Past, Present, Future - Does time exist?
Options
Comments
-
perspective@100 wrote: »If we consider "time" as something "real" we must also consider that it can be broken down into something smaller as everything in the universe can. Matter, atoms, energy etc... On that note, once time is at its most minute level it becomes inconsistent like everything else and contains gaps or holes. The gaps and holes are examples that show there is more than one "time" and are actuially multiple "times" interlaced that we have no ability to see or travel to because we do not have that kind of technology and apparently not even that kind of comprehension. There is a past yes, and we exist in it, as well as a present and future. Like I said before, we don't have the ability to comprehend that every thing happens at once. Pertaining to the size of the Universe being infinite what we consider "time" is not time at all.
If "Time" is just measurement to you and not a real thing then I tell you your scale is a terrible tool to measure something so large. Your ten digits are rediculous. Try to measure the circumfrence of a circle without using any of the same symbols that represent numbers and digits and then I say you have a powerful form of measurement.
Who is this for? -
perspective@100 wrote: »@bless the child
I'm not religious at all but this is also what I've been trying to explain in a scientific manner. They all must co-exist together in order for any "one" to exist. Its just seems most can't comprhend past being one conscious in one set time like its impossible. With the way they think we can never actually be here because the past never happened because we cant touch or feel it it never existed which makes no sense.
Indeed! I'm not religious at all either, I was just using that as an example. This is exactly what im saying. Just because they each hold individual qualities, doesnt mean they arent tied into one another. -
oliverlang wrote: »Who is this for?
No one in particular, just dropping some thoughts... -
bless the child wrote: »Existence- 1 a obsolete : reality as opposed to appearance b : reality as presented in experience c (1) : the totality of existent things (2) : a particular being <all the fair existences of heaven — John Keats> d : sentient or living being : life
2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds> b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c : being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect
3 : actual or present occurrence <existence of a state of war>
Existence isnt restricted to the physical world. If you look at the definition I highlighted, it speaks of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence. The future and the past may not phyiscally be here now but they do have a state of existence. The future is guaranteed to come as long as we are here in the present. Although it doesnt have a physical reality at the moment, it will have one. Even though the past no longer has a physical state of existence, it once had one, and it still does maintain a form of existence; and that form of existence is based solely on that fact that it existed as opposed to not existing at all. It once had a physical existence therefore it exists, therefore it has a state of being side by side with the present's state of being. Since the past existed it always has a state of existence, because the future exists it will have a state of existence, which means it already maintains that state even while we are in the present. You have to measure things in terms of nonexistence vs existence. If not, then because the past and the future arent here, is to say that one, the past, did not exist; and the other, the future, will not exist. To define these as such is to make it absolute.
I understand what you're saying about them dealing with the physical. Its true, each of these states of existence need the physical world to vaildate their existence. Once they exist however, the will forever maintain a state of existence. You cant say the past never existed because that would be the same as saying the present doesnt exist, which would mean the future wont exist; which would mean we wouldnt have a state of existence altogether. If you try to separate these three states, it would disrupt the entire construct. They are all dependent on each other for each of their existences, which means they all exist at the same time. They cant exist separate from each other. Its like the REAL holy trinity, Man, Woman and Child. They are all dependent on each other, one cannot exist with out the other. Although a child is not here, the promise of the child, or the potential creation of a child is always present so long as man and woman exist. As long as time exist-past, present and future, a child will grew into a man or a woman, which would vaildate the existence of another child.
I don't know if you were addressing this to me...but according to this existence is subjective because everyone's consciousness and perception is different. I kind of agree in the sense that there is only one, not three...however that one is the current moment. I don't even like to call it the present because I think that limits what is actually taking place. And yes, the POSSABILITY/IDEA always exists, but unless it actually happens IT doesn’t exist, and if IT did exist it would only exist in the moment and that existence ultimately changes with each moment. There is an infinite amount of possibilities and ideas, and if what your saying was the case EVERYTHING you can imagine would exist, even obvious contradictions simultaneously. Even the definition you provided still implies that existing is the consciousness perceiving something that already exists at this moment.
