I see the question mark.

Having trouble seeing the question, though.

The question is 'what (if applicable) is the length of now?'.

Its one of those questions that might lead somewhere or might not even make sense, depending on the nature of time (which no-one really understands).

Devans99
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa
The question is 'what (if applicable) is the length of now?'.

Its one of those questions that might lead somewhere or might not even make sense, depending on the nature of time (which no-one really understands). — Devans99

Okay...and that can be, Devans.

BUT...I do not see the question at all...just the question mark. Sometimes that works...as in, "Right?"

Here it does not seem to work. Perhaps I am missing something.

What is the question?

Do you think the length of now is:

a. zero
b. infinitesimal
c. finite
d. not applicable

Not willing to make a guess on it, Devans.

Too many imponderables.

If I made a peripheral guess...it would be: "Perhaps human abilities to solve problems are being over-rated."

Or at least a variation on that.

If I made a peripheral guess...it would be: "Perhaps human abilities to solve problems are being over-rated." — Frank Apisa

We would not make much progress in science or philosophy if everyone took that attitude.

Riding in a beam of light seems imponderable too but that thought experiment was very productive for Einstein. Sometimes considering things seemingly left-field can lead to ideas.

Devans99
1.3k

If I made a peripheral guess...it would be: "Perhaps human abilities to solve problems are being over-rated." — Frank Apisa


We would not make much progress in science or philosophy if everyone took that attitude.

Riding in a beam of light seems imponderable too but that thought experiment was very productive for Einstein. Sometimes considering things seemingly left-field can lead to ideas. — Devans99

I think that we DO take that attitude...except for those of us who come up with an hypothesis and pretty much demand that it be correct.

For instance...saying "There are no gods" or "There is at least one god" are hypotheses that many (not all) people demand to be accepted. (We really cannot determine which is correct...although there are tons of people on both side who claim to establish that one is more likely than the other.)

So that "attitude" can be reasonable for some issues.

On the question (I suppose this now is the question)

Do you think the length of now is:

a. zero
b. infinitesimal
c. finite
d. not applicable — Devans99

...what I said (do not know, won't guess) is as significant as any guess that anyone else might make.

Here is a guess on something tangential, though.

My guess is that YOUR guess on your question...will be the one you determine will best lead to, "Therefore the universe is finite."

What do you think, Devans? Is my guess on that close?

Language, please. If you're asking about "now" then you're interested in duration, not length. And if you're interested in the duration of something, then what is it the duration of which you're interested in?

If you don't specify, the answer can only be, "depends."

"How long is now" is just a nonsense question.

If you want the shortest time, that apparently is a Planck unit, or a time interval of approximately 5.39 × 10 −44 seconds.

My guess is that YOUR guess on your question...will be the one you determine will best lead to, "Therefore the universe is finite." — Frank Apisa

You are correct, this is another potential example of infinity (in the small). I am a finitist, so I suspect the answer is (c) finite. I think Infinity does not exist so neither does 1/∞.

I have a model of the universe that I think may turn out to be right: it is all finite in time and space, everything is discrete. So my investigations are directed towards finding out if that model is valid. Maybe I'm wrong... time will tell I hope.

"How long is now" is just a nonsense question. — tim wood

'What is the duration of now?' if you prefer. Reading up:

"A Planck time unit is the time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length in a vacuum, which is a time interval of approximately 5.39 × 10 −44 s."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

And:

"The Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification of Lorentz symmetry"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

So it is not a simple as just the Planck length.

With eternalism, the length/duration of now makes sense. With presentism, it is not clear. There is still a degree of freedom called time and it seems measurable. So a duration of now seems to still make sense.

Is it space or time that makes us real? — Devans99

Will try to put this in the simplest words possible. After searching for a while and readings, I came to the understanding that time and space both exists. Space is measured by time therefore human can sense its existence but if you try to sense its own existence then you will come to the understanding that there is nothing...

To further explain this,,,, the specialty of time is that it passes by no matter what. If you do or don’t do anything at all and if you are happy or sad and if you are working or just resting,,,, so in every condition it passes by. In other words, it is absolute just and no matter who, where, how you are it passes by. But the only thing that a human can experience is the intensively of time. If you were young, energetic, and in rush then the time will fly by and if you are slow and old then time will be running slowly. So one's rushed life cycle can be equal to other's slow and dull life cycle but happening in the same time...

