Also, i make a strong connection between what the Greeks called the Logos to the Tao. I believe they were trying to explain the same thing, but in different cultural contexts. The concept of mathematical zero was quite foreign to both cultures, and they did not have this knowledge to give them further insight. I sometimes wonder how these sages and philosophers would reassess their thoughts on this matter if they were to be transported to our present time and presented with what we know today.

To name is to divide or distinguish one thing from an other. Zhuangzi's Cook Ting (Ding) divides the ox along its natural joints. To divide things in a way that is contrary to their natural divisions is to force things. The proper division of things requires knowing the natural patterns and organization of things. Knowing what belongs together, what is a part of some larger thing as well as what is separable toward some end or purpose.

He says:

At the beginning, when I first began carving up oxen, all I could see was the whole carcass.
After three years I could no longer see the carcass whole ...

It is because he had been dividing oxen for three years that he no longer see the carcass as an undifferentiated whole. He saw that it is made up of parts. He say now:

I follow the natural form slicing the major joints I guide the knife through the big hollows ...

The ability to guide his knife takes skill developed through practice. But this is not the difference between him and a good cook:

What your servant loves, my lord, is the Dao, and that is a step beyond skill.

Going beyond skill does not mean to bypass skill. The cultivation of skill is an essential step in the effort to develop effortless action or wu -wei

We should not overlook the fact that this and other examples are about ordinary people doing ordinary practical things. As King Hue says in response:

Excellent.“I have heard the words of Cook Ding and learned how to nourish life!”

To name is to divine or distinguish one thing from an other. Zhuangzi's Cook Ting (Ding) divides the ox along its natural joints. To divide things in a way that is contrary to their natural divisions is to force things. The proper division of things requires knowing the natural patterns and organization of things. Knowing what belongs together, what is a part of some larger thing as well as what is separable toward some end or purpose.

He says:

At the beginning, when I first began carving up oxen, all I could see was the whole carcass.
After three years I could no longer see the carcass whole ...


It is because he had been dividing oxen for three years that he no longer see the carcass as an undifferentiated whole. He saw that it is made up of parts. He say now:

I follow the natural form slicing the major joints I guide the knife through the big hollows ... — Fooloso4

This reminds me of the verse in the Bible:
Hebrews 4:12 - "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

Also, i make a strong connection between what the Greeks called the Logos to the Tao. I believe they were trying to explain the same thing, but in different cultural contexts. The concept of mathematical zero was quite foreign to both cultures, and they did not have this knowledge to give them further insight. I sometimes wonder how these sages and philosophers would reassess their thoughts on this matter if they were to be transported to our present time and presented with what we know today.

The word of God obviously in reference to the Logos.

I can imagine some metaphysicians complaining that my approach is disgracefully messy and unprincipled. Even if the charge of arbitrariness can be defused, case by case, by appeal to a hodge-podge of different phenomena, the conservative treatment of ordinary and extraordinary objects evidently isn’t going to conform to any neat and tidy principles. So whatever conservatives are doing, they surely aren’t carving at the joints.
I would remind these metaphysicians of the story of Cook Ting, who offers the following account of his success as a butcher:

I go along with the natural makeup . . . and follow things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint . . . However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I’m doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest subtlety.

Some cooks are going to view Cook Ting’s approach with suspicion, as they watch him slowly working his knife through some unlikely part of the ox, carving oxen one way and turkeys a completely different way, even carving some oxen differently from other oxen. They’ll see his technique as messy and unprincipled, hardly an example of carving the beasts at their joints. But from Cook Ting’s perspective, it is these other cooks, the ones who would treat all animals alike, who are in the wrong. They aren’t carving at the joints. They’re hacking through the bones. — Daniel Z. Korman

I don't see space, time, and energy as metaphysical entities. They are observable, measurable, and quantifiable. I agree causality is metaphysical. I'm not sure about information. — T Clark

How does one measure a single 0-dimensional point inside a non-zero dimensional space? It cannot be measured because measurement requires a beginning and an end point. It cannot be done with a single point. How does one measure one instance of time? It cannot be done for the same reason; one needs two instances to measure the time interval between them. For anything to be measurable and quantifiable, it must have a beginning and end point of measurement.

