Forever Now

[Philosophy Now]

by Joel Marks

https://philosophynow.org/issues/41/Forever_Now

[jayjacobus]

In the article, "Time, in fact, might best be conceived as the movingforwardness of reality. "

The question then becomes how does reality move forward because without time reality would be fixed. So, time is not a movement of reality but a change in states. As the state changes reality moves forward pushed by energy, gravity and momentum.

Forward movement doesn't change states. Something else does because movement requires changing states not vice versus.

[jayjacobus]

In the article, "But if the present were always present, and would not pass into the past, it would no longer be time, but eternity”

Yet if the the present didn't change then the present would be eternity and we would know what eternity would be. But if the present changes, we don't know what eternity will be. Present is always present but is ever changing. Therefore the present is never eternity.

[jayjacobus]

In the article, "But if the present were always present, and would not pass into the past, it would no longer be time, but eternity”

Yet if the the present didn't change then the present would be eternity and we would know what eternity would be. But if the present changes, we don't know what eternity will be. Present is always present but is ever changing. Therefore the present is never eternity.

But the present does not become the past but creates the past in memory. Does the ship become the wake or does it create the wake?

[Dontaskme]

In the article, "But if the present were always present, and would not pass into the past, it would no longer be time, but eternity”

Yet if the the present didn't change then the present would be eternity and we would know what eternity would be. But if the present changes, we don't know what eternity will be. Present is always present but is ever changing. Therefore the present is never eternity.

But the present does not become the past but creates the past in memory. Does the ship become the wake or does it create the wake?

The wake is unbroken from the cause...cause and effect are one in the same instant.

[Dontaskme]

In the article, "But if the present were always present, and would not pass into the past, it would no longer be time, but eternity”

Yet if the the present didn't change then the present would be eternity and we would know what eternity would be. But if the present changes, we don't know what eternity will be. Present is always present but is ever changing. Therefore the present is never eternity.

Present does not change,it never moves. Eternity is always present here now.

Change appears in the unchanging....the unchanging does not appear...because it’s everywhere at once.

[jayjacobus]

In the article, "But if the present were always present, and would not pass into the past, it would no longer be time, but eternity”

Yet if the the present didn't change then the present would be eternity and we would know what eternity would be. But if the present changes, we don't know what eternity will be. Present is always present but is ever changing. Therefore the present is never eternity.

But the present does not become the past but creates the past in memory. Does the ship become the wake or does it create the wake?

The wake is unbroken from the cause...cause and effect are one in the same instant.

Your statement must be based on some logic. But that logic is not present and, if you supply the logic, it won't be present now.

[jayjacobus]

Present does not change,it never moves. Eternity is always present here now.

Change appears in the unchanging....the unchanging does not appear...because it’s everywhere at once.

The present does change. Your argument starts from an obvious misstatement.

[Dontaskme]

But the present does not become the past but creates the past in memory. Does the ship become the wake or does it create the wake?

The wake is unbroken from the cause...cause and effect are one in the same instant.

Your statement must be based on some logic. But that logic is not present and, if you supply the logic, it won't be present now.

It’s based on awareness that doesn’t move.

To be aware of something is to know...to have knowledge of...knowing is to remember...to memorise from memory which is always available now presently...for there is only this ever present moment that never moves.

.

.

[Dontaskme]

Present does not change,it never moves. Eternity is always present here now.

Change appears in the unchanging....the unchanging does not appear...because it’s everywhere at once.

The present does change. Your argument starts from an obvious misstatement.

That which is aware of movement and change never moves or changes.

If it did, then movement and change would not be recognised....known.

.

[jayjacobus]

The past is:

Indicative rather than causative,
A frame of reference rather than events,

Real time is:

States rather than dimensions,
Repetitive rather than progressive (although the universe is progressive as time repeats)

[-1-]

The present does change. Your argument starts from an obvious misstatement.

That which is aware of movement and change never moves or changes.
If it did, then movement and change would not be recognised....known.

1. The present (which you state is unchanging) is NOT aware of movement or of change. How can time be aware of anything? It is not a conscious entity (as far as we know). So this counter-argument does not hold.
2. That which registers / is aware of movement, can be itself moving. I know the car on the street is moving, as I bicycle along, or walk on the sidewalk.

Both of your sentences are ... well, false. I am sorry to say.

