Truth is just truth. — Cidat

From John Keats:

"Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Cidat, is there Heaven on earth (can truth set you free)? Meditate on the meanings of truth; what does it mean to you... . Beauty and ugliness, metaphorically, what do they mean ? Could meaning be inside you?

In other words, when you say "truth is just truth", how sound is your conclusion.

the contrary, I think logic is the only way to understand emotions. We can't make empirical observations of their causes, so we can only use logic. — Metaphysician Undercover

MU!

Thanks for your reply. Would you happen to have any examples of how logic can help us explain the nature of emotional will?

Thank you kindly.

Psychology studies how people think; whereas, logic is concerned with how people should think, if they want to think rationally. — Sam26

Sam!

Can you think of example where people willfully do not want to think rationally? Are there any benefits to not thinking rationally?

Consider philosophical phenomenology. For example. If Martha loves Johnny, but Johnny is not logically a good choice for Martha, should she marry Johnny? Logically, what can Johnny change to make Martha convinced that he's a rational or reasonable choice?

Ok. I am subscribed, thanks! Good stuff!! Also, please share your thoughts on the exceptions to the law of excluded middle/bivalence; modus tollens, a priori, a posteriori, synthetic a priori, self-referential paradox, and other kinds of truth's using the logic of language, etc..

Too, you could consider making it pragmatic or lucid enough for the layperson (relevant to epistemology/ontology and/or the human condition). For instance, you can draw parallels and/or exceptions to abstract knowledge, as found in some forms of logic, and everydayness.

Just a few more thoughts...

Can we infer then, that emotions are not understood through the prism of logic?

No $hit Sherlock; your OP said basic logic. LOL

In a very rudimentary sense (practical or pragmatic way), one can think of logic this way: Being reasonable requires one to treat like cases likely; different cases differently. That simple axiom is used all the time in everydayness. Yet it is ignored or misused much of the time.

It's an age old problem for moral philosophy which Socrates demonstrated quite well in arguments against the sophists. We cannot say that virtue and morality are a type of knowledge, because people demonstrate over and over again, that despite knowing that they know it is wrong, they choose to do what they know is wrong. This means that the intellect cannot determine the will. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks MU!

That reminds me of the Christian metaphor (in Scripture) as paraphrased: My mind will's one thing; my flesh another.

(I believe emotion is will; it is not a intellectual concept. Our emotional needs cannot be learned from intellectual concepts.)

Hahaha, indeed Cici !!!

but a Unconscious mind only reacts to "emotions" . We have a developed a second , conscious mind in — Colin Cooper

Are you suggesting that emotions determine what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know? And would that square with the notion that the primitive limbic system somehow precedes the intellect?

This is the fact that a man can do what he knows is wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

MU!

Can you elucidate a bit more on that?

My interpretation of Will is that it is dumb, blind, emotive force that causes us to exist. In a humanistic existential context, it would be the Will to live and not commit suicide, for example. In other words as apposed to instinct, we have an intrinsic need to live and feel happy. In an ontological way, it is our need to be. We want to feel happy; it is our way of Being.

And in that sense, the OP question becomes, like Colin Cooper's post suggested, we don't learn emotions. Another example (from Colin's post) one could add to the mix of things, is the emotive feeling and phenomenon of listening to music. We don't learn the initial emotional experience when listening to same. Nor do we understand what biological advantages that has to our species. When we hear it, we like it; it feels good to us.

Emotions themselves are not concepts. Our will to listen to music (jazz, rock, country, classical, bebop) confers no biological advantages to our species. Same with Love. (Lower life forms utilize instinct and emergent properties genetically coded to procreate.) The will (and choice) to love someone, listen to music, or any (higher order) emotional phenomenon is an innate feature of higher consciousness.

What is the nature of this feeling to satisfy those existential needs, is my question to Streetlightx.

Great point (quite Existential I must say), subscribed!!!!

Very Schopenhaurian of you! :grin: — schopenhauer1

Indeed Scop1 :up:

And from a 'physics' view of the meta-physical, it would be known as the problem of 'informational energy' or emergence acting upon [all] matter produced from the sentient mind.

But indeed, the Will is quite a mysterious thing. Otherwise, animal instinct and other encoded/emergent properties is all that is necessary for sentient existence :snicker: .