The presence exists but is forever changing...that is the key. It's like me saying the only thing that exists is now now now now now now now now now now now now...you never truly capture the present moment because again, it's forever changing. The past only exists in your mind, and for that in my opinion makes it an illusion. For example, imagine if you will a film strip...the snap shots that are taken represent each moment that existed. It doesn't exist now because so much has happened and changed within an instant and between frames. In fact, so much has changed from the moment the button is pushed and the frame is captured. Regarding the future, how could you even take the snap shot of something that hasn't happened yet? This to me is how the current moment progresses. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm not saying I'm wrong...this is just how I see it. It's like the Heraclitus quote, "You can never step in the same river."
Also, you can have reproduction without two parents involved; refer to asexual reproduction or agamogenesis. -
perspective@100 wrote: »No one in particular, just dropping some thoughts...
okay lol...because for the most part i agree with what you said. lol. -
Did you read the example they gave as to its intended meaning? "the existence of other worlds". You are trying to attach a different meaning than is intended in the description. Or do you pressume when they say 'other worlds' they mean magical places we cannot see?bless the child wrote: »If you look at the definition I highlighted, it speaks of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence. Existence isn't restricted to the physical world.
No, the past HAD a state of existence when it was the present. It does not have being anymore. That is why we say for example, jfk EXISTED. Past tense, meaning not anymore. Future does not have a state of existece as it does not yet exist(have being)bless the child wrote: »The future and the past may not physically be here now but they do have a state of existence.
Future is not guaranteed, we just have hope it will be there and at some time exist. It always ends up coming, but maybe we will be like dinosaurs and our future will not someday.bless the child wrote: »The future is guaranteed to come as long as we are here in the present.
You don't know that, for all our awares, things could go back to 'nothingness'.bless the child wrote: »Although it doesn't have a physical reality at the moment, it will have one.
Why do you suppose because something once existed, it still has a form of existence? The only form the past can have is in a memory. But memories are not life nor being, so it has not existence.bless the child wrote: »Even though the past no longer has a physical state of existence, it once had one, and it still does maintain a form of existence; and that form of existence is based solely on that fact that it existed as opposed to not existing at all.
It once had a physical existence therefor it EXISTED. It cannot have a state of being as it is not being, it WAS being.bless the child wrote: »It once had a physical existence therefore it exists, therefore it has a state of being side by side with the present's state of being.
Where is this past's existence then? Exactly, only in the mind. As soon as you stop thinking about it, ? , it vanished into non-existence.bless the child wrote: »Since the past existed it always has a state of existence, because the future exists it will have a state of existence, which means it already maintains that state even while we are in the present.
Nonexistence: absence of existence : the negation of being, but I can only guess you will say past and future are outside of these definitions.bless the child wrote: »You have to measure things in terms of nonexistence vs existence. If not, then because the past and the future aren't here, is to say that one, the past, did not exist; and the other, the future, will not exist. To define these as such is to make it absolute.
A state of existence is something that exists. But something that no longer exists, has no more existence. However, you decide against all definitions that it does.bless the child wrote: »I understand what you're saying about them dealing with the physical. Its true, each of these states of existence need the physical world to validate their existence. Once they exist however, the will forever maintain a state of existence.
I am not saying the past never EXISTED, that is precisely what I am saying, and arguing that it no longer EXISTS, which you are saying it does. The past only becomes the past, when it is no longer the present. That is what makes the past, the past.bless the child wrote: »You cant say the past never existed because that would be the same as saying the present doesnt exist, which would mean the future wont exist; which would mean we wouldn't have a state of existence altogether.
Okay are you presenting your personal notions are facts here? Cuz it's really starting to look that way.bless the child wrote: »If you try to separate these three states, it would disrupt the entire construct. They are all dependent on each other for each of their existences, which means they all exist at the same time.
The 'present' can exist independently, if there were no mind to think of past and future, present would still have presence.bless the child wrote: »They cant exist separate from each other.
That is kind of bad analogy for what we are discussing. But like I said up above, future is an imagination or a hope, it is not guaranteed, the present could cease and future would not ever come into existence.bless the child wrote: »Its like the REAL holy trinity, Man, Woman and Child. They are all dependent on each other, one cannot exist with out the other.
Although a child is not here, the promise of the child, or the potential creation of a child is always present so long as man and woman exist. As long as time exist-past, present and future, a child will grew into a man or a woman, which would validate the existence of another child. -
.............BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Did you read the example they gave as to its intended meaning? "the existence of other worlds". You are trying to attach a different meaning than is intended in the description. Or do you pressume when they say 'other worlds' they mean magical places we cannot see?