As 3-dimensional beings, 2-, 1-, and 0-dimensional objects are unobservable to us, but does that mean they do not exist? Of course not, because our 3-dimensional existence depends on the lower dimensions. So 3-dimensional objects are physical (observable, tangible, and measurable within a 3D manifold), while objects made of fewer than 3 dimensions are, to us, metaphysical because we cannot interact directly with those dimensions. No one has ever seen any object that is not 3-dimensional.

Objects that are hyperdimensional (hypothetically above 3 spatial dimensions) are partly observable to us. We would only be able to interact with a 3-dimensional cross-section of that object while its other higher-dimensional aspects are hidden from our 3D perception. Consider also the perspective of a Flatlander (a hypothetical two-dimensional being) and what they would consider physical or metaphysical in respect to these dimensions.

I don't want to stray too far from the original poster's intended subject, but i just wanted to clarify my perspective on the relation between metaphysical and physical, since you and i have different notions about it. Also, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone about anything. My project is personal and for my own understanding. Since my methodology is quite different, to varying degrees, from how most people think about these things, i always assume from the very get-go that my perspective is significantly different from almost everyone's. If we really agreed on everything, then we wouldn't really have anything to talk about... don't you think? :smile:

I agree causality is metaphysical. I'm not sure about information. — T Clark

Information is interesting in this regard because it needs "physicality" in order to instantiate itself, yet it can be transferred from one physical substrate to another, and so it is not tied to any one physical substance. Consider that the information that makes you who you are remains mostly the same over long periods of time, even though the turnover rate of your cells that contain that information is relatively high in relation to how long your information pattern remains. The information that makes you who you are is distinct from the actual matter that you are made of. Information has the quality of spirit in this regard, and in this sense can be considered both physical and metaphysical simultaneously. Energy has a similar quality as well.

Geez Louise, you're getting way ahead of me. Give me a chance to catch up.

If the Tao is supposed to be the origin of all things, then how is the quantum vacuum not at least in some way the Tao? What is it about the quantum vacuum that tells you it is not the Tao? What feature of the Tao is missing in the quantum vacuum in your view? — punos

I'll say what I always say - the Tao is metaphysics. I'm an admirer of R.G. Collingwood who said that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions - the underlying assumptions, usually unspoken and unconscious, that underly our understanding of reality. Absolute presuppositions are not true or false - they have no truth value.

The ancient Taoists had no idea of the way we name things here in the future, so they gave it their own name: the Tao. They had no access to the knowledge we have today and were limited in that respect. Part of my project is to update the Taoist perspective with what is known about nature in our present time. It is great to understand the Taoists on their own terms, from their own time, but what good will it do to simply reiterate what they said today in the same way they said or meant it back then? — punos

I see Taoist principles as useful perspectives on how to think about the world. Why would that change? What would progress even mean? What new language would be required to grasp it? I am an engineer with a pragmatic approach to philosophy. Taoism as expressed in the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu provide a solid and profound foundation for my views.

If something is not the Tao, then what is it, what could it be instead? — punos

One of the 10,000 things.

I guess one can put it in those terms. The world that comes into existence by naming is the world in our own minds, the world of culture or in the world of the "King". — punos

This is similar to how I see it.

When a baby is born and has opened its eyes for the first time it does not see things, it just sees a buzzing confusion, but as soon as the child learns to connect a word or a name to a thing, then it is able to bring that thing into its own world view, and by doing this the child enters or becomes a citizen of the human condition, the world of culture, the "King". — punos

I don't think this is accurate from a psychological and neurological perspective. Babies are not blank slates. They bring their own perspectives and capacities into the world with them. Konrad Lorenz wrote that human brains and minds are formed by natural selection to interact effectively with the world they will live in. Here's a link to an article he wrote I really like -

https://archive.org/details/KantsDoctrineOfTheAPrioriInTheLightOfContemporaryBiologyKonradLorenz

For me the term "name" symbolizes pattern. A thing is its pattern, and things with different patterns are assigned other patterns that we call names. — punos

This is similar to how I see it.

Also, i make a strong connection between what the Greeks called the Logos to the Tao. I believe they were trying to explain the same thing, but in different cultural contexts. — punos

I don't know enough about Greek philosophy to comment on this specifically, but the basic idea of an unnamable reality underlying our everyday world is common to many philosophies, e.g. I see Kant's noumena as analogous to the Tao.

