You have not made yourself clear, though.
Is there more than one kind of time?
Because if we are going by “so-to-speaks…”
I can just say whatever and then instead hope that you catch what I actually mean.
Why don’t you just say what you actually mean?
Maybe you don’t know exactly yourself.
Yes, Time in the context of ‘Being’ (Static / Unchange) versus Time in the context of ‘Becoming’ (Change).
Ok, so it’s not that time is a measure of change, but that there is a type of time that exists in the context of change.
What context does the other time exist in? I don’t fully understand.
I’m going to give a quick example of this fallacy too:
A young boy asks his mother and father, “How did I come to Be? What is the cause of me?”
Now the parents could say that them having sex or making love “caused the son to Be”, but this is false. And there is no sufficient reason the parents could give. Because a person is not a Being; a person is a Becoming. A person is not a static, unchanging thing.
In order to have a Cause, you first need a condition or process of (ongoing) Change.
Take a common experience in your life. You saw a tree. You heard a bird chirp. You smelled an apple pie. Let’s call that experience “Event A”.
Before you were born, “Event A” exists in the future. When you experienced it, “Event A” is in the present. After you will die someday, “Event A” exists in the past. The object in event A, whether it is a tree, a bird, an apple pie, once it exists, it always must exist “for all time”. It cannot be taken away. It cannot be denied. It is objective of subjective experience. It is static / permanent / unchanging. That’s the context of time I’m talking about.
So what’s the difference between event A as Noun and event A as Verb?
Before he was born event A didn’t exist. There was future time before he was born but there are no events in the future, the future is simply time that has yet to elapse. The past is time that has already elapsed in which previous events occurred.
There is no “present” duration of time, the present is a point in time in which there is no duration of time for events to occur.
<----------------Past-----------------.-----------------Future------------------->
The above is a timeline. It is simply infinite time, with total disregard for any “events.” You can fill in “events” that have already occurred in the past, but the future has yet to elapse and no events have occurred yet.
You can “plan” for future events, or “predict” future events to some degree of accuracy, but all that is speculation about the future and how you “assume” it will occur.
It’s the difference between Being and Becoming. The contextual difference is between it Not changing, versus it Changing.
You’re missing the point though. It’s not about what a human can predict. It’s about what Exists, that is beyond our predictions. Yes, we cannot know about a future Event, just like we cannot know with any certainty about Object A as well. However, its existence is independent of us. Object A must exist, past present and future, once it exists.
This is because matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Its ontological status is eternal.
Consider what a person does know between the present and the past. There are many things, as a child, that you or any person could not have known until becoming an adult. Your not-knowing as a child, is irrelevant to the ‘objective’ world or ‘existence’. Knowledge is not the “determining” factor. Rather the things that you or anybody can ever be certain about, must exist independently from you, in the same way you can differentiate between the Past and Present. Because the present is also the “future of the past”.
Humanity, or any organism’s predictive capabilities are very small and limited. So what humans do, is depend on variation between past and present, in order to predict “the future”. And “the future” here refers to a sense of Order or “Natural Law” of existence. Never in “the future” do people believe Natural Laws are violated. So no matter how wrong a person can be, and no matter how limited and erroneous predictive capability is, there is an “objective” sense of the Universe that “some type of Order is at work anyway”.
This is what “Determinism” depends on, and why ‘God’ is inserted so vigorously and repeatedly into the context of Determinism.
If being means that it is not active, it sounds dead & uncreative as an unsculpted boulder, to me.
Couldn’t being be active toward the eternal in an unchanging way where “immovable” isn’t a physical state, but one of character/virtue?
Isn’t it that fulfilled (to overflowing) capacity toward which all becoming becomes?
I mean… becoming what? A chocolate Twinkie?
That’s why I made the ‘Biomorphic Fallacy’ thread. “Becoming” is almost entirely a matter of a biological perspective. Life survives, adapts, reproduces, dies, but the “unsculpted boulder” does not. So that differentiation needs to be clear. ‘Being’ refers to static states of matter that never change. If there is an unsculpted boulder, then it can stay in one spot from the start of time, to the end of time, and it never “became” anything.
Because the ‘becoming’ originates from the biology, from yourself. It’s a projection onto something that does not “become”.
This is not to say that the boulder might…roll down a hill, or be smashed apart by another boulder falling onto it, but its “becoming” is never organic. It never has a ‘will’, or a personality, or magical voodoo spirits and fairies in it.
Its “becoming” is categorically different.
It will never change unless “equal or opposite forces act upon it” (from outside it).
“Stasis” means that an object, or a system of objects, is in balance. It is “ordered”. It’s not going to un-order itself.
That’s why humanity believes there are “Natural Laws” or a hidden order behind or underneath Nature (ie. God).
So it seems the fallacy is in your concept of being as static rather than alive.
For us, we repeat the cycle to become full, like the being from which our being is derived.
For underived being, it begets the cycle (whole) to overflow fullness.
We cannot be whole (or overflow it) apart from the wholeness.
Event A did not exist before he was born, that’s the point I was making.
Say he was born on Jan 25, 1980. At 20 years old he observes a flower opening up at 10 AM on May 1, 2000. We shall call that event of the flower opening “Event A.”
What you are claiming is that on Jun 22, 1979 (prior to his birth) that “Event A” exists. That is total BS NONSENSE! On Jun 22, 1979 he did not exist and event A did not exist. On Jun 22, 1979 it is “NOW” and the future is simply time that has yet to elapse. On Jun 22, 1979 the future is May 1, 2000, but that time has not come yet, and there can not be any events that exist on that future date.
Event A doesn’t exist until it is in the past, which is May 1, 2000 10 AM +. The flower did not open at the point in time 10 AM, that was the starting point in time when the flower began to open, but had not opened ANY. It takes a duration of time for a flower to open. Nothing happens instantly at “10 AM.”
For you to claim that event A existed on Jun 22, 1979 means that the flower already opened on 1 May, 2000, but it is only Jun 22, 1979. 1 May 2000 is 20 years in the future, and there are no events on that date yet, because it has not occurred yet.
Technically I said this:
I now see the challenge of what I’m trying to say. It’s difficult to communicate based on the rules of English/American grammar.
“It will exist”, in this statement, “it will” presumes the ‘Will’ of non-living objects. So when speaking about the future existence of objects, “the Earth will exist 3 minutes from now, in the future,” the grammar precludes that the Earth “has a Willpower”.
This is why Determinism is so invasive as an ideology, to presuppose a ‘living will’ inside non-living things or static entities.
So try to restate that without “Will”. It (Any object) exists, “in the future”. Well, where is the future? When is it? It’s relative to your perspective, and the parameters of a definition. Because what once was “the future” (a few seconds ago), is now the present, and now in the past. Time is a continuum relative to parameters, set by the User/You/Yourself.