[-1-]

In the article, "Time, in fact, might best be conceived as the movingforwardness of reality. "

The question then becomes how does reality move forward because without time reality would be fixed. So, time is not a movement of reality but a change in states. As the state changes reality moves forward pushed by energy, gravity and momentum.

Forward movement doesn't change states. Something else does because movement requires changing states not vice versus.

I am sorry. Change in movement requires change in states; and change in states requires change in movement. This follows directly from the law of preservation of energy.

If no force acted on any moving object in the universe, things would still keep on moving. If no movement was present in the universe, no change would take place.

The two are inseparable, and one acts as the "motivator" or causator of the other, and vice versa.

[Dontaskme]

The present does change. Your argument starts from an obvious misstatement.

That which is aware of movement and change never moves or changes.
If it did, then movement and change would not be recognised....known.

1. The present (which you state is unchanging) is NOT aware of movement or of change. How can time be aware of anything? It is not a conscious entity (as far as we know). So this counter-argument does not hold.
2. That which registers / is aware of movement, can be itself moving. I know the car on the street is moving, as I bicycle along, or walk on the sidewalk.

Both of your sentences are ... well, false. I am sorry to say.

I never said time was aware. I said there is awareness of time. Awareness is not a thing in spacetime duality, it's beyond that realm, it's the timeless thoughtless aware of time and thought in the same moment. The mind being the knowing aspect of not-knowing awareness.

The only thing moving is the mind. A 'thought' is a movement within the 'thoughtless'' which never happens.

The question is where does anything happen at all in life? It is obvious that a moment in life is 'here and now'. It is also obvious that everything happens in the 'here and now' of the mind as a thought, and the thought 'present' in the mind indicates numerical time.

This implies that the present happens in the 'here and now', as a thought in the mind called 'present', that indicates numerical time, while the 'here and now' in 'Life' is just 'here and now', which is neither a thought nor indicates numerical time.

The 'here and now' in life is a moment without thought, while the 'here and now' in the mind is with thought. The duration of numerical time, however, is unknown within a moment either in life or in the mind.

It is obvious that numerical time is needed for anything to happen either in life or in the mind in the present. Therefore, the present needs to be understood deeply. There is only the 'here and now' in life. There is no space between the 'here and now' and the next 'here and now', because the space in between would also be the 'here and now'. Therefore, the 'here and now' is a continuous, spontaneous, uncontrollable and unpredictable, timeless and thoughtless flow either in life or in the mind.

In the 'here and now' of either life or mind there is only light and sound. Life flows like a river. Therefore, the answer to the question where does anything happen at all, is that everything happens as thoughts in illusory time called the 'present', but not as a physical actuality.

Only the mind knows itself, therefore all knowledge is illusory. Life is in constant flux has no knowledge of past, present or future or any concept of time. Those are all 'thoughts'. A movement within the mind. Albeit illusory. The idea that life is real and not illusory is also 'thought' in the mind.

.

[Dontaskme]

2. That which registers / is aware of movement, can be itself moving. I know the car on the street is moving, as I bicycle along, or walk on the sidewalk.

No it cannot.

The I that knows movement does not move. The I is like space, it it everywhere at once. You simply cannot ignore the non-moving space in which all movement is possible. Movement would be impossible without space. It is not space that moves, it is the thought in that space that moves aka the mind. The mind and space are the same ONE PHENOMENALLY.

But In reality, there is no such thing as things, space, or mind. These are mental phenomena. The real reality is not an experience, it is inaccessible to experience. That which is everything AT ONCE unbroken cannot be an experience.

Objects including the body on the bike are 'thoughts' aka movement in the non-moving perciever. The movement is perceived, the body/object is the perceived, the body object is not the perceiver. The perceiver cannot experience itself as an object in timespace duality, it is beyond time, it is timeless thoughtless awareness space.

There has to be something that doesn't move or change for there to be recognition of movement and change.


I know the car on the street is moving, as I bicycle along, or walk on the sidewalk...is perceived by that which is inconceivable. And yet at the same time in the same instant IS ALREADY this immediate 'here and now'

Life is one unitary flow in constant flux that cannot be approached or stopped.The only place time can reside is in the mind of the perceiver which is not an object, but knows every object thought when it arises one with the knowing. Thoughts have no reality in and of themselves separate from the perceiver. Thoughts artificially create things in a world of no such things which is of this ever endlessly flowing naturally occurring spontaneous, uncontrollable and unpredictable uncreated life living itself.

.

.