If you're talking about other" worlds" its automatically implying something physical, and that something physical defines what exists and what does not. There is no evidence of the existence of others worlds but they do POTENTIALLY, exist. Just like the future has no physical state, it has a POTENTIAL physical state. The past has no physical state but it POTENTIALLY had a phyiscal state. Other worlds can possibly exist at the same time our world exist. It is all based on it potentially having a physical state.
No, the past HAD a state of existence when it was the present. It does not have being anymore. That is why we say for example, jfk EXISTED. Past tense, meaning not anymore. Future does not have a state of existece as it does not yet exist(have being)
Sure the tense is past, but it is all based on something have a physical property. You cant say something existed if it never had a physical state. You can argue that something may have, or will have a physical state, like "other worlds" for example. You would still use the world "existence" because your speaking directly of something potentially having a physical state. JFK existed only because he had/or potientally had a physical state. You can say JFK was here physically but can you physically prove it? No. Other worlds may exists but can it be proven? No...This is why existence is also based on something POTENTIALLY having a physical state, not just having a physical state alone.
Future is not guaranteed, we just have hope it will be there and at some time exist. It always ends up coming, but maybe we will be like dinosaurs and our future will not someday.
True indeed, but so long as the present is still here so too will be the future and the past.
You don't know that, for all our awares, things could go back to 'nothingness'.
Yes, POTENTIALLY, we exist there for it is possible for us to cease to exist. However, like I said before, so long as the present is here so too will be the future and the past. We can fade into nothingness. Wouldn't that be in our future since we are here right now?.
Why do you suppose because something once existed, it still has a form of existence? The only form the past can have is in a memory. But memories are not life nor being, so it has not existence.
It still maintains a form existence because the present is here. They cannot exist independently of each other. Existence is defined by something being physical, or potentially physical. Refer to my first or second response.
It once had a physical existence therefor it EXISTED. It cannot have a state of being as it is not being, it WAS being.
Existed, exist, and will exist are all form of EXISTENCE, and they all exist simultaneously. Are any of them independent of each other?.
Where is this past's existence then? Exactly, only in the mind. As soon as you stop thinking about it, ? , it vanished into non-existence.
Refer to one of my previous post.
Nonexistence: absence of existence : the negation of being, but I can only guess you will say past and future are outside of these definitions.
Being- 1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : life
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality
3 : a living thing; especially : person
Once again it refer to existence and as I stated before, existence is based on something having a physical existence or potentially have a physically existence.
A state of existence is something that exists. But something that no longer exists, has no more existence. However, you decide against all definitions that it does.
So then how can "other worlds", something that potentially exist have a state of existence?
2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds>
Remember? The existence of other worlds isnt definite just like the past in the future arent. How can "other worlds" have a state of existence, but the past and future do not? Mind you, existence is determined by something having a physical property.
I am not saying the past never EXISTED, that is precisely what I am saying, and arguing that it no longer EXISTS, which you are saying it does. The past only becomes the past, when it is no longer the present. That is what makes the past, the past.
The present becomes the past, the future become the present and then... It repeats itself over and over. Although each arent here at the same time they still have a state of EXISTENCE.
Okay are you presenting your personal notions are facts here? Cuz it's really starting to look that way.
It is a fact, simple logic to logical people. If you take away the father can you create a child? If you take away the mother can you create a child? If you take away the child can they recreate man? Absolutely not.[/COLOR]
The 'present' can exist independently, if there were no mind to think of past and future, present would still have presence.
But there is a mind to think of the past and the future because they exist.
That is kind of bad analogy for what we are discussing. But like I said up above, future is an imagination or a hope, it is not guaranteed, the present could cease and future would not ever come into existence.
Not quite, Look at woman as the past, she was the first. From the woman she create man, the present, and because they both exist the create the child, or the future. Without he woman how can the man exist? Without man and woman how can the child exist? You can't have the present without the past. As long as the present is here so too will be the past and the future. They can NOT exist independent of each other.[/COLOR -
Semantics is important.
How can something have EXISTED, say 30 years ago, but still exist now, in the present? That's a conflicting stance.