How does one measure a single 0-dimensional point inside a non-zero dimensional space? It cannot be measured because measurement requires a beginning and an end point. It cannot be done with a single point. How does one measure one instance of time? It cannot be done for the same reason; one needs two instances to measure the time interval between them. For anything to be measurable and quantifiable, it must have a beginning and end point of measurement. — punos

I don't understand how this is relevant. Scientists hypothesize physical dark matter based on requirements of theories of gravitation even though it's never been measured. I can know that a question will have a true or false answer even if I don't know what it is yet.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone about anything...If we really agreed on everything, then we wouldn't really have anything to talk about... don't you think? — punos

I left my response to this from my previous post.

I don't need people to agree with me about my views, but I need to test whether I really understand, even believe, what seems right to me. I also find that hearing other people's ideas and their responses to my statements helps me clarify, and sometimes even change, how I see things.

Information has the quality of spirit in this regard, and in this sense can be considered both physical and metaphysical simultaneously. Energy has a similar quality as well. — punos

I don't know whether or not I agree with you about information. I'll think about it. I definitely don't agree with you about energy.

To name is to divine or distinguish one thing from an other. Zhuangzi's Cook Ting (Ding) divides the ox along its natural joints. To divide things in a way that is contrary to their natural divisions is to force things. The proper division of things requires knowing the natural patterns and organization of things. Knowing what belongs together, what is a part of some larger thing as well as what is separable toward some end or purpose. — Fooloso4

I wonder if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that process of carving the ox is analogous to the process of the Tao bringing the 10,000 things into existence. I've never thought of it that way before, but it's an interesting take. I'll think about it more.

Geez Louise, you're getting way ahead of me. Give me a chance to catch up. — T Clark

Apologies..

I'll say what I always say - the Tao is metaphysics. I'm an admirer of R.G. Collingwood who said that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions - the underlying assumptions, usually unspoken and unconscious, that underly our understanding of reality. Absolute presuppositions are not true or false - they have no truth value. — T Clark

Ah, interesting. I've not heard of R.G. Collingwood, and i'm not sure if i understand what not having a truth value means in this context. I shall do some homework, and familiarize myself with his ideas. Thank you.

I see Taoist principles as useful perspectives on how to think about the world. Why would that change? — T Clark

It shouldn't not change, and i do as well. Because i take Taoist principles to heart i use those principles to understand my world better as well, and that includes my understanding of science and other fields. I can use these principles to help know how to act in the world, how to relate to myself in my thoughts and emotions, and to others, but i can not help recognizing these Taoist principles in other areas like physics, and particularly quantum physics. In fact it was what i've learned about science and physics that gave me what i consider insights into the Tao, and to further elaborate what the ancients were apprehending.

If something is not the Tao, then what is it, what could it be instead? — punos


One of the 10,000 things. — T Clark

Yes, but what is a thing really in relation to the Tao, such that things should come from it? Are things made of the Tao, or are they made of something else that did not originate in the Tao? I'm a monist, and thus i believe that whatever things are, they are made of one "thing" or, more precisely, one "non-thing".

One of the ways i conceive of the 10,000 things coming from the Tao goes something like this:

The Tao can, in part, be conceived as the mathematical value (or non-value/non-thing/nothing) of 0 (zero). This zero has an infinite potential to manifest things out of it we call numbers, which is really another word for "name". Zero can be decomposed into two opposing values such as -1 and +1 which, when recombined, return to a 0 value (from nothing, to something, back to nothing). The interesting thing is that even though this zero was decomposed into two numbers, the zero that manifested these two numbers is still there as zero along with the two values. The result is not just (-1) and (+1), but the original 0 remains unchanged. This can happen indefinitely; this one zero can continue to produce number and anti-number pairs. This is also the kind of thing that happens with the quantum, or false vacuum at the very foundation of our universe.

Now imagine an infinite field of these 0s. The sum result of all the zeros and all the manifest numbers equals exactly zero. This is why there are conservation laws. So it produces values, but as a whole, there is no value to the field. Nothing is taken away, and nothing is added, and yet it grows in complexity. Furthermore, these numbers can combine such that a (+1) and a (+1) can produce the value of (+2), a (+2) with a (+1) yields a (+3), and a (+2) and a (+2) yield a (+4). In this way, all 10,000 things come about. In the end, all things are parts of the Tao or the Great Zero, but because values come in opposing pairs, the Tao remains unbroken, and perfectly balanced.

