Does everything past and future already exist?

Xris, one aspect of the experience you describe reminds me of point of view discussed in Eastern Philosophy (both Hinduism and Buddhism) in terms of past, present, and future experience viewed as maya (phenomena or illusion), and with enlightenment, one experiences something akin to what in Western mysticism is termed viewing reality from "the eternal now."

In Buddha's talk on "The Eightfold Path" he says that such speculation about such matters are pointless (the parable of the poisoned arrow), but he provides the following pronouncement.

For, whether the theory exists, or whether it does not exist, that the world is eternal, or temporal, or finite, or infinite ... the extinction of which (of these), attainable even in this present life, I make known unto you.

Another interesting coincidence with your description is that this understanding of experiencing past, present, and future "outside of a time reference" comes to a person who finally intuits dharma ("principles of what exists" would be my feeble attempt at a short characterization of this term), and in Buddhism such a person is called a "stream-enterer."

I suppose a similar idea in Western religion is that God, as a being outside of time, understands past, present, and future as the "eternal now,"--time for God being something like Einstein's four-dimensional conception of the universe where time is a dimension no different from length, width, and breadth (i.e., all four dimensions understood in one conception as a four-dimensional entity).

In Zen also