I tend to agree with BiblicalAtheist. -
oliverlang wrote: »I don't know if you were addressing this to me...but according to this existence is subjective because everyone's consciousness and perception is different. I kind of agree in the sense that there is only one, not three...however that one is the current moment. I don't even like to call it the present because I think that limits what is actually taking place. And yes, the POSSABILITY/IDEA always exists, but unless it actually happens IT doesn’t exist, and if IT did exist it would only exist in the moment and that existence ultimately changes with each moment. There is an infinite amount of possibilities and ideas, and if what your saying was the case EVERYTHING you can imagine would exist, even obvious contradictions simultaneously. Even the definition you provided still implies that existing is the consciousness perceiving something that already exists at this moment.
The presence exists but is forever changing...that is the key. It's like me saying the only thing that exists is now now now now now now now now now now now now...you never truly capture the present moment because again, it's forever changing. The past only exists in your mind, and for that in my opinion makes it an illusion. For example, imagine if you will a film strip...the snap shots that are taken represent each moment that existed. It doesn't exist now because so much has happened and changed within an instant and between frames. In fact, so much has changed from the moment the button is pushed and the frame is captured. Regarding the future, how could you even take the snap shot of something that hasn't happened yet? This to me is how the current moment progresses. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm not saying I'm wrong...this is just how I see it. It's like the Heraclitus quote, "You can never step in the same river."
Also, you can have reproduction without two parents involved; refer to asexual reproduction or agamogenesis.
Refer to my last post.
As far as reproduction, the cases are small. I wouldnt bet on a few people having the ability to reproduce asexual populating the world . Because it is such an anomally, the chances of their offspring doing the same thing is slim to none. But as it pertains to this discussion, the ball had to start rolling at some point as we are all proof of that. -
How can something that is not simultaneous, be simultaneous, simultaneously?
We can't exist tomorrow, while existing today...because today and tomorrow are not concurrent.
To say that we can exist in the future, while existing in the present simultaneously, is conflicting because the present and the future can't be the same thing.
Same with the past.
We can only exist "now." -
Punisher__ wrote: »How can something that is not simultaneous, be simultaneous, simultaneously?
We can't exist tomorrow, while existing today...because today and tomorrow are not concurrent.
To say that we can exist in the future, while existing in the present simultaneously, is conflicting because the present and the future can't be the same thing.
Same with the past.
We can only exist "now."
You're in the present using terms to describes states of existence you arent physically in. Of course if you're here physically you're going to use terms to differentiate, so that you dont cause confusion when you speak. You guys keep playing with the words existed, exist and will exist at if they arent all referring to states of existence. As i've said before, in order for something to have a state of existence, it has to physically exist, or potentially physically exist. You arent arguing whether something exists, you're arguing whether or not something exist or not; and going by the defintions, in order for something to have a state of "existence" it has to have or potentially have a physical state.
You are saying something that isnt physically here doesnt exist, and that is in contridiction with what the defintion for "existence" actually says. -
time has to exist. simply because this argument is happening, and it continues to happen, and it started in the past, and if you respond, it will continue in the future
-
We are not going to progress in this understanding as long as you continue to make your own definitions and then form and present your notions based of those formulated meanings.
Existence:
Noun
Singular
existence
Plural
countable and uncountable; plural existences
existence (countable and uncountable; plural existences)
1. The state of being, existing, or occurring.
Most people doubt the existence of the Loch Ness monster.
2. empirical reality; the substance of the physical universe Dictionary of Philosophy; 1968
Verb
being
1. Present participle of be.
[edit] Noun
Singular
being
Plural
beings
being (plural beings)
1. A living creature.
2. The state or fact of existence, consciousness, or life, or something in such a state.
3. (philosophy) That which has actuality (materially or in concept).
4. (philosophy) One's basic nature, or the qualities thereof; essence or personality. -
bless the child wrote: »You're in the present using terms to describes states of existence you arent physically in. Of course if you're here physically you're going to use terms to differentiate, so that you dont cause confusion when you speak. You guys keep playing with the words existed, exist and will exist at if they arent all referring to states of existence. As i've said before, in order for something to have a state of existence, it has to physically exist, or potentially physically exist. You arent arguing whether something exists, you're arguing whether or not something exist or not; and going by the defintions, in order for something to have a state of "existence" it has to have or potentially have a physical state.
You are saying something that isnt physically here doesnt exist, and that is in contridiction with what the defintion for "existence" actually says.
You're assuming that we have an omnipresent characteristic, but that is where the conflict is.
We existed yesterday, we exist now, and presumably, we will exist tomorrow. But we can't exist in all three "simultaneously." To say that we exist today, while existing yesterday would be saying that we exist in two different moments at the same time. But two different moments are not the same moment, so how can we simultaneously exist yesterday, while existing today...if yesterday and today are not the same thing?
