Can we consider the future as history?

[Fortress]

This is the topic for our debate. Here's an example to broaden the idea:

 

"Let's say we're in the early 70's. That was the decade where home computers and game systems are now starting to emerge. I assumed that in the late 90's to the early 00's, computers will now be more common and more cheaper and will make a mark in the history of the world." -Excerpt from a book I read, I forgot the title.

 

With the help from the example above, can I consider something that may/may not happen in the future as history?

 

 

[ZetZet]

No because it's the future. History is the past.  :huh:

[samcool55]

Everything will be history eventually if you give it enough time.

 

edit: if future is history, history is also the future, and that's not right

[DigitalHermit]

If you view history as the continuum of events, then yes...

[stconquest]

We all die.

 

/thread

[Arphenyte]

This is the topic for our debate. Here's an example to broaden the idea:

 

"Let's say we're in the early 70's. That was the decade where home computers and game systems are now starting to emerge. I assumed that in the late 90's to the early 00's, computers will now be more common and more cheaper and will make a mark in the history of the world." -Excerpt from a book I read, I forgot the title.

 

With the help from the example above, can I consider something that may/may not happen in the future as history?

 

No, history is something that already happened, but it can be relative. Since, in the quote the author stood him/herself in the 90s (future), and then looked back. Thus refering to history.

 

But yeah @samcool55's answer is pretty accurate.

[Hero7750]

Wut... :huh:

[Volbet]

edit: if future is history, history is also the future, and that's not right

Not necessarily. A can be B, without B being A. There is nothing illogical about the question per say.

But in practice, future can't be history in the present. The future can only be future history.

But in theory, the future is both history, present and future.

Applying the B theory of time to this question, we would have to say that the future is equally as real as the past and the present.

That means that events that would happen in 2079 is equally as real today as they will be in 2079

The same thing could be said if we were in the year 1987.

In that sense, the future could be considered history, since future events are considere real in the past, which mean they would be part of observable history.

[techswede]

History is the study of the past. If you simply go by definion then no. It can't

 

Just consider it futures studies (Futureologi) until the moment comes when that year is in the past. Then it becomes history

[Pcgeekbrain]

The problem with this theory is that we cannot predict the future. As such, what I think may happen in 20 years may not happen at all and therefore cannot be considered history.

For example: 'people' thought that by '1984' the world would be a miserable place. Well the thought is history, the act, not so much.

[Delusional Phil]

If you view history as the continuum of events, then yes...

Yes but we don't have a fully grasp knowledge of time yet ... You can't think that time is like a line that you walk on constantly ... It is it's own dimension ... ( Or 4th Dimension to be exact )

@Volbet

 

If we treat it like a dimension , if we always moving , we can't see forward , imagine we are photons zipping through the fabric of space-time , we can't see what's before us , we can only see where we were ... 

 

In conclusion to this thread , no , History can't be considered as Future ...

[DigitalHermit]

Yes but we don't have a fully grasp knowledge of time yet ... You can't think that time is like a line that you walk on constantly ... It is it's own dimension ... ( Or 4th Dimension to be exact )

 

 

If we treat it like a dimension , if we always moving , we can't see forward , imagine we are photons zipping through the fabric of space-time , we can't see what's before us , we can only see where we were ... 

 

In conclusion to this thread , no , History can't be considered as Future ...

 

The problem is how we grasp the concept of history and time...

 

and at any given instant, an infinite number of possibilities are created...

 

However I was referring to the concept of history as a sequence of events, not affected by time... just the events... and the 'timestamp' of an event is just a trivial attribute...

[Delusional Phil]

The problem is how we grasp the concept of history and time...

 

and at any given instant, an infinite number of possibilities are created...

 

However I was referring to the concept of history as a sequence of events, not affected by time... just the events... and the 'timestamp' of an event is just a trivial attribute...

Yup 

 

Don't you Steins;Gate me , I've watched that anime  . You don't have to introduce me to the infinite world theory ... 

 

But we still need the location like where did it happen ? We can't just have a time and expect to know everything about it . Hence we need other dimensions ... History = what people see , think , heard , remember ... All put down to paper or ruins ...

[DigitalHermit]

Yup 

 

Don't you Steins;Gate me , I've watched that anime  . You don't have to introduce me to the infinite world theory ... 

 

But we still need the location like where did it happen ? We can't just have a time and expect to know everything about it . Hence we need other dimensions ... History = what people see , think , heard , remember ... All put down to paper or ruins ...

 

Haven't watched Stein's;Gate fully to be honest...

I was just using a personal expansion of Schrödinger's Cat...