I definitely don't agree with you about energy. — T Clark

Energy is the source of causality, which you characterized as metaphysical, but it doesn't matter. If it doesn't make sense to you then do not accept it, until it does.

I don't need people to agree with me about my views, but I need to test whether I really understand, even believe, what seems right to me. I also find that hearing other people's ideas and their responses to my statements helps me clarify, and sometimes even change, how I see things. — T Clark

Best way to go about it in my opinion as well.

If something is not the Tao, then what is it, what could it be instead?
—

One of the 10,000 things. — T Clark

Yah, everything conditioning those of us born into human history is not the Tao. To borrow from Zen, the Tao is your original face, the face you had before you were born.

Zero can be decomposed into two opposing values such as -1 and +1 which, when recombined, return to a 0 value (from nothing, to something, back to nothing). The interesting thing is that even though this zero was decomposed into two numbers, the zero that manifested these two numbers is still there as zero along with the two values. The result is not just (-1) and (+1), but the original 0 remains unchanged. — punos

Or… similar?

The Math

0/0 = n (all variations), since any n times 0 = 0,
So, 0/0 is as nonexistence divided by itself
Into all of the various relative states;

Zero is the greatest number, for it represents
The sum of negative and positive infinities.
Note that an actual infinity cannot be,
For it cannot be capped, and thus has no being.

Talking to the Lama who lives near me…

I said to the Great Lama, “I’ve heard that this world isn’t really real, for it is an illusion, that we shouldn’t worry about the rain or about life’s tribulations.”

“That’s what we believe. Tell me, does that work?”

“Well, um, does not life’s existence look, seem, and act just the way it would, in every detail, as if it were really real?”

“Yes, indeed. Exactly. That’s what they say makes for the greatest illusion of all.”

“I hate to say this, but a ‘difference’ that makes no difference Is no difference. If I use an mp3 player the music is still the message, regardless of the messenger, the implementation.”

“I think you’re onto something. I get the message!”

The Zero-Point of creation-annihilation
Is extended into a faux reality.

Our parentheses in eternity
Flashes as a twinkling, but’s extended
By ‘time’ into a phantasmic life dream
That’s ‘existent' the same as if it were.

A life dream’s like a rainbow, not really there,
A false phenomenon become tangible
As temporary, this faux true,
Molding transient significance.
In the Eye of the Beholder.

How does one measure a single 0-dimensional point inside a non-zero dimensional space? It cannot be measured because measurement requires a beginning and an end point. It cannot be done with a single point. How does one measure one instance of time? It cannot be done for the same reason; one needs two instances to measure the time interval between them. For anything to be measurable and quantifiable, it must have a beginning and end point of measurement. — punos


I don't understand how this is relevant. Scientists hypothesize physical dark matter based on requirements of theories of gravitation even though it's never been measured. I can know that a question will have a true or false answer even if I don't know what it is yet. — T Clark

I'm just saying that some things can't be measured, and yet are true, because they must be in order to observe other higher-level phenomena that are dependent on unmeasurables. And of course, some things, on the other hand, can be measured. What is measurable is always connected fundamentally to what is not measurable. This is i believe the difference between physical and metaphysical?

Whatever scientists did to hypothesize dark matter is, in my view, the same as what the old Taoist sages did to hypothesize the Tao. Neither have been measured directly, and the gravitational effects attributed to dark matter may be something else. Our theory of gravitation may be flawed in some way, making it seem as though there is some other kind of matter that we can't see or measure directly. Some people i suppose may then consider dark matter a metaphysical concept for this reason. Dark energy certainly appears to be metaphysical as well. In the same way that our theory of gravitation may be very useful and mostly correct, it can also be incomplete and yield false artifacts, such as the concept of dark matter potentially.

I'm sorry if I'm not making sense, but some of this stuff is pretty abstract to express concretely, and some of our definitions don't appear to be nicely aligned.

I'm a monist, and thus i believe that whatever things are, they are made of one "thing" or, more precisely, one "non-thing". — punos

Perhaps shorten this to "I'm a monist, and thus i believe that whatever things are, they are made of one "thing", for the Tao would be the only fact, as you said, ever identical to itself, as the only real thing, whereas the temporaries from it are never identical to themselves over time, but are semblances, such as the sun burning its fuel, but remaining as a sun semblance to us.

