Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 19, 2020 17:02:55 GMT
I guess it's correct.
If there would be no past, there it might be that there would be only present, current time or the time at the moment. The current moment we're experiencing at the time is the moment to which our access is allowed only.
Having experiencing only the current moment we either have an access to everything at a time, or we have more limited experience. We never know how wide the experience is, because there's no other time, except for the current time, however, it would be possible to have an access to everything at a time. If the latter would be possible we would have an access to what can be maintained as possible experience. Indeed, if we'd be given everything, we'd be given all the possible experience also. And being given it we wouldn't need to get an access to the different other areas, because all the areas would be completely united, and gathered at the time. Briefly, if we'd have an access to everything, and it could happen only at a time, we would never need in anything.
Being filled with everything we wouldn't move, and we could move at the same time. We could rely on having an access to move, but unfortunately no hopes in such a case would be allowed. And no intentions only, because all the intentions work if there is a lack of something. As I said above, we could have limited experience, but not knowing it, there's no need to continue to discuss this exact part.
It's possible to conclude that it's impossible that we could decided anything step by step given there were only the current moment presented, and everything was given at a time. And if it is concluded, we need to say that there must be something else, except for the current moment. It could be past or future.
If it was past only, then our knowledge would be stopped or they had been stopped (and we never know about it). Having no future the current moment at a time is only what we have an access, plus the past. Nevertheless, without future only what we could have is the past (since some period of time, or since the beginning of time), and the current moment: it would be like we were given a time and we died. So, if all that we had had was the past, it would mean we were given no future.
What about the future only? - The situation seems to be the same, but it would be like we would be just newborns who had entered this world. In that case we would have potential, but we wouldn't have any actual knowledge or something. If we had had knowledge it would mean we have something behind us - as the past - but since it wouldn't be allowed it would not be possible, and in turn, there would be no past. Must say such a case would be possible, but only as the case when only the current moment is given, yet we have nothing, except for potential properties.
Those potential properties would work if the past could be gained. And indeed, all what can be realized can be realized by the existence of the past. No future will work without the past. Therefore, there's no future without the past.
If there would be no past, there it might be that there would be only present, current time or the time at the moment. The current moment we're experiencing at the time is the moment to which our access is allowed only.
Having experiencing only the current moment we either have an access to everything at a time, or we have more limited experience. We never know how wide the experience is, because there's no other time, except for the current time, however, it would be possible to have an access to everything at a time. If the latter would be possible we would have an access to what can be maintained as possible experience. Indeed, if we'd be given everything, we'd be given all the possible experience also. And being given it we wouldn't need to get an access to the different other areas, because all the areas would be completely united, and gathered at the time. Briefly, if we'd have an access to everything, and it could happen only at a time, we would never need in anything.
Being filled with everything we wouldn't move, and we could move at the same time. We could rely on having an access to move, but unfortunately no hopes in such a case would be allowed. And no intentions only, because all the intentions work if there is a lack of something. As I said above, we could have limited experience, but not knowing it, there's no need to continue to discuss this exact part.
It's possible to conclude that it's impossible that we could decided anything step by step given there were only the current moment presented, and everything was given at a time. And if it is concluded, we need to say that there must be something else, except for the current moment. It could be past or future.
If it was past only, then our knowledge would be stopped or they had been stopped (and we never know about it). Having no future the current moment at a time is only what we have an access, plus the past. Nevertheless, without future only what we could have is the past (since some period of time, or since the beginning of time), and the current moment: it would be like we were given a time and we died. So, if all that we had had was the past, it would mean we were given no future.
What about the future only? - The situation seems to be the same, but it would be like we would be just newborns who had entered this world. In that case we would have potential, but we wouldn't have any actual knowledge or something. If we had had knowledge it would mean we have something behind us - as the past - but since it wouldn't be allowed it would not be possible, and in turn, there would be no past. Must say such a case would be possible, but only as the case when only the current moment is given, yet we have nothing, except for potential properties.
Those potential properties would work if the past could be gained. And indeed, all what can be realized can be realized by the existence of the past. No future will work without the past. Therefore, there's no future without the past.