The Extremis of Rationality

[Mudhammam]

There must be more than one paragraph but I'll be damned if I can sort them out.

I think there should be a law/requirement that posts of over five lines should be re-written so that there be at least two paragraphs.

When I see a long "paragraph" like this one I just skip to the follow up posts to find out what the heck the OP? is up to.

Don't ever pick up a book if you think a few dozen lines of text is intimidating...

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

Is this just how you talk? Dude, I envy you.

[Whateverist]

My contention is that time cannot be conceived as non-existent; its becoming - as in any concept of creation - precludes change, which is all I understand time to be. And consequently, the notion of eternal becoming - some intermediate state between non-existence and existence - is no less nonsensical, though admittedly that's more or less what the "present" is: an instant that ceases to exist (as it immediately dissolves into past time) at the very instant it arrives (from an actually non-existent but potentially existent future). 

Not sure if you're still following this, Nestor, but I missed this thread first time around. (Not yet sure who bumped it either as I work my through it.)

The other thing time cannot be conceived as is independent of a frame of reference or perspective. No frame of reference exists within a universe as generally understood since there seems to be no place for one to be as we move through big bang. But assuming a single universe devoid of any superstructure to account for its coming and going is neither necessary nor justified. If magic genies start to seem like useful features of a theory of everything, then it is well past time to consider how useful a multiverse can be.