It appears to some, not us though, that the world consists of parts that have continued from a moment ago, and thus retain their identity in time; yet, they don’t.

i take Taoist principles to heart i use those principles to understand my world better as well, and that includes my understanding of science and other fields. — punos

I need to know whether time is linear, as in Presentism, or if there is an all-at-once block-universe, as in Eternalism. No one yet seems to know, since both modes of time would appear the same to us. I'm stuck having to always figure out things two ways.

Perhaps shorten this to "I'm a monist, and thus i believe that whatever things are, they are made of one "thing", for the Tao would be the only fact, as you said, ever identical to itself, as the only real thing, whereas the temporaries from it are never identical to themselves over time, but are semblances, such as the sun burning its fuel, but remaining as a sun semblance to us. — PoeticUniverse

Sounds good to me.

Change is the only constant. It is only the Tao that changes without changing. The constancy of change is what remains unchanging and thus constant throughout time. Or something like that.. :smile:

What feature of the Tao is missing in the quantum vacuum in your view? — punos

The concept "quantum vacuum." That's the fearure you won't find in the Tao.

Sorry, you could probably run circles around me regarding quantum vacuum. And conceptually, you probably make an intriguing and useful point.

I just think Taoism is an attempt to remind us that while we produce concepts, no matter how genius and functional, we can reduce/alleviate our universal anxiety by simply being aware that we are just producing concepts. It's like we can play football and take it as seriously as we want, even with complete determination to win, and so on, but if we forget we're just playing a game, we risk all of the suffering associated with winning/losing.

It's the same with these discussions. I'm prepared to entertain a Hypothesis that Taoism influenced Cha'an, or was a reaction against Confucianism, or that Taoism contemplates the quantum vacuum (which I'm certainly not instructed enough to even chime in on). And I acknowledge these hypotheses can be very fruitful etc. But ultimately, they're all ironically adding to the layers of dirt under which we've buried the so called Tao.

I don't mean to spoil the fun, or purport to criticize the genius of the connections being drawn.

I'll bow out.

Change is the only constant. It is only the Tao that changes without changing. The constancy of change is what remains unchanging and thus constant throughout time. — punos

In what we can now get at through science, it would be the quantum fields that naturally arrange into quanta.

I need to know whether time is linear, as in Presentism, or if there is an all-at-once block-universe, as in Eternalism. No one yet seems to know, since both modes of time would appear the same to us. I'm stuck having to always figure out things two ways. — PoeticUniverse

I definitely do not believe in the all-at-once block universe, except to say that each time step happens throughout the entire spatial universe all at once. I do believe in Presentism, but depending on how one defines Presentism, i would need to qualify some aspects of it in my personal view.

In my view, time acts on the whole of the universe simultaneously, but there are no past or future copies of the universe in different time states. I believe that change occurs in space, and the state of space changes or evolves as time progresses. The state space of the universe is, in a sense, copied, processed, and reinstantiated in the same space once every Planck time. Any information that is not reinstantiated is considered lost forever, except that space acts as a memory that holds the change caused by time. If there were no space, and only time existed, then any potential change of any kind would be lost at the next time step, or simply impossible.

If the universe were a computer system, then space would be its memory, time would be its processor, and the Tao or Logos would be its internal logic (the Way it operates). These three things are absolutely necessary for anything to even happen in a computer or in the universe. These three things are also the basic requirements for a mind, and thus i consider the universe a kind of computational mind. The way a computer's memory changes as the processor operates upon it is the same way i believe time works in our universe.

I definitely do not believe in the all-at-once block universe — punos

I don't either, as per the Presentism advanced by Lee Smolin.

I'm glad you're on the forum: you have a lot to offer!

From my notes looking into the two modes of time, only to note that both seem to have some problems left to work out:

Bolstering Eternalism by diminishing the alternative of Presentism:

There are damning problems with the scheme of Presentism as a sequence of nows with the past not kept and the future not yet existing, the first problem being its unrelenting besiegement by Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity.

Second, the turning of a ‘now’ into the next ‘now’ sits on the thinnest knife edge imaginable, the previous ‘now’ wholly consumed in the making of the new ‘now’ all over the universe at once in a dynamical updating—the present now exhausting all reality. The incredibly short Planck time could be the processing time.