In reality these moments are not experienced at all and time is passing and happening to all of us in the same space and cycles. Whatever that you are measuring, years, minutes and or seconds. And as we all know that anything that is cyclical is naturally repetitive and that they all will have a centrifuge. The human mind cannot escape from the gravity of time, if you did then that’s when they called it spirituality. But who is actually spiritually enlightened, I would argue very few? All of us are trapped within these cycles, however with some knowledge that humans have therefore some of us are riding the time, some of us are trapped and some of us are crashed. If you are riding the time, then you are enjoying your time and If you are caught up by these cycles then you are material and if you are crushed then you are suffering and none of us are out of these 3 conditions at a single second and you cannot be all in one time as there is one time and one condition will apply.

Time is also refereed and is called darkness. Where darkness is defined as something that cannot stop the light and what cannot stop the light is called empty space. Therefore, space and time can be both called as darkness. For us human beings there is only time as we can measure it, but there is space and that we know of it because there is time. From A to B is dependent on time, if there was no time then there was no movement. There is time which happens because of cycles, the planet spins and there is the day and night, the moon cycles and there is the month, and then the planet goes around there is the year.

The cycle of time is a dimension of time and then there is the great time. Now many will argue that how can a time within time exist. In God’s scripts the whole universe is created in 6 days. The length of each of that day can be either equal to 1000, or a million year of our time or more and that will depend on how we can prove to ourselves based on the current ecological and scientific findings and of the age of this world. Now of course God is not bound by time or space but merely an explanation to the human on how the world is created. He could have created the entire universe in a split second but to explain the vastness of the universe to his creation. Even though where there are no cycles there is time, but where there is no cyclical movement there is no physical happening. Whatever you see in the planet from atomic to cosmic, everything is cyclical.

Therefore, we can only see the time due to the physical reality of our surroundings. What is the speed of electron around its core and we know of that now, but if we measured time by that speed then would be too much for us. What is the speed of light? If we are going to measure our lives by that then would be something else, but despite all these there is our time and there is the greater time. Human beings will always agree on principles that are understandable to the majority. For example how much time it takes for our planet to cycle around the sun and how much time for the moon to cycle around the planet and so on and thus due to agreement we have now minutes and seconds and hours and so on…

But in reality, all of them are cycles of the physical existence. If there is no physical existence we won’t understand if anything is cyclical or not. If we didn’t know the cyclical movement, we wouldn’t understand the cyclical nature of time, but before the very existence of anything, there was still time and that is called the great time.

This greater time is referred to the time of God and how he sees the world. — RBS

Interesting. I see God as timeless rather than a creature of time (or greater time).

I am not clear though on what you think the length of now is?

And are you presentist or eternalist?

So it is not a simple as just the Planck length.

With eternalism, the length/duration of now makes sense. — Devans99

The article you referenced is flagged for "multiple issues." Did you write it? And Planck time simply as shortest duration. It seems you mix concepts from mathematics with those of physics.

What is the duration of now? Just this long. That's your answer.

And you speak of space and time. Perfectly all right with me. But am pretty sure that if you want to invoke physics as you're wont to do, then you have to take care to think in term of space-time. Not so easy.

Plank time is not the shortest possible duration, it is merely a unit of measurement derived from natural constants.

What is the duration of now? Just this long. That's your answer. — tim wood

Hmmm... and would that be a finite or infinite 'this'?

But am pretty sure that if you want to invoke physics as you're wont to do, then you have to take care to think in term of space-time. Not so easy. — tim wood

With spacetime, time is just another dimension so it is actually easy in spacetime - for anything to have existence, it must have non-zero duration.

The question 'what is the length/duration of now?' becomes more difficult if you consider it from a presentist (non-physics) point of view. Presentists do not regard time as a dimension. But time is still a measurable degree of freedom. So a non-zero duration of now still seems required for existence?

So he length of now might be some finite number, which would mean time is discrete? — Devans99

the way you phrased that is correct however if all objects are either motionless or if all objects or matter are moving at the same speed it is impossible to measure time due to Einstein's view of the universe. Time can't be measured if there is not disproportionate movement among particles. In other words in some cases time can only measured by events occuring but an accurate assessment of the measurement is impossible in the former case. Thats my understanding of special relativity atleast a part of it. I could go on with the rest of my understanding. This is taken from "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking.

if all objects are either motionless or if all objects or matter are moving at the same speed it is impossible to measure time due to Einstein's view of the universe. — christian2017

Does time still pass in this case? My understanding is that it does. I imagine a clock and next to it empty space. Time passes for the clock (in motion), but surely it must pass also for the empty space?