Time is different from location. I can be in my car, while being in a Best Buy parking lot, simultaneously. But it is contradictory to say that I can be in two different times, at the same time. -
look at it like this...Three watches, all of them read 60, at the same time they all are counting down by one and restarting at zero.
PPF
60, 60, 60,
59,59,59
58,58,58
When a minute passes it automatically falls into the negative. Hence, one minutes ago, or -1 minute ago. The present minute is counting at that same time that the former minutes is heading towards a former 2minutes, or another set of 60 seconds into the negative. Meanwhile, at the same time, there is another set of 60 that is counting down until it becomes the present set of 60. This repeats itself over and over again.They are all operating at the same time, in different states of existence. -
The past no longer has a state of physical existence, because it's no longer here.
In other words, there is no past; there WAS a past.
Yesterday existed, but it no longer exists. The only thing that "exists" is TODAY. And yesterday and today can't exist, simultaneously, because yesterday and today are not the same thing. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »We are not going to progress in this understanding as long as you continue to make your own definitions and then form and present your notions based of those formulated meanings.
Existence:
Noun
Singular
existence
Plural
countable and uncountable; plural existences
existence (countable and uncountable; plural existences)
1. The state of being, existing, or occurring.
Most people doubt the existence of the Loch Ness monster.
2. empirical reality; the substance of the physical universe Dictionary of Philosophy; 1968
Verb
being
1. Present participle of be.
[edit] Noun
Singular
being
Plural
beings
being (plural beings)
1. A living creature.
2. The state or fact of existence, consciousness, or life, or something in such a state.
3. (philosophy) That which has actuality (materially or in concept).
4. (philosophy) One's basic nature, or the qualities thereof; essence or personality.
Does "existence" and "being" both not imply something physical? Take this phrase...To be, or not to be. If "be" is referring to a physical state of existence than "not to be" is referring to a state that is not physical. But does that state "not to be" have the potential to be? If so then how can "being" or "existence" only refer to a state of being physically present? It has a dual quality to it. Its polar opposite would be non existence which is absolute. There is no potential to question that because its a definite. You cant take something that exists and say it possibly doesnt exist. Its here already, but you can take something that possibly doesnt exist and say it exist, because potentially it does; its not absolute.
It's all in the interpretation of the defintion. If a defintion says a Cat is not a Dog, then you cant take the defintion for Dog and try to say it implies that its a cat, because it explictly rules it out. -
"To be" OR "not to be" are two different soliloquies.
That's why "or" is used, to indicate an alternative. You're either this, or you're that. But you can't be both, simultaneously. Hot or cold. Wrong or right. You can't be both at the same time. It's an either/or situation.
"And" would be used to indicate some duality, instead of "or." Because "and" would connect the two; "or" is separating them into TWO.
"To be AND not to be." -
bless the child wrote: »Does "existence" and "being" both not imply something physical? Take this phrase...To be, or not to be. If "be" is referring to a physical state of existence than "not to be" is referring to a state that is not physical. But does that state "not to be" have the potential to be? If so then how can "being" or "existence" only refer to a state of being physically present? It has a dual quality to it. Its polar opposite would be non existence which is absolute. There is no potential to question that because its a definite. You cant take something that exists and say it possibly doesnt exist. Its here already, but you can take something that possibly doesnt exist and say it exist, because potentially it does; its not absolute.
It's all in the interpretation of the defintion. If a defintion says a Cat is not a Dog, then you cant take the defintion for Dog and try to say it implies that its a cat, because it explictly rules it out.
What I am saying is, the definition of existence and being are not implying a potential as you keep insisting. I do not know what dictionary you are using or how you are inferring that is what the stated meaning of the words are, but the discussion cannot continue if we are using to different meanings of these words. That is why they have a dictionary, so that there is not interpretation of the word, it makes the definition so that it is clear and cut. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »What I am saying is, the definition of existence and being are not implying a potential as you keep insisting. I do not know what dictionary you are using or how you are inferring that is what the stated meaning of the words are, but the discussion cannot continue if we are using to different meanings of these words. That is why they have a dictionary, so that there is not interpretation of the word, it makes the definition so that it is clear and cut.
Man im tired of repeating myself lol. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. I will say, a dictionary does not give clear cut defintions, if that true then they wouldnt need to constantly revise them. -
To exist today or to exist tomorrow...
