement applies to the numerator of a ratio (except that it may be zero.)

So now assume that 0/0 has some meaningful numerical value (whatever it may be - we don't know yet), and consider a situation where both a and b in the ratio a/b become smaller and smaller. As they do the ratio should become closer and closer to the unknown value of 0/0.

There are many ways in which we can choose a and b and let them become smaller. For example, suppose that a=b throughout the process. For example, we might pick

a=b = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ....

Since

a=b,

for all choices of a we get the ratio 1 every time! This suggests that 0/0 should equal 1. But we could just as well pick

b = 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ....

and let a be twice as large as b. Then the ratio is always 2! So 0/0 should equal 2. But we just said it should equal 1! In fact, by letting a be r times as large as b we could get any ratio r we please!

So again we run into contradictions, and therefore we are compelled to

let 0/0 be undefined.

So, yeah, zero does not exist, unless if you studied calculus and learn about Rule of L'Hôpital. Which then gets pretty whacky and my hands are all tired from typing and steering this spaceship at the same time so I am ashamed to tell you to just Wikipedia it. Sorry.

## Ashwath Nityanandan

## Casey Christofaris 10+

## Arkady Grudzinsky 50+

Mathematical "facts" are not facts, they represent ideas. What these ideas represent in reality - is up to us. 1 box of tea may have 6 packs inside, each of them has 20 small bags. So, when you say "1", it can be any number.

Without context, there is no meaning.

"Arthur: Six by nine? Forty-two? You know, I've always felt that there was something fundamentally wrong with the Universe.

(Faint and distant voice:) Base thirteen!"

## Random Chance 30+

We can't go into the future.

In real time, everything is immediately in the past as soon as it 'is'.

Time flows backwards.'

It can never go in any other direction.

Every moment (of time, each tiny unit or increment), is immediately dissolved or annihilated in the timeless now

and is instantaneously and virtually simultaneously the past the very moment it happens.

Time cannot actually move past that into the future.

So death is also not in the future.

## Casey Christofaris 10+

## Ashwath Nityanandan

## Casey Christofaris 10+

If you follow Newtons third law of motion every action creates and equal but opposite reaction. Which is why it is a circle. And not a straight line.

But truthfully everything is a sign/pattern/vibration and all signs/pattern/vibration carry information. Light just happens to do it that fastest

## Time Traveller

## Casey Christofaris 10+

There are more units of planck time in a second then there has been seconds since the big bang 14 billion years ago.

What is the smallest unit of time you can conceive? A second? A millisecond? Hard to say seeing as how time is relative. Under the right circumstances, hours can fly by and seconds can feel like a lifetime. But unfortunately for physicists, time is not something that can be delt with so philosophically. And since they deal with cosmological forces both infinitesimally large and small, they need units that can objectively measure them. When it comes to dealing with the small, Planck Time is the measurement of choice. Named after German physicist Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, a unit of Planck time is the time it takes for light to travel, in a vacuum, a single unit of Planck length. Taken together, they part of the larger system of natural units known as Planck units.

If you had infinity to get something accomplished; How long would you take?

## Salim Solaiman 100+

How should we go in to future?

Should we leave behind all the experience, knowledge, learning etc because these matter of past and then step in to the FUTURE ?

Why technocrats are so special ?

How a fisherman plans to go to a certain spot for fishing ? Doesn't he apply his experience , learning of past and plan for next time ?

## Casey Christofaris 10+

There are more units of planck time in a second then there has been seconds since the big bang 14 billion years ago.

What is the smallest unit of time you can conceive? A second? A millisecond? Hard to say seeing as how time is relative. Under the right circumstances, hours can fly by and seconds can feel like a lifetime. But unfortunately for physicists, time is not something that can be delt with so philosophically. And since they deal with cosmological forces both infinitesimally large and small, they need units that can objectively measure them. When it comes to dealing with the small, Planck Time is the measurement of choice. Named after German physicist Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, a unit of Planck time is the time it takes for light to travel, in a vacuum, a single unit of Planck length. Taken together, they part of the larger system of natural units known as Planck units.

If you had infinity to get something accomplished; How long would you take?

## Ashwath Nityanandan

## Casey Christofaris 10+

“How long it took you to catch them?” The American asked.

“Only a little while.” The Mexican replied.

“Why don’t you stay out longer and catch more fish?” The American then asked.

“I have enough to support my family’s immediate needs.” The Mexican said.

“But,” The American then asked, “What do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take a siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life, senor.”

The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds you buy a bigger boat, and with the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats.”

“Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the consumers, eventually opening your own can factory. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But senor, how long will this all take?”

To which the American replied, “15-20 years.”

“But what then, senor?”

The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO (Initial Public Offering) and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions.”

“Millions, senor? Then what?”

## Casey Christofaris 10+

## george lockwood 30+

## pat gilbert 100+

For what you say to occur you would have to change the universe from moment to moment. The future can be changed but not that much at least in this universe.

## Casey Christofaris 10+

## adesh saxena 30+

Fact is that you can't ignore the facts.

## Casey Christofaris 10+