LOL, as you were !

TMF!

If the subjective experience explains the nature of reality, what would explain the information acting [that acts] upon all matter (or emergent matter as it were)? In other words, how do we reconcile informational energy acting upon all matter within our consciousness(?).

I think that would be one of the missing pieces there, as it relates to your notion that the nature of reality (consciousness) is subjective.

Otherwise TMF, I agree with your Subjective Epistemological/Ontological Problem. This is the problem associated with “subjective” versus “objective” perspectives on being in the world. Of course the way to think about this is that subjective experiential consciousness is fully "contained" within the individual. This containment results in two important sub problems, which are mirror images of each other. The first is the problem of directly knowing another’s subjective experience—the problem being it cannot be done. This is the problem of: “How do I know that you see red the way I see red?” This problem also relates to our knowledge of consciousness in other animals, which we can only know indirectly. This is also related to the philosophical problem of zombies.

Indeed, all subjective experiences can only be inferred via behavior from an objective perspective. The second issue is the inversion of this problem. This is the problem that, as individuals, we are trapped in our subjective perceptual experience of the world. That is, the only way I can know about the world is through my subjective theater of experience.

StreetlightX!

Have you considered metaphysical Voluntarism? Meaning, the intellect is subordinate to the Will, hence:

St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know.

I myself fall into the Voluntarist camp. The Will and emotions come before intellect/your idea of concepts. The Will is an unconscious urge and/or innate energy force in consciousness and/or the universe.

What comes to mind is that Christian Existentialists want to disregard reason when it comes to faith. I can't make any sense of this idea. As far as I can see, this leads to nonsense. When you take the leap of faith, you may as well jump into the abyss. Throw out reason and you may as well throw out your brains. I'm using reason in the very broad sense, not just reason as it pertains to logic, but reason that is behind language and our experiences.

It seems as though Christian Existentialists want to throw up their hands because they can't answer certain questions. I contend that reason is what is needed to answer the questions, and if we can't get the answers, we keeping working at it, we don't give up (like the Christian Existentialists). — Sam26

AND:

I don't want to turn this into a thread on Existentialism, you keep wanting to go there. — Sam26

I think it was you--ahem--who raised the specter of Existentialism by the forgoing comments. And as such, you seemed interested (or at least opinionated) about same.

Again, just trying to help.

No, I'm saying that we may not understand all the reasons, but we may understand some of the reasons. — Sam26

Sure, and that would be existential.

Christian Existentialists, at least the ones I've read, are more about taking a leap of faith against reason, which is a religious move. — Sam26

I wouldn't say it is a "religious move" (or maybe elucidate some on your meaning there). Instead I would say taking a leap of Faith would involve not only the idea behind the Wager as it were, but also associating much of life's phenomena and conscious existence with a propose/Deity.

More specifically, the idea of sacrifice, in the form of death and resurrection (which is part of what you're exploring in the NDE), is beyond logical explanation, no? In other words, you are positing metaphysical forms of conscious states. Metaphysical phenomena. And if much of this transcends logic, what is wrong with that? Is the super natural logical? Is the 'religious experience' logical?

To embrace the illogical is your savior. To limit your self to logic is your... (?).

Otherwise, while inductive reasoning provides a very useful tool in processing the NDE phenomenon, aren't you essentially taking a leap of Faith in proposing your theories? And is that a bad thing?

Much of that is another reason why I suggested including a definition chapter to your book's beginning. A good example would be theoretical physicist Paul Davies book The Mind of God. The 1st chapter devotes lucid discussion to age-old "Reason and Belief" (from Aristotle/Plato to Hume/Kant), and the various meanings of same. Then he explores all the technical stuff that argues for a more plausible existence of purpose... .

Just trying to help.

...you think?

For example you said

We've come here for very important reasons, most of which we will not understand until we return to the place we come from. — Sam26

Are you saying that the reasons why we are here, are important, yet not understandable?

We've come here for very important reasons, most of which we will not understand until we return to the place we come from — Sam26

Sam!

Sounds very Existential to me, no? :chin:

As for time being a cause of change, I feel that change is a material phenomenon and time is immaterial and hence it's more plausible that time lacks causal power over the material domain. I liken spacetime to a theatrical stage on which all material phenomena occur and like the stage is causally inert. — TheMadFool

TMF!