Does time still pass in this case? My understanding is that it does. I imagine a clock and next to it empty space. Time passes for the clock (in motion), but surely it must pass also for the empty space? — Devans99

Time would still pass but it would be impossible to measure in certain instances. If you accelerated the clock to the speed of light or had it approach the threshold of the speed of light (C) it would come to a complete stop (clock hands or digital clock). This effect has been shown to some degree on clocks on aircraft flying for days at a time (P-3). So time is measure relative to the particles that make up the time measuring devices. Without a clock you can have events that happen but you can't assess the length of time that those events occurred in relation to each other.

Devans99
1.3k

My guess is that YOUR guess on your question...will be the one you determine will best lead to, "Therefore the universe is finite." — Frank Apisa


You are correct, this is another potential example of infinity (in the small). I am a finitist, so I suspect the answer is (c) finite. I think Infinity does not exist so neither does 1/∞.

I have a model of the universe that I think may turn out to be right: it is all finite in time and space, everything is discrete. So my investigations are directed towards finding out if that model is valid. Maybe I'm wrong... time will tell I hope. — Devans99

Stop thinking of it as in investigation. Better to consider it an obsession, if you must name it.

Anyway, I admire your tenacity...even though I see it as especially misplaced here.

Stop thinking of it as in investigation. Better to consider it an obsession, if you must name it.

Anyway, I admire your tenacity...even though I see it as especially misplaced here. — Frank Apisa

In alot of ways alot of ideas on this forum are a waste of time. We can't all be correct. This forum allows the potential for learning new things. I do enjoy arguing but i wasn't willing to at the very least hone my ideas then i'm not sure why i would be on this forum.

Edited, my intention was not bounding God to a time or space. God has created time and space and is not bound to anything at all. With my meaning the Great Time or Pure Time is God’s explanation of time to us and how he measures his creation which is “Time”… To God a day is very much different than a day that we count. God's words are an explanation to the human on how the world is created. He could have created the entire universe in a split second but to explain the vastness of the universe to his creation.

And are you presentist or eternalist? — Devans99

I am the second...

To further explain the idea, God is not bound by time, tense or any other elements of that sort. He is the creator of all, but when it comes to explanation, he has used different definitions to make it understandable for our limited sight and understandings.
He has revealed his greatness and the truth to us in our words and understanding. Simply because our knowledge cannot grasp the true power and yet he will show us with science and technology. In God's scripture examples of time has been given by a number like “thousands” but that number is not representing the exact number rather a multiplication factor or to show the greatness of something. To us a thousand mean a thousand but when God puts it in his words that doesn't mean the exact one thousand but meaning times that and probably time and times that again or simply to put it "many".

Now coming to your question...

I am not clear though on what you think the length of now is? — Devans99

What is now, can be defined differently by all of us, depending on our knowledge and understanding but the true value for "Now" is yet to be identified by all of us. From my perspective the humans have so far been able to see the particles called Peron which makes Quarks.... for now I think the “Present” or "Now" is of that duration in size, but in reality probably it can be even and much more smaller than that......

God has created time and space and is not bound to anything at all — RBS

I am in agreement. I believe God could be non-material (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5606/could-god-be-non-material/p1)

I am certain that he is timeless; as the creator of time he must be. Timelessness seems to imply eternalism (in that a timeless God would be able to see all time in one go).

With my meaning the Great Time or Pure Time is God’s explanation of time to us and how he measures his creation which is “Time”… To God a day is very much different than a day that we count. — RBS

One of the central problems is that any sort of time implies an infinite regress which is impossible. So it seems God (the first cause) has to be timeless (its impossible to exist 'forever' in time), yet also capable of change. I am at a loss as to how to square this circle - hence my thoughts have been turning to a non-material God. The other possibility is that change is an illusion and its full on eternalism (future real), that way God could be static when viewed from the 4D spacetime perspective. Static and unchanging as the old time theologians believed.

From my perspective the humans have so far been able to see the particles called Peron which makes Quarks.... for now I think the “Present” or "Now" is of that duration in size, but in reality probably it can be even and much more smaller than that...... — RBS

It is true that matter was long thought to be continuous but turned out to be discrete. Maybe the same will happen for space and time?

I am certain that he is timeless — Devans99

Very True,

in that a timeless God would be able to see all time in one go — Devans99

This is the core idea ...

Coming to this part.....