Third, what is going to exist or was existent, as the presentist must refer to as ‘to be’ or ‘has been’ is indicated as coming or going and is thus inherent in the totality of what is, and so Presentism has no true ‘nonexistence’ of the future and the past—which means that there is no contrast between a real future and an unreal future, for what is real or exists can have no opposite to form a contrast class.


The Con to the Timeless: (from Gisin)

In a predetermined world in which time only seems to unfold, exactly what will happen for all time actually had to be set from the start, with the initial state of every single particle encoded with infinitely many digits of precision. Otherwise there would be a time in the far future when the clockwork universe itself would break down.

But information is physical. Modern research shows that it requires energy and occupies space. Any volume of space is known to have a finite information capacity (with the densest possible information storage happening inside black holes). The universe’s initial conditions would require far too much information crammed into too little space. A real number with infinite digits can’t be physically relevant. The block universe, which implicitly assumes the existence of infinite information, must fall apart.

I just think Taoism is an attempt to remind us that while we produce concepts, no matter how genius and functional, we can reduce/alleviate our universal anxiety by simply being aware that we are just producing concepts. — ENOAH

It's like we can play football and take it as seriously as we want, even with complete determination to win, and so on, but if we forget we're just playing a game, we risk all of the suffering associated with winning/losing. — ENOAH

A Taoist perspective is, in my opinion, a suitable and excellent worldview to alleviate existential anxiety as you say, but it could be much more. I personally do not suffer from this kind of anxiety, and so I push its utility into other areas, which i find very insightful when I do.

Since I was a teenager, i've thought about the world almost exactly as a game. It's part of the reason why i don't play video games, because i believe i'm already in one - the greatest game ever created, the game of games. Even though i know it's all a game or a simulation of sorts, i still like to take it seriously every once in a while, because it makes it more fun. Try to play a game with no stakes, and you'll get bored in short order. In the end... nothing gained, and nothing lost, back to zero... the Tao.

Even though i know it's all a game or a simulation of sorts, i still like to take it seriously every once in a while, because it makes it more fun. — punos

:up:

I'm glad you're on the forum: you have a lot to offer! — PoeticUniverse

I'm glad i can talk to intelligent people as yourself about these heavy ideas. I don't have many people in my life i can talk to about these things. So.. thank you very much. :smile:

There are damning problems with the scheme of Presentism as a sequence of nows with the past not kept and the future not yet existing, the first problem being its unrelenting besiegement by Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity. — PoeticUniverse

I think this is a perceptual phenomenon, which is why it's called relativity. There is no relativity in the universe when it comes to the actual local occurrence of events. The difference arises because the speed of light, which carries information about events that happened at a certain distance, can result in that information arriving at different times for observers in different spatial locations or moving frames of reference. Time is occurring at essentially the same rate everywhere in the universe, but the time it takes for information to reach different places varies for different observers, and is thus relative. This is the essence of what "relative" means in this context.

Second, the turning of a ‘now’ into the next ‘now’ sits on the thinnest knife edge imaginable, the previous ‘now’ wholly consumed in the making of the new ‘now’ all over the universe at once in a dynamical updating—the present now exhausting all reality. The incredibly short Planck time could be the processing time. — PoeticUniverse

I believe the entirety of the universe is updated once every Planck time, but please explain what you believe the problem is with this concept.

Third, what is going to exist or was existent, as the presentist must refer to as ‘to be’ or ‘has been’ is indicated as coming or going and is thus inherent in the totality of what is, and so Presentism has no true ‘nonexistence’ of the future and the past—which means that there is no contrast between a real future and an unreal future, for what is real or exists can have no opposite to form a contrast class. — PoeticUniverse

What has been is contained in the present as memory (space), and what will be is contained in the potential of the present state of space, determined by the memory of the past. The future does not exist, but its determinants do exist in the present. So, in essence, this is how i define the past and present in my own understanding. Does this address the issue you raised?

Because i take Taoist principles to heart i use those principles to understand my world better as well, and that includes my understanding of science and other fields. I can use these principles to help know how to act in the world, how to relate to myself in my thoughts and emotions, and to others, but i can not help recognizing these Taoist principles in other areas like physics, and particularly quantum physics. In fact it was what i've learned about science and physics that gave me what i consider insights into the Tao, and to further elaborate what the ancients were apprehending. — punos

I actually agree with much of this, although I suspect I mean something different by it than you do.