And just to take a slight turn or detour here: I'm suggesting in a hierarchical fashion, something like:

cause--->change--->time (you questioned earlier in your OP about the beginning of Time)

In that matrix, it's possible they all could be abstract. In other words, depending upon how we think about them, they could all be immaterial and/or not observable. Kind of like the old debate between what is concrete v abstract.

As a common example, of course, through mathematics we define objects and other material phenomena in a purely abstract way. Similarly, there are many things that relate to the foregoing change that we can't really observe or see in a concrete way such as; air/oxygen, wind, heat, cold, calculating entropy, the entire universe, happiness, sadness, the will, etc.. And even still, but to a lessor degree, the theory of human change/evolution, is simply that, a theory. It's not something that is/was scientifically observable in a concrete way.

And so I'm thinking that if one wants to wonder about why or how (or what is) causation, change and time all came into being, those in themselves would be considered abstract (metaphysical) concepts. Maybe if one thinks about causation in an ontological way (the Will), I'm almost certain that that would lead to some sort of paradoxical happenstance (theories about consciousness).

Relative to the human condition, do you think cause, change and time, can be explained in a concrete ontological way (problem of universals/properties)? Maybe worth exploring in another thread... .

there's this intuition that time flies by even in a world without change. — TheMadFool

TMF! I would rather rephrase that by saying something like:

There's this causation (energy or force) that moves change through time.

Change, on the other hand, is, quite literally, chained to time for without time, there can be no change. — TheMadFool

And I've been suggesting the opposite (much like LePoidevin), that without change, there can be no sense or perception of Time.

Maybe the way to parse it would be the simple definitions first:

1. Change (Noun) : 1.the act or instance of making or becoming different.
2. Time (Noun) 1.the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
3. Causation (Noun): the act of causing something (the relationship between cause and effect).

Metaphysical questions: Can you observe change, or can you observe time? During such observations, which is more abstract and which is more concrete? And finally, did time cause change, or did change cause time?

The following will help with the intrigue (regarding my argument of Time subordinate to change) of the subject matter:

"Time is something different from events, we do not perceive time as such, but changes or events in time. " ---Robin Le Poidevin, Professor of Philosophy/Metaphysics at the University of Leeds

We therefore perceive time as the space or relation between occurrences of events (change).

You can see him here, I hope you enjoy!

https://www.closertotruth.com/series/whats-real-about-time#video-4604

1. Time's value: if I were an immortal being i.e. I am changeless, time would lose its value

Good point TMF! Also, said another way, if Time is more arbitrary than not (Relativity/time, paradoxical time zones, and other human constructs/perceptions of same) and Time is subordinate to change, then change seems to precede Time. Change seems to have special status or privilege over Time (change preceded the Big Bang).

Perhaps much like the idea of existence over essence, the existence of the physical/metaphysical/phenomenal world, in general, is either unknown or at best mysteriously paradoxical. Change and time seem synonymous with existence over essence. We don't understand the essence of things/the true nature of existing things. We only have existence to observe (we don't know the nature of those things).

For example, as an analogy, in understanding gravity, we observe a falling object first, then we figure out thru math how it works. And same with music; we can play/hear music first, then we figure out the structure of it (Time signatures, key signatures, syncopation, rhythm and so on). But we don't know how/why math and music exist.

And so another question becomes, like mathematical formulas/laws used in engineering and physics which abstractly describe & create things (along with music theory of course), how are time and change relative to each other? In other words, like math, does Time underlie the phenomenon of change, or does the phenomenon of change underlie Time? Which is more abstract? Which is more arbitrary?

Or like Music. Does the music itself come before music notation/written music and music theory, or does music theory come before the sound of music itself?

And with all of that said, this is yet another reason why your question about the beginning of Time itself, seems paradoxical and illusionary.

2. If the universe was changeless we wouldn't perceive the passage of time — TheMadFool

I agree!

To answer your questions I would need to start another thread. However, at this time, I'm not up for it, sorry. — Sam26

That's what I thought, LOL

TMF!

In your scenario, I think about the concept of change.