 

Rather than looking at the people involved, the place, etc... I think it would be better to look at the ideas involved in the event...

but this might be going either too deep or too shallow...

 

and always remember that history is written by the victors (forgot who originally said this... not that dude from MW2...)... like how they're trying to erase the solid nation-building and strenghtening plan that Ferdinand Marcos had for the Philippines...

[Delusional Phil]

Haven't watched Stein's;Gate fully to be honest...

I was just using a personal expansion of Schrödinger's Cat...

 

Rather than looking at the people involved, the place, etc... I think it would be better to look at the ideas involved in the event...

but this might be going either too deep or too shallow...

 

and always remember that history is written by the victors (forgot who originally said this... not that dude from MW2...)... like how they're trying to erase the solid nation-building and strenghtening plan that Ferdinand Marcos had for the Philippines...

This is why we can't have accurate history ... Maybe we can make a time machine , put a robot in it to record the " True " History , the ones with the Truth of what happened at both sides ...

[Volbet]

Yes but we don't have a fully grasp knowledge of time yet ... You can't think that time is like a line that you walk on constantly ... It is it's own dimension ... ( Or 4th Dimension to be exact )

@Volbet

 

If we treat it like a dimension , if we always moving , we can't see forward , imagine we are photons zipping through the fabric of space-time , we can't see what's before us , we can only see where we were ... 

 

In conclusion to this thread , no , History can't be considered as Future ...

While I can see why I was mentioned, I would like to know exactly what you want. I mearly want to know, so I know what to respond to

From what I can see you guys are discussion practical history I.E. what we can see, feel, hear etc. from different historical sources. 

The B theory of time is more a theoretical view of what time is in the quantum world. 

[DigitalHermit]

This is why we can't have accurate history ... Maybe we can make a time machine , put a robot in it to record the " True " History , the ones with the Truth of what happened at both sides ...

 

but recording history per se would mean taking a snapshot of human civilization at every instant and filtering out the non-critical events...

 

then again a certain take on causality that I have encountered dictates that an event can be arbitrarily affected by another event... so... yeah...

 

to get the whole truth, rather than just looking at things as perspective A, B, C, etc. it would be more effective to view everything as part of a continuity as seen from multiple perspective and derive 'truth' from what is consistent between the perspectives...

 

however the number of perspectives can be equal to the number of people who participate in or witness an event firsthand, and grow exponentially as the information about the event propagates...

 

@OP sorry for going so far off-topic, this is just interesting for me...

[Delusional Phil]

While I can see why I was mentioned, I would like to know exactly what you want. I mearly want to know, so I know what to respond to

From what I can see you guys are discussion practical history I.E. what we can see, feel, hear etc. from different historical sources. 

The B theory of time is more a theoretical view of what time is in the quantum world. 

 

I just want your opinion , that's all 

 

but recording history per se would mean taking a snapshot of human civilization at every instant and filtering out the non-critical events...

 

then again a certain take on causality that I have encountered dictates that an event can be arbitrarily affected by another event... so... yeah...

 

to get the whole truth, rather than just looking at things as perspective A, B, C, etc. it would be more effective to view everything as part of a continuity as seen from multiple perspective and derive 'truth' from what is consistent between the perspectives...

 

however the number of perspectives can be equal to the number of people who participate in or witness an event firsthand, and grow exponentially as the information about the event propagates...

 

@OP sorry for going so far off-topic, this is just interesting for me...

I agree with you with everything ...

 

And no , we are not getting sidetracked , we are , for the first time , right on topic ... 

[Volbet]

I just want your opinion , that's all 

 

I agree with you with everything ...

 

And no , we are not getting sidetracked , we are , for the first time , right on topic ... 

My opinion is this:

 

In completly practical terms, no, the future can't be history, since history by it's definition is the study of the past and/or past events.

We can make speculations about the future, and those can be shown more or less correct. But that is the study of futurology, not history.

 

In the theoretical realm of quantum mechanics, we can't even talk about concepts like past, present and future, since we can't put a tense on time.

Therefor, the future can be history, since there is not way of discerning the two. 

An event that takes place in the future is conceived as equally real to an event that took place in the past. And the two event are always true.

If we define history as looking for facts in time, then the future is history, since the event in the future will be real no matter what time periode we look at. 

[Crozacx]

History is always future. History is a time when EVERYONE made a written record.

You should know there are pre history and history. To escape pre history, humans needed the first written record to be made. After escaping pre history, we don't enter history, but we enter proto history. A time when there are written records, but there are still people who hasn't made any written records. Therefore, we have never even entered history.

Everything above is taught by my teacher, I don't care about it, so I wont be able to debate much on this topic