Talk:Future

Time Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Futures studies

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Science POV

This page is very Science POVed. examples: "Figures pretending to see the future, like a prophet or a diviner enjoyed great consideration and even social importance in many past and even present communities" And the "Cosmology" section which uses only the scientific theories despite the article on cosmology stating that it can be philosophy and religion as well as science. User:Furius

Manifest future

Future: That which is not manifest in consciousness (i.e not the past, rather events which are forgotten and therefore bound to be repeated) and that which is not manifest at this moment (i.e. not the present).

The future is difficult to discuss in English because the language does not enable its speakers to express future actions. “will” only expresses predictions and “be going to” only expresses intentions. Justin

to Come

like waiting up all night for the sun to rise. something you expect, in which you invest hope and an element of faith, but that same something that is so very vague that its concept is fleeting to the human mind. we, as humans, cannot fathom that which we have not already experienced to some degree. and so we can imagine the future as a mere extension of the past and present, but we fear the discontiguous as the future leaps from the now to the then. and what of that break? the future is an inevitable change. so linear. but if the future repeats, then it truly is predictable.

But we learn from history that men don't learn from history.

and then?

-- { Shannon }

I agree with this, we certainly need to be united under one flag so we can accompish more

Worldwide view

This page needs more about other cultures' views of the future. (In particular some many indigenous American cultures have a circular view of time.) Please improve this if you know something about it, or tell me if there's another article that already covers this. Grand master ka 00:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FutRE

Look peeps. The future will have robot cars and everyone will be outitted wit jetpacks. I saw this in a dream. I think there should be mention of this in the article. If you need further info, wait for tommorow morning, I migt dream about it again. Please put my name in it so i can be popular in the future. Dont be afraid to spice it up and make it more interesting if you want.

Listen This AIN'T nO jOKE..wHAT IF WE R REPEATIN THE SAME THINGS OVA AND OVA..I'M SORRY BUT I'M TIRED OF GOIN ROUND AND ROUND...YOU WILL SEE ME IN THE FUTURE...TRYIN 2 RUN 4 PRESIDENT..IF HILLARY DON'T (WIN)....CAUSE SHE didn't ;)...FOOD 4 THOUGHT U DO THE DISHES

Has yet to occur?

I think that has yet to occur gives the wrong impression that the future is already defined it just needs to happen. Come up with some clever rewording. --[Svippong - Talk] 23:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Has yet to occur" is fine, in my opinion. Events that have not occurred yet and will occur are the future. Events that have not occurred and will never occur are not. Saying that the future comprises of events that have yet to occur is perfectly fine and does not imply any kind of predeterminism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.47.141 (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your current timezone...so to say. 174.213.160.195 (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

eh?! -_- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.163 (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I think its true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.7.82 (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 174.213.160.195 (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

I have nominated this article for Collaboration of the Week; please vote for it so that this article is improved. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 18:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?

This page still has the stub warning at the bottom. It is now quite long, so should it be removed? Macbi 11:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle

This part struck me as a bit of a leap without as thorough an explanation as I'd prefer.

"Regarding the existential status of the future, there are multiple hypotheses. Aristotle, for example, having been asked ‘will there be a sea-battle tomorrow?’ is said to have responded ‘either there will or there won’t be a sea-battle tomorrow’: the implication is that statements about the content of future events may be understood as neither true nor false."

I would say that Aristotle was implying a contingency rather than a Schroedinger's cat thing. It isn't that the waveform functions of possibility have yet to collapse that Aristotle was pointing out. It was that for one to exist as an actuality the other *must* collapse. Either there will or won't be a sea-battle but both will not simultaneously be true. I don't think he was pointing out that statements about the future are neither true nor false, especially since exactly what Aristotle said about the future was completely true. There would either be a battle or there wouldn't.

It's an interesting concept to me because it means the set of all possible events is limited. There definitely won't be 30% of a sea battle tomorrow.

I hope I'm not splitting hairs here.

This page also goes into a bit more detail on the subject and you might want to reference De Interpretatione:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_futures_contingents

Thoughts?