1. Change and Time: what is the nature of these things...whether it is the idea's of time zones, planck time, being and becoming, cosmology, etc., something had to change before time was created. Like the laws of thermodynamics, something was causing emergent properties to come into existence. That idea alone I think begs at least two questions; is change synonymous with time, and is time a human construct that arbitrarily measures same (AKA: the paradox of time zones).

When we talk about the beginning of time, I think it is just an arbitrary construct that creates an illusion. The concept of change is what should be considered.

2. Consciousness and Time: Can we remove time and change from our process of actual thinking itself(?). The answer of course is probably not. However, what if we thought that we could remove one of the three properties of time (past, present and future), what would that look like... . Our process of cognition (consciousness/subconsciousness) relies on past, present, and future input to process thought itself. For instance, you can't stop the present, otherwise you stop the future. And you can't stop the past because the present and future relies on the past. All three are dependent upon each other for their existence.

What comes to mind is that Christian Existentialists want to disregard reason when it comes to faith. I can't make any sense of this idea. As far as I can see, this leads to nonsense. When you take the leap of faith, you may as well jump into the abyss. Throw out reason and you may as well throw out your brains. I'm using reason in the very broad sense, not just reason as it pertains to logic, but reason that is behind language and our experiences.

It seems as though Christian Existentialists want to throw up their hands because they can't answer certain questions. I contend that reason is what is needed to answer the questions, and if we can't get the answers, we keeping working at it, we don't give up (like the Christian Existentialists). — Sam26

Sam!

Well, let's see where should I begin... :snicker: . Since you put that out there , of course I will ask for justification to support your assertions. But of course, relative to the human condition, the use of reason and the intellect is very useful in a practical or pragmatic sense, to say the least. However, unless you can explain the nature of your own conscious existence, your clinging to reason will not help you there, will it?

How much thinking will change that? Can you think your way out of brute mystery and/or the existential things in life? Can science save you?

Assuming you are a believer (perhaps you're a Fundy, not sure), was Jesus' resurrection logical, supernatural or something metaphysical and transcendent?

That's just a very minor sampling of the existential questions for you to think about... . If your salvation is in reason itself, you will have to explain all of existence to me. And whether it is the nature of consciousness, the nature of the Universe/Cosmology and all its phenomena, or the nature of Love and the human condition (Ecclesiastes), I challenge you to provide logical explanation to all of it!

(You may start another thread if you care to...and no pun intended, but I would love to debate you on these things; the nature of existence!)

We can (and do) think about the past and the future, but we are always and only thinking at the present. — aletheist

I will ask you again, in order to support your claim, explain how the conscious mind does not involuntarily use Time ( past present and future) in order to express/convey/verbalize logic and intellect.

Most of us are pretty confident in our preexisting opinions, and my observation over the years is that persuasion otherwise is extremely rare. — aletheist

Two things seem to be emerging:

1. Does that mean you are unable to engage in discourse?
2. Are you unable to answer my questions because you simply can't support your arguments? In other words, are you acquiescing by your silence?

can do is point out once more what should be quite obvious: We are never thinking in the past or in the future, only in the present. Put another way, the temporal present always directly corresponds to whatever is present to the mind. — aletheist

I will challenge you to support your claim. Explain how the conscious mind does not involuntarily use Time ( past present and future) in order to express/convey/verbalize logic and intellect.

The thread title is "The Reality of Time," and the OP directly rebuts McTaggart's claim that time is unreal. — aletheist

Of course. Unless I'm mistaken I don't believe you were successful in making your case. ( From what I read, the majority did not agree with you--myself included.)

Be well!

Oh, I apologize for the redundancy. I did take the opportunity to do a cursory read of your previous OP and couldn't find where you were able to reach any consensus on your arguments. (Were you able to determine whether time was an illusion or a reality?)

Please notice: I did not say that time is only present, I said that all thinking takes place in the present. Those are two completely different statements, and you are misinterpreting the latter if you believe that it entails the former. — aletheist

Can you elucidate a bit more on that aletheist? I think you draw an interesting distinction, however, you may need to give some more thought and/or examples of the point you're trying to make.

Just sayin

And yet what followed was the same incoherent mess that you keep repeating. If I could not make heads or tails of it the first three times, what makes you think that it will magically make sense to me the fourth time? I asked for two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it that are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then we have nothing further to discuss. — aletheist

Where have I ever said that time is only present? Please use the quote function.

altheist said: "...all thinking takes place in the present..." .

