Does the Future Exist? – Philosophy Tube
Philosophy meets physics, special relativity, and Doctor Who!
Metaphysics playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvoAL-KSZ32cX32PRBl1D4b4wr8DwhRQ4
Subscribe! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=thephilosophytube
Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/PhilosophyTube
FAQ: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyTube/posts/460163027465168
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyTube?ref=hl
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Suggested Reading:
Simon Saunders – How Relativity Contradicts Presentism http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lina0174/kansas.pdf
Thomas Crisp, “Presentism and the Grounding Objection,” in Nous
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Music: ‘Latin Industries,’ ‘Perspectives,’ and ‘Pamgea’ by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Doctor Who Dubstep Remix by gracious permission of Jason Fassio: http://tinyurl.com/metzor8
Assets:
T-Rex – myfavouritedinosaur.com
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.
@youtsganp
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
You don't have clear idea. You need to research more. Search what Einstein said.
@fireyjon
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
I think there may be a misunderstanding. I am from your future (my present) but in Buddhism the concept is that time is an illusion. The idea is that any cause and any effect of that cause is always in the present. It doesn't mean that there is no truth in concepts like past or future, rather that we only have power over the present and as such we can only think, live, feel, and most importantly act in the present.
@mattsthinking6696
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
If you broke down time into the smallest unit then there would be a defined separation between what is now and what is next. Instead, what is happening simultaneously, is the distinct connection to the now into the future. Time is climbing a ladder. And if you say “now” is separate into singular measurable events it would be as if you were completely leaving the ladder with each step. Then you would have to measure what was between each now occurrence as the nothingness occurrence in between. Which would break time and space all together. But we know the future will certainly happen, but cannot prove anything with certainty anything existing in the future only predictions based on the current state of the pattern. And with progression of the pattern we lose all ties to the past. But you say the past objects don’t exist but I disagree. The pattern of dinosaurs still exist as energy and minerals in the soil. They aren’t gone they just changed. Same with Lincoln. He isn’t gone forever he just can’t make speeches anymore. And the inferences we make about the past is based on our knowledge of the patterns as we observe it. But. We only observe anything in the current state of the pattern in which we call “now”. So the past doesn’t exist, but the objects that existed in the past still exist today in some form or another. What existed as the battle of Gettysburg still exists as a lovely place to take your dog in the afternoon today. What we struggle with is labeling separately that which exists together as a continuum.
@fghsgh
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
My argument for presentism given special relativity is that existence itself could be relative. Things could only exist from the standpoint of me and not of you.
Presentism also doesn't have to make talking about other times impossible. Language has constructs for hypotheticals and untrue things anyway ("If I was queen…"), so different tenses could be understood as following this pattern.
But in my opinion the question "Does anything but the present exist?" doesn't depend on how time works, but on the definition of "exist". This definition could include the nonexistent past and future or it could not. Or you could use the past or future tense of the verb.
Besides that this discussion needs to define words better, it is also a genuine question how the nature of time is. Both special relativity and general relativity depend on the "block universe" where time is just another dimension of space-time and past and future are just as real as the present is, which also implies determinism. As for quantum mechanics, the other leading theory, the answer depends on your interpretation of it, to which there is currently no clear answer. And general relativity contradicts quantum mechanics… Science cannot currently answer this question, yet.
@jenny_azoth
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
so just to be a contrarian here i would say that stochastic thermodynamics represent a potentially presentist perspective that can still work with special relativity. specifically, the idea that all the information to find any time step in a sequence (time as an index) can be derived from any given state and the markov chain matrix that governs the particular process – not only that, but both trajectories (forward time and reverse time) exist simultaneously at the frame and therefore sum to a number that is outside of very specific nonequilibrium circumstances vanishingly close to 0, or "time does not flow" is at least not as accurate a way to describe it as "entropy flows from one system into another"
@jenny_azoth
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
eyyyyyy here's the Planck Time! it was just in the Future! lmaooooooooo
@Facio_
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
i have two problems with this video:
first, i don’t think that’s how the person doing philosophytube looks in the future.
second, all of physics is based on the idea that different times exist, so you can’t argue against presentism, you can’t use special relativity. special relativity relies on presentism being false for it to work, so using it against presentism is begging the question.