That is the question. -
bless the child wrote: »Man im tired of repeating myself lol.
We're just gonna have to agree to disagree.
I will say, a dictionary does not give clear cut defintions, if that true then they wouldnt need to constantly revise them.
That is what I felt I was doing with you.
Didn't I already mention this conversation wouldn't go far?
Uhh okay. -
You're talking about ever changing happenings, that are finite. I'm talking about TIME, in terms of beginning, middle and end, not second, minute and hours. Of course these happenings can not occur at the sametime, however they do exist at the same time. When I say past, present and future can you box any of the tree into a box of time? Nope, they have no actual "time" as defined by seconds, minutes and hours. What you are using is things that occur in the present, which is the only place we measure time, and define time in the ways that we do, to describe something that is infinite. You cant use finite things to describe something infinite. You define actions, events, and all things based on times of occurence. "Yo, I went to the store five minutes ago", is that in the past? Yes, but can you box the past in that box of five minutes? No, you're trying to use finite words, and events to describe states of existence that have no measurable beginning or ending. "You can't be hot and cold at the same time', thats refering to finite states of existence. What im talking about is states that are infinite, states that you cant measure. Im being broad with my defintion of time, you're restricting yourself to the present, which is a state of finite things.Punisher__ wrote: »"To be" OR "not to be" are two different soliloquies.
That's why "or" is used, to indicate an alternative. You're either this, or you're that. But you can't be both, simultaneously. Hot or cold. Wrong or right. You can't be both at the same time. It's an either/or situation.
"And" would be used to indicate some duality, instead of "or." Because "and" would connect the two; "or" is separating them into TWO.
"To be AND not to be."
Yes, and does indicate duality, or indicates polarity which IS duality. Man is man, woman is woman but man and woman are both human. The duality is man and woman are human beings but, man is not a woman, and woman is not a man. That would mean that human beings can be either man, OR woman. They are both human beings and part of that duality yet they still are polar opposites. And this all is occuring at the same time.
Like I told my man BiblicalAtheist, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. We are just gonna keep talking in circles. -
That is why I like plato and such, they worked the thought out, ironed out all the kinks, and if your side of the argument ended up not being able to hold up to the sound reasoning or logic, you gave up your argument and settled with the more sound reasoning or logic. But many times these days, no matter how much someone's reasoning is shown to be illogical, they choose to keep it anyway and agree to disagree. Which imo is asinine.bless the child wrote: »Like I told my man BiblicalAtheist, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. We are just gonna keep talking in circles. -
oliverlang wrote: »I disagree, instinct is not based on time. Instinct happens naturally. That is not a measure of motion, and even if it was...a measurement of any sort must include numbers and scales which are most definitely man made concepts. Also, Buddha and Muhammad only exist in your memory. They are not here existing physically. The idea of them and their teachings exist, but THEY don't. This is clinging onto an idea, but it's not physical. How can the past exist when it's gone...there is no way to go back to it. You cannot exist in it. You cannot exist in the future because once you get there it's now the present and within a 0.00000000001 second it becomes the past. Can you go back and change anything that happened in the past?
Instinct does happen naturally, but based on what naturally occuring event? Time. Birds migrate based on Seasons. That is motion of the Earth that created seasons. That is time. There are no scales or numbers needed for the Earth to turn. There is no scales or numbers needed for the Human to grow, develop, get old and die. They are going to do that regardless.
And Buddha and Muhammad, well Muhammad defintely do not exist in memory only. There are nations and whole systems of government, education, economics, social norms, etc that exist because of him. We are not just physical. You of all people should know that. Now, I can't exist in the past. But I am most definitely shaped by my past. Don't tell me you don't mold your life or your children for the future by what you do in the present that will become the past. They are connected. They don't have to coexist to be real. If you plan anything, you acknowledge the future.don't look at them separately because I don't acknowledge that the three exist. Only one...the present moment which never ceases and is forever changing like a running river.You never have and never will son me. But, if you one day happen to luck up, I will be looking forward to learning something new. haha.
Ok, next time a creditor calls and says you owe him for a payment you made in the past, I want you to tell him you don't acknowledge the past so you will send him another payment. And next time, you are expecting a check from your boss or for your labor tell them don't worry about it, it is in the future and that it doesn't exist.
I'll let you get the keys to the car, just be home by 11:00...............