So, if all this makes no sense to you then, I agree, we will agree to disagree. I'm not sure what else I can say other than repeating myself. Accordingly, this may or may not help you (otherwise, thanks for the opportunity to engage):

Bare assertion. How is time paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence? What two (or more) specific propositions about time as I have outlined it are either apparently or actually inconsistent with each other? — aletheist

Let's take one at a time (no pun intended):

And by maintaining the OP/paradox, if we are saying that the past, present and future all consist of Time itself, is that not somehow a contradiction?

For example:

1. Time is both present and not present.
2. Time is both past and not past.
3. Time is both future and not future.
4. For me to simply cognize or think (i.e., the act of thinking itself about items 1thru 3), it requires perception of all three at the same Time.

Are those propositions sound? If they are true, then the infamous apple can't be red and not red at the same time (bivalence/vagueness/law of non-contradiction). It has to be either true that its color is red, or false that it is red. The properties of Time then, can't be exclusively one or another. It is vague. It is a mottled color of red. It transcends the principle of bivalence, correct?"

altheist, we agree that Time is continuous, but when you try to make it mutually exclusive to one or the other (past , present, future) is where you encounter the illogical phenomenon and/or paradox. And you tried to make it that by saying Time is only present... .

Rather than repeating a blizzard of words, please summarize in one sentence what you find paradoxical or contradictory about time as I have outlined it. — aletheist

Well, I tried to be helpful. You seem unable to address my argument. If you wish, I will abide by your request: Time is paradoxical and/or contradictory viz conscious existence. Surely that's not going to help you, does it? If not, pass go, and repeat step one (read my explanation-or your interpretation of my 'blizzard of words')… .

How so? Again, all thinking takes place in the present. It indeed requires time, but that is why the present must be an indefinite lapse rather than a duration-less instant. — aletheist

Be careful not to dichotomize. It's not an all or nothing campaign here. Yes, I agree some so-called phenomenal features of consciousness occur in a nanosecond. However, a complete thought, using logic, would take longer, even much longer depending on the context. Otherwise, an interesting factoid here:

I have no idea what you mean by "remove one component of Time — aletheist

Excuse me? Now, you had said "all thinking takes place in the present". Yet you are saying Time is "continuous..." , so which is it? I'm asking you to remove, in your case, either the past or future, from the concept of Time itself, in order to see what that would look like. Get it?

Concrete things. — aletheist

What are concrete things relative to the discussion of Time?

Possessing vs. not possessing an abstract quality or relation. — aletheist

But, as you say ( and I agree) if Time is continuous, then are we possessing and not possessing abstract relations/qualities at the same Time?

No, why do you keep saying that? Please specify the alleged paradox or contradiction. — aletheist

"And by maintaining the OP/paradox, if we are saying that the past, present and future all consist of Time itself, is that not somehow a contradiction?

For example:

1. Time is both present and not present.
2. Time is both past and not past.
3. Time is both future and not future.
4. For me to simply cognize or think (i.e., the act of thinking itself about items 1thru 3), it requires perception of all three at the same Time.

Are those propositions sound? If they are true, then the infamous apple can't be red and not red at the same time (bivalence/vagueness/law of non-contradiction). It has to be either true that its color is red, or false that it is red. The properties of Time then, can't be exclusively one or another. It is vague. It is a mottled color of red. It transcends the principle of bivalence, correct?"

Nonsense, all thinking (cognition) takes place in the present. — aletheist

Really? Thinking requires Time (past, present, and future) in order to perform cognition/consciousness. Otherwise, explain how you can remove one component of Time, and still cognize properly, about any thing?

Who said that anticipation is volitional? Most anticipation is involuntary, which is why surprises have such a forceful effect. — aletheist

Not according to most dictionaries, hence:
Anticipation: The act of expecting or foreseeing something; expectation or presentiment.

The only exception I know of would relate to subconsciousness.

You already quoted my answer: "a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can and do receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time." — aletheist

1. Who is "they"? The laws of Time itself? Who wrote the laws?
2. "Contrary determinations" are what phenomena? Are they logical?