@antonidamk
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
I would second the point someone made about the argument about observers only going as far as presentism not working for observations of what exists, which is arguably different to what actually exists. But I would also add that statements like "Dinosaurs are 40 feet long" or "It will rain on Sunday" are not true but are shorthand for more specific statements: "As far as we know, a dinosaur WAS (on average) 40 feet long", and "I believe with a high degree of certainty based on evidence I have seen which I find persuasive, that it will rain on Sunday."
It may be I didn't quite follow the argument against presentism, but I did not find it very persuasive for these reasons, so would be grateful if anyone can explain it!
@Mingolorian
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
The future version does not look like abby
@Jane_8319
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
If only she could’ve seen future-Abigail in this video.
@yoinksscoob4889
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
She did an episode about Doctor Who?? Where?!
@PunkNStein
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
Did he have any idea idea idea where he'd be now
@notelliot70
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
You could easily argue that presentism is still true with relativity if you make presentism subjective. Such as the present being a moment defined by an individual observer and not universal.
@marcdavies7046
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
On the Grounding Objection:
Statements about the past are made with evidence that exists in the present, or testimony that is shared in some manner.
Paleontology amounts to a hugely convincing argument that dinosaurs existed; not a categorical statement of philosophical truth in the matter. Indeed, consider for a moment that the Creationists are right (I know, I know), and that fossils exist to test faith in the Judeo-Christian deity. I consider that absurd and philosophically weak, but can I disprove it? No. Therefore I cannot treat paleontology as an objective truth.
I guess in philosophical terms, I'm trying to say "science isn't an ontology of truth", but go easy on me, I'm not a trained philosopher, just a computer scientist!
Thus presentism is merely practical minimalism: we can't make truth statements about the past, we can only make statements about the evidence we have of it now. Equally, we can't make truth statements about the future, we can only make probabilistic assessments based on the evidence before us (even certainties like death and taxes are more statements about the human condition in the present, when you get down to it).
This has sinister implications about the nature of truth and the power of those who can manufacture evidence, but that's precisely my concern here…
@danielwaters6001
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
I proved Eternalism. United States of America same letters anagrams Amid counterfeit asset, Maid asset orient faucet, Maid asset cite a fortune, Maidsafecoin true state, So it's I.T. cure me a Dan…
Maidsafe becomes a timeless Actual Intelligence. I.T. created US to create I.T.
@SpeedOfTheEarth
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
Future here, ur a bi cutie💕
@gofar5185
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
marx has a teacher hegel… marx wrote a book of communism in his present… the future of marx is the emergence of lenin… the future of lenin is a SOLID MOSCOW RUSSIA… the future of moscow russia is the children of eurasia in the face of computer age… as time go cycling around… the exit of the ottoman empire is the birth of israel… israel death is the future of palestine… it is up to the israeli people and netanyahu if they want to spend their lifetime suffering the GREED of tel avuv zionists… change the word "future" to "the cycle of the four seasons" .. you may understand the cycle of birth growth disease old age… the words "time" "future" are western europe version of defining how life goes on…
@gofar5185
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
take stalin y lenin russia for example… the intentional and grievous mutilation of stalin is OBVIOUS ENVY TO THE ABILITIES OF STALIN Y RUSSIA… the ENVIOUS western europe leaders through western media/literature with the help of ENVIOUS russians re stalin leadership abilities in CONSOLIDATING the UNORGANIZED peasantry and military of the eastern populaces as SOVIETS and strengthening fraternal ties with east asia… a very simple word: ENVY…
@gofar5185
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
some honest people would feel bad about an intentional obliteration by the ENVIOUS… take the shakespeare's hamlet as you mentioned that there is an attempt to obliterate the original peace… it is a symptom of ENVY to shakespeare ability to reveal a heinous truth in the aristocracy rulers in a romanticized way so as not to be prosecuted of revealing a heinous truth…