One of the central problems is that any sort of time implies an infinite regress which is impossible — Devans99

Like i mentioned earlier, by what we understand by time and space is very limited, we are and will be shown to us the vastness of the universe as we are advancing with our lives and we will all be shown how it comes to an end, now who will be alive or death that we don't know....

To some it can be climate change and to some other things, but no matter what we do as God's has promised us after life then in that sense all will come to an end......Regarding the finite and infinite part of the time it is unknown to us, and for us those who believes in God, should acknowledge that there is life after death, therefore we are still not sure on how that time will be calculated, but am sure that it will be different....

hence my thoughts have been turning to a non-material God — Devans99

Strongly agree...

If we trace back to Adam and his creation in heaven, that was well before what we call it time. That was a time in a different plan and dimension. There are planets that maybe are in different shape, size and possibly different pattern of circulation or we dont know, anything is possible and possibly there the inhabitants might have different way of measuring the time....

In short there are things that us humans will not grasp at all no matter what we do, such as life after death and so on....These things are hidden for the soul purpose of understanding so that us as humans should acknowledge the existence of Supreme being of God and that there are things that are not in our control and that we are weak as a leaf on a tree and have the knowledge of a new born child when it comes to understanding the universe.

If we trace back to Adam and his creation in heaven, that was well before what we call it time. That was a time in a different plan and dimension — RBS

The problem is though if God has any sort of time means he is in an infinite regress which means he has no temporal start, no coming into being, which is impossible. So he must be timeless and thus seemingly changeless.

These things are hidden for the soul purpose of understanding so that us as humans should acknowledge the existence of Supreme being of God and that there are things that are not in our control and that we are weak as a leaf on a tree and have the knowledge of a new born child when it comes to understanding the universe — RBS

Understanding the universe is a struggle, but we have made some progress; the Big Bang theory is a marvel - understanding of the process right back to the singularity.

I believe God was responsible for the Big Bang and that he used his either non-material or extra-dimensional properties to escape the fallout of the explosion.

In today’s world we, I mean the entire human race are confused as hell with the information system. Information is not knowledge and knowing. It is useful for survival. Science is experiential in nature not informative. Humans belief that If you have not experience something then it’s a story to us or which is not true and that’s how we have perceived and deceived ourselves so far. There are things that we will never and ever be experienced but that doesn’t mean that they do not exist. Why am I sure about this, because we are seeing it for ourselves with the latest discovery of black hole….

There are locks and keys in the universe. Some probably given to the humans already and some probably will be discovered, but that doesn’t mean that they were not there in first place. A key is rather a dimension and is a dimensional possibility and us human beings simply have accepted it as information. A key is not accumulation and most of us have mistaken the accumulation of information as knowing.

To me the BB Theory is flawed by several reasons, but will put a few here:

BB Theory stands on no beginning and is called an incident. Then how can an incident happen if something was not there to exist in first place. If it was existed from eternity with no beginning cannot be an incident.

Secondly, as the BB theory is standing on the concept of eternity with no beginning then they are not paying attention to the fundamentals of a thing being eternal which must exists from beginning and that both falls in inconsistency with one and other.

Why do we easily believe in the creation of something is because for us human beings it is easy to accept the notion of something that is being created rather than that thing being there from beginning? The human mind goes blind when we talk of an infinite beginning as we cannot grasp the idea fully and our brain cannot process that function.

What do you think of Big Bang, do you believe it was or is a possibility or is or was absolutely necessary?

BB Theory stands on no beginning and is called an incident. Then how can an incident happen if something was not there to exist in first place. If it was existed from eternity with no beginning cannot be an incident. — RBS

I don't buy the Big Bang theory lock, stock and barrel. I believe a timeless God preexisted and caused the Big Bang rather than it was caused by quantum fluctuations or some other random natural process.

Secondly, as the BB theory is standing on the concept of eternity with no beginning then they are not paying attention to the fundamentals of a thing being eternal which must exists from beginning and that both falls in inconsistency with one and other. — RBS

I think there are variations in what people believe but often there is a belief in infinite time with quantum fluctuations somehow leading to the BB. This common viewpoint fails for at least two reasons:

- If quantum fluctuations generated matter and time was infinite then matter density now would be infinite.
- Time itself forms an infinite regress of moments. Each moment defines the following moment. With infinite time, there is no first moment, so the whole of time does not exist.