Demelzack 06:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schroedinger points to difference between subjective and objective epistemology: the functions HAVE collapsed, we just don't know which way, so in a SENSE, they haven't. It is important to see it this way: 'There either will or won't be a sea battle tomorrow, or their neither will nor won't, or there both will and won't is STILL not a statement that encompasses all future possibility.' It is important to recognize that Aristotle's statement may, in another sense, be true, but it does NOT pertain to the content of future events. Ark2120 (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yES i'M gL;AD u ASKED cause there called profits..u've seen them...don't be afraid..lol....just use your brain more...

to my understanding no one has eliminated the likelihood of a purely random element existing as all or part of the true nature of things. QM indicates that particles may be truely random at the some level and in groups of trillions this seems to all but vanish to determinism on the macro, but not 100%, some randomness can still creep in over the long haul... meaning that no future is completely destined to occur, though the likelihood of some rather than others remains. If M-theory proves true, then pure determinism holds sway in 11 dimensions, but cannot be predicted in our normal 4 due to the exponential loss of data which would still occur even if it were determined in only 4 dimensions. This data loss occurs whenever you sample a continuous function as the sample rate can never reach 100% or infinity.Jiohdi (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia?

What does the demographics of Australia have to do with "the future"? Surley then we could add Germany, the US, Namibia, Saudi Arabia etc. to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.167.214 (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My contibution

Who knows what will happen in the future? Some scientists paint portraits of doom and gloom, whilst wise men deliberate over what could possibly happen. Philosophers have deliberated over methods of telling the future. H G Wells has written a book, "The Time Machine", about a man who travels forwards in time. He finds a strange human species that is fed on by the Morlocks. Morlock holes are also what Ben Hanscomb calls the air vents they find in the Barrens in Stephen King's book "IT". Some fortune tellers including Patrick Moore believe that you can tell the future from the stars. People ask "What does the future hold?". In the end you have to realise that although you can predict things you can never be sure about them. David Hume points this out when he writes about causation. You can predict that when you play billiards, the ball goes in the direction caused by physics. But you can only know this because every time you play billiards the ball goes in that way. Who is to know what will happen the next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawsinthedrawers2 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another view- to me the future is really just a distorted reflection of the past re-imagined and projected ahead in the mirror of the mind. the only future we can discuss is made of anticipations and guessing based on experiences as well as hopes, dreams and desires.Jiohdi (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential

There is so much potential here in this article... well that's kind of a given being it is about the future. But there is so much to talk about. Seeing into the future, philosophy of the future, nearly certain things going to happen in the future. I guess this article is mainly just a homage to the errors of wikipedia. A subject which cannot be breached properly because of logical limitations. Then again I am just making it worse by not editing it myself... Chitchin13 (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the article from Start class to Stub class in Wikiproject Time. It still remains a Top priority, and there are already a host of articles about the future which could be pointed to from this article, without it degenerating into a List or Disambig page. --Yamara ✉ 16:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the future and it will be./ I've seen the future and it works.83.254.151.33 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

This article has been problematic since its inception in 2002. I checked the history for useful stuff, and was generally disappointed.

The article has been plagued with issues of OR, and I suspect editors have been reluctant to add to it, since the future, by its very nature, is not known for certain, and is therefore hard to consider encyclopedic.

But the consideration of the future is covered in vast detail in nearly every discipline. While I have not sought any citations or references yet, I have broken the article into discreet sections that invite expansion and explication of how the future is consdered by different sciences and humanities.

Multiple expansion tags
I threw expansion tags on most of the individual sections to emphasize that each discipline's take on the future needs separate attention, Simply having one tag at the top of the article risks another few years of rambling, generalized essays. The future of the future deserves better. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 03:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad-- good work at the expansion, folks! I'm tentatively rating it a "B" and upgrading some tags to a call for cites rather than for material. -Yamara ✉ 13:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New "light cone" image

We have prepared a new "light cone" image. The intention was to imply the correct scale of space-time relative to the observer. Interstellar light-years vs years scales seemed appropriate. If you have any comments please post them at the Graphics Lab entry. Dhatfield (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette

Deleted... It was talking about using wooden spoons to "cup ones genetalia as a greeting" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btthead (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "theory"

Especially in the physics section, I see a good number of unsubstantiated claims and assumptions represented as theories. One example; the use of wormholes or cosmic strings to traverse time. These should be identified as hypotheses, at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.165.135 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion: only Calvinistic?

Reading this article, I noticed that under the "Religion" section, it says "...with the exception of Calvinistic variants of Protestant Christianity, which believes one's status in the afterlife is a gift from God and cannot be earned during life..." Actually, this is believed by pretty much all groups within the broad range of Protestant evangelicalism. Arminians (those who reject Calvinistic predestination) still say that we are saved by grace as a gift from God and not by our own works. The only difference is whether the acceptance of the free gift of salvation depends on human free will or divine predestination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.208.127 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Near future (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In Psychology" segment doesn't contain a single source and reads like OR

This page is a mess. 92.220.25.75 (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]