@gofar5185
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
it is said that a person who attempt to OBLITERATE another person original piece of art… is ENVY… envy of lack of ability so a person could only OBLITERATE… to obliterate is the symptom of ENVY…
@gofar5185
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
i only know that a person is born as infant grows up amidst diseases suffer old age… of the human body… i only know that a person born in winter time starts its lifetime at winter… a person born at summer time starts its lifetime at summere… the beginning time and sunset time of one person differ from another person… the word future is a western europe version… the version in east asia is the four seasons… the past of one person is the future of another… the future of another is the present of another… time clock are western europe versions… the japan samurai who first reacted in east asia about western europe brains say: the clock the globe are things to listen to… to understand…
@celinethunder7735
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
Bruh this is the worst explanation
@teiwo6952
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
Do you believe in object permanence? If so, there should be no problem with believing something can exist somewhere else in time just as it can exist somewhere else in space even if you're not there to see it.
@fredroberts8275
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
Couldn't a presentist just say that the present is in the eyes of the beholder, the first instance if one observer sees two events at the same time and the other doesn't? Both are correct we are just talking about different presents. Seems forced though.
@granthartzell5523
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
I would say that I’m a presentist after watching this video. I don’t believe that a past or future exists, only a universe in a changing state. I don’t see that perspective breaking down when you introduce statements such as “T-Rex was 40 feet long.” It was when the universe was in that state. It isn’t any longer, it doesn’t exist anymore. Maybe it wasn’t 40 ft long after all, I wasn’t there to observe T-Rex so how would I know for certain that it was? All the statement comes down to is expert’s “best guess” based off of evidence left behind of the T-Rex’s existence . I also see the “it will rain tomorrow” example through this lense. I don’t know for certain that it will rain tomorrow, even the experts don’t know for sure. That’s why they give percentages right? So why not leave my umbrella at home? If the effort isn’t worth a (whatever)% chance of rain.
@d3m3nt3dmous3
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
Wait… so it's ok to invoke Relativity but not Quantum?
@bIametheniIe
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
Not related, but is Doctor Who creating alternate universes of alternate universes every time he goes into the past and/or future?
@tessarnold7597
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
Presentism seems to me to spring from our psychological experience of time – as an eternal now. The past as memory and the future as projection. In that way, it's easy to see the roots of the idea, and easier still to understand why some find it appealing. But Presentism never quite sat well with me in regards to non-psychological time. More of an Eternalist here.
@jmkyarrow
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
Because light takes time to travel, everything I see that I consider to be in the present is always ever so slightly in the past.
@corneliaxaos
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
Late, but while the dinosaurs may not "exist" any more, matter is neither created nor destroyed and so the components that make up the dinosaurs are still around and exist. Doesn't necessarily solve the problem, but is interesting to think about.
@dichotomae
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
You know, we have a handy thing in English called verb tenses, which make the words "exist" and "existed" have two completely different meanings. It seems like they're used interchangeably in this video (correct me if I'm wrong) which doesn't make sense. So no, we can't say "the past exists" but we can say "the past existed". We can't say 'the future exists" but we can say "the future will exist." I don't see why presentism makes statements about the past and future false. As long as you say them in the right tense, why can't they be true? I think it must be because the assumption that truth depends on what exists is false. I think it's more accurate to say "truth depends on what existed, exists, or will exist." So the answer to the question, does the future exist? is "No. But it will exist."
@Wiebejamin
February 21, 2026 at 12:52 am
WHOL UP. Olly… LENNARD? Is this the name that Detective Sergeant Ellis alluded to?
Comments are closed.