Why do we easily believe in the creation of something is because for us human beings it is easy to accept the notion of something that is being created rather than that thing being there from beginning? The human mind goes blind when we talk of an infinite beginning as we cannot grasp the idea fully and our brain cannot process that function. — RBS

It is logically impossible for the universe to have existed forever in time. Something timeless (that itself needs no cause) must preexist it.

What do you think of Big Bang, do you believe it was or is a possibility or is or was absolutely necessary? — RBS

I think God wanted to create a universe and life somehow. But look how complex we are with our brains and nervous system and glands and hormones - way too complex to design (even for God). So God decided to generate life instead. He set off the BB. He is playing a giant game of Conway's Game of Life with the universe - the stars are the energy sources for life and the planets are the living surfaces for life.

So he length of now might be some finite number, which would mean time is discrete? — Devans99

The meaning of time as finite is that it is internally structured as retention, presencing and protention. There is no 'now' without these three features, the having been in process of becoming as the now. Time is 'stretched' as a horizon, not an infinite counting of identical 'nows'. For the 'now' of time to be finite and internally structured , the model on which ctime is based cannot be an attribute (motion, force) or object that self-persists identically.

The question 'what is the length/duration of now?' becomes more difficult if you consider it from a presentist (non-physics) point of view. Presentists do not regard time as a dimension. But time is still a measurable degree of freedom. So a non-zero duration of now still seems required for existence?

I've been reading through this thread and I can't help but to say that it's stuff like this that creates barriers of understanding.

I don't really think there is much of a "Physics" point of view, as it's not the "Physics" that tells us how the Universe operates, it's the studies by those who have invested their Passion for uncovering the unknown and we've labeled the attempts in this or that particular way under that umbrella term.

I guess a "simpler" way of putting what I'm saying is that you can't just "invalidate/modify" (not really the words I'm looking for) Objective Reality with weighing the perspective of another group of Thought just because their Perspective differs.

You said that Time is a "measurable degree of freedom". Freedom from what? That is an entirely subjective topic.

In my perspective, Time does not actually exist, but is a useful measurement for keeping up with the physical manifestations of our Spiritual Passions. Hence:

"...anything that is cyclical is naturally repetitive and that they all will have a centrifuge"

The repetitive nature of the Material world is the proof in itself that it is ultimately unimportant. Or at least not to invest very much focus on unless to innovate, if the idea can be. But especially if the idea (ideas are Spiritual in nature....) can't be, there is no more point in investing much more into it until it is no longer useful to us Spiritually.

...

Back on the concept of Time, if we take a look at a clock, it is like a metaphor for our own leash. Its cyclical nature (repetitive) and how we try so hard to please those physical manifestations which are in essence built around doing a lot to do nothing.

Don't get me wrong, Time is important. But I feel we've been using it so irresponsibly. Insects, fungi, cyanobacteria, etc. follow along circadian rhythms which are innate. We are far more flexible and imaginative than that.

@devans99 @RBS It is unfair to align with the idea that Time is of a different measurement in God's eyes if the things he manifested are on Earth. Which means it's at the least under the same cycle (which can be measured in a number of ways -- we chose 24 hours). Regardless, whether or not you represent a day in 24 hours or some other measurement, a day itself is the rise and fall of the Sun. To try to further complicate things by separating ourselves from some greater thing's measurement is not only counterproductive, but masochistic.

However, this does allow me to further the point I was making in my previous comment:

If Time really is that Subjective, wouldn't that be more evidence that it doesn't really exist, but as a unit of measurement?

And because of the fact that events need to occur in order for Time to be measured, Space and Time are independent of each other. I mean, without Space, events couldn't occur, but Space could easily exist independently of Time.

You said that Time is a "measurable degree of freedom". Freedom from what? That is an entirely subjective topic. — Despues Green

According to Einstein, you can slow down your progress through time by moving at close to the speed of light. So we have some control over time. So it counts as a degree of freedom in the same way as space does - you can choose how fast you move in the time dimension/direction.

As you get closer to the speed of light, as time slows, I wonder if a 'frame rate' from the discrete nature of time might become apparent? So if we could film a spaceship travelling at 99.999% of the speed of light, would the occupants of the spaceship seem to move in a jerky manner as with a film that is played in slow motion?

I mean, without Space, events couldn't occur, but Space could easily exist independently of Time. — Despues Green

Photons travel at the speed of light so don't experience time, but due to length compression, they don't experience distance either. So a photon would not seem to have a 'now' or a 'here'. I am not sure what a photon is or how spacetime works in this regard. It's confusing, you would have thought the photon needs a non-zero time duration to actually exist. But photons exist, seemingly without time or space.