No, again, time is not a concrete thing and past/present/future are not abstract qualities or relations that we predicate of it. It is a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can (and do) receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time. All our perception is of the present, and all our knowledge is of the past, while we can only anticipate the future. — aletheist

Okay, let me try to understand you. You are saying that Time is " a real law that governs concrete things, such that they can and do receive contrary determinations at different determinations of time."

You seem to saying that Time is then paradoxical or somehow contradictory, no?

Also, when you said " All our perception is of the present, and all our knowledge is of the past, while we can only anticipate the future".

That would be incorrect. When we think of a thing (cognize), it requires the future. It requires the phenomenon of Time itself. How do you reconcile that against your "anticipation"?

In other words, what do you mean by the act of anticipation? Thinking itself, does not require any volitional act of "anticipation". Thinking can also be involuntary. In cognitive science, it is known as the stream of consciousness. Otherwise, in the context which we are discussing, to think about a thing by choice, does not involve any conscious anticipation or sense of wonder.

Again, please explain whether Time is paradoxical or somehow contradictory (or specifically address my previous questions). I'm not exactly following you aletheist. It doesn't square with your notion that " time is not concrete...are not abstract qualities... ."

So in your view, if Time is neither concrete or abstract, what is it?? An unexplained phenomenon, a metaphysical construct, something beyond logic... ?

Instead, time is truly continuous, and past/present/future are its three general determinations at which different states of things are realized.


...And? aletheist, were you able to answer my questions, through the lens of propositional logic?

I mean, I agree with you that it is continuous. But can we agree that it is either paradoxical or somehow contradictory (does it transcend logic)?

No, but that has no bearing on whether time logically could have had a beginning.

Agreed. And I understand the other point you and TMF are arguing. But it is an intriguing answer nonetheless. And by maintaining the OP/paradox, if we are saying that the past, present and future all consist of Time itself, is that not somehow a contradiction?

For example:

1. Time is both present and not present.
2. Time is both past and not past.
3. Time is both future and not future.
4. For me to simply cognize or think (i.e., the act of thinking itself about items 1thru 3), it requires perception of all three at the same Time.

Are those propositions sound? If they are true, then the infamous apple can't be red and not red at the same time (bivalence/vagueness/law of non-contradiction). It has to be either true that its color is red, or false that it is red. The properties of Time then, can't be exclusively one or another. It is vague. It is a mottled color of red. It transcends the principle of bivalence, correct?

Maybe the question is more relative to consciousness and Time, and the paradox of same.

We had this discussion already, in the thread that I just linked. — aletheist

And in a succinct fashion, what was your answer, again? The reason I ask to re-visit that so-called phenomena (relative to time) is because both TMF and I are suggesting that there are contradictions associated with same.

But more specifically, your answer in the other thread you linked I believe, was in a different context, no?

So I'll restate the question: can you remove the past, present, and future from the concept of Time itself? (And if you could, what would that look like?)

When you consider that the present marks the division between past and future, you'll see that it marks the end of one, and the beginning of the other. It doesn't make sense to talk about future and past without a present, but it does makes sense to talk about a future without a past, and a past without a future. Before a person is born, they have a future with no past, and when a person dies they have a past but no future. So, we can talk about the future, or the past, in exclusion of the other, but we cannot talk about the present without implying both future and past. — Metaphysician Undercover

If it is true that past, present, and future are required to cognize reality, how does that square with the law of non-contradiction?

In other words, all three comprise the idea of Time. It seems that taking any one out of the equation precludes cognition, no?

And so, could time be another illogical form of existence?

Perhaps another paradoxical way of looking at time is in a pragmatic sense viz. ex nihilo. We need the past and future in order to cognize and exist.

For example, when I think of a thing existing, that thing must have had a past at one time, because it exists. And while I'm doing the actual thinking about that existing thing, I need the future for me to cognize about its existence. That cognizing then required future time for that thing to even come into existence, in my mind. Thinking requires time.

And so we really don't need the present. We need the past and future to make things exist.

Otherwise, the brute mystery that relates to the Time paradox involves change. If time started with the Big Bang, did change exist before time?

Good stuff TMF!

:up: 180, Danke Schon!

“God is the name we give to the science we don't understand. Science is the name we give to the God we don't understand.”
― Steve Maraboli, Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience