What I'm about to explain is.. well.. really hard to explain.
Recently I got this idea that there is no past. Meaning that a particle that has moved from point A to point B, never really was at point A in the first place; it's just at point B. It isn't called a particle that "used to be at point A". It's just considered "the particle that is currently at point B". If a particle is annihilated, then that particle never really was. If a particle is created, then that particle always existed. Only the present holds true to reality.
The reason I say this is because "past" and "memories" are a creation of the human mind. We adapted to a nature where when we see something happen, we later assume that, "Hey, that happened." When really, memories could very well be just a figment of our imagination. A past perception doesn't exist in the present, so in effect, that event does not exist at all.
The discovery of electricity never happened. We just currently know there is electricity and that it's available to us.
I did not eat this morning's breakfast. I am just currently full.
This theory really has no importance, because it doesn't prove or disprove any current theoretical ideas. It's just one of those ideas that, if true, would change the way we think of life (at both macroscopic and microscopic scales). It also just happens to be one of those ideas that can't be proven, disproven, or experimentally tested. Bummer, eh?
The only actual exception in this theory that I've found is that objects that aren't in constant motion could be traced back to a past position.
To make sure that exception doesn't disprove my idea directly, I'm going to state that this theory only applies to objects that are motionless or are in constant velocity motion (or both .. ).
Also, I've come to conclude that the future can only exist in the past. Let's say that the past DOES exist. An object at point A in the past needs a future, or else it will never reach point B; because point B is in the future.
If the future exists in the past, and the past is the equivalent to non-existance, then that thereby validates my theory, that objects in the present, are the only objects that exist.
I hope I'm not insane.
Recently I got this idea that there is no past. Meaning that a particle that has moved from point A to point B, never really was at point A in the first place; it's just at point B. It isn't called a particle that "used to be at point A". It's just considered "the particle that is currently at point B". If a particle is annihilated, then that particle never really was. If a particle is created, then that particle always existed. Only the present holds true to reality.
The reason I say this is because "past" and "memories" are a creation of the human mind. We adapted to a nature where when we see something happen, we later assume that, "Hey, that happened." When really, memories could very well be just a figment of our imagination. A past perception doesn't exist in the present, so in effect, that event does not exist at all.
The discovery of electricity never happened. We just currently know there is electricity and that it's available to us.
I did not eat this morning's breakfast. I am just currently full.
This theory really has no importance, because it doesn't prove or disprove any current theoretical ideas. It's just one of those ideas that, if true, would change the way we think of life (at both macroscopic and microscopic scales). It also just happens to be one of those ideas that can't be proven, disproven, or experimentally tested. Bummer, eh?
The only actual exception in this theory that I've found is that objects that aren't in constant motion could be traced back to a past position.
To make sure that exception doesn't disprove my idea directly, I'm going to state that this theory only applies to objects that are motionless or are in constant velocity motion (or both .. ).
Also, I've come to conclude that the future can only exist in the past. Let's say that the past DOES exist. An object at point A in the past needs a future, or else it will never reach point B; because point B is in the future.
If the future exists in the past, and the past is the equivalent to non-existance, then that thereby validates my theory, that objects in the present, are the only objects that exist.
I hope I'm not insane.
Comment