In our universe, space does not seem to exist without time - would something exist if it existed for 0 seconds (excepting the photon)? Outside/before our universe, could space exist without time? It would seem maybe but it would be completely static and unable to give birth to the universe in any way - so I don't see the universe being born that way (unless God is non-material or future real eternalism applies).

If Time really is that Subjective, wouldn't that be more evidence that it doesn't really exist, but as a unit of measurement? — Despues Green

You would agree that time cannot have existed for ever? It would form an infinite regress if it did which is impossible (no start - no first moment - so no subsequent moments are defined). So the fact that time had a start suggests it is something real and substantial (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1 for another argument that time had a start). Also if time enables movement then it must be real because movement is real.

Hmm, I mean reading this thread and that thread, I feel the need to refer back to @Frank Apisa's statement that you already have your mind made up on what you want to think and you seek to carry it in your trajectory.

I feel obliged to state that I don't necessarily think that Time doesn't exist, but that we have used it quite irresponsibly as a sort of leash on People. I believe you were the person who talked about being released from the gravity of Time and that being indicative of Spiritualism. I also want to disagree with you that it's particularly difficult to attain. It's just Generations of doctrines to clean up. Gotta get rid of those pushing them in the first place. But I must digress before I get too far away from this topic....

You claim a lot of things are impossible, but only under your metric. Even utilizing your own example in how a Photon can exist without Space nor Time, it's quite easy to fathom that it is also possible that certain things just always existed. It's not always about "when" something started, in fact you asking that question furthers my point in how we as Humans created that measurement. The Universe operates on its own merit and we have found approximations smaller than what we generally measure. Time is a convenience, not an absolute need. Especially not for us (ie, many organisms operate off of Circadian Rhythms, Humans are not one of them).

Let us also not ignore the old "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed" Law. Wouldn't the very beginning of the assertion support this notion of not everything has/ needs a start date. However, its contribution to the Space it inhabits is far more measurable and pertinent, as we all have Destinies both individual and United.

So I definitely agree with the Spiritual assertion. But the People have been Spiritually unclean for an extremely long time. The definition of "Now" is extremely Subjective, though it is still shared. But see, that is the difference between Subjective reality and Objective Reality. But it's Subjective only in the realm of our innate Passions which we have to find by being exposed to them and then honing in on them.... but again, that's Subjective because it's entirely on our own clocks.

Hmm, I mean reading this thread and that thread, I feel the need to refer back to Frank Apisa's statement that you already have your mind made up on what you want to think and you seek to carry it in your trajectory. — Despues Green

Its more I suspect things are a certain way (finite, discrete) and I'm trying to analyse the evidence to see if there is support for it. I maybe wrong... time will tell.

I believe you were the person who talked about being released from the gravity of Time and that being indicative of Spiritualism. — Despues Green

Does not ring a bell... someone else I think.

Even utilizing your own example in how a Photon can exist without Space nor Time, it's quite easy to fathom that it is also possible that certain things just always existed. — Despues Green

You cannot 'always' exist in time - you would have no start - so nothing at all would exist (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being for more reasons why existing 'forever' in time is impossible).

Let us also not ignore the old "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed" Law. Wouldn't the very beginning of the assertion support this notion of not everything has/ needs a start date. — Despues Green

It could be that timeless matter pre-existed the universe and when into making it (IE the matter becomes part of time somehow). Note TIMELESS - this is the only way something can have permanent existence / exist 'forever'.

There is also the Zero Energy Universe Hypothesis - that matter can in fact be created in exchange for negative gravitational energy.

The definition of "Now" is extremely Subjective, though it is still shared. But see, that is the difference between Subjective reality and Objective Reality. But it's Subjective only in the realm of our innate Passions which we have to find by being exposed to them and then honing in on them.... but again, that's Subjective because it's entirely on our own clocks. — Despues Green

We have some sort of personal, biological, subjective 'now'. Then there is an objective, physical, shared 'now'. At least it appears to be shared - it is unclear to me from special relativity whether it could be said there are multiple 'nows'. So there maybe a biological length of 'now' - the limit of what you can sense. The question remains is there a physical length of 'now'?

Let C = The speed of light is as fast as you can travel
Let X = minimum unit of distance in the (discrete) universe

time = distance / speed
So
minimum unit of time = X / C

So if time is discrete, the unit of time / physical length of 'now' is truly microscopically small - the length of a biological 'now' would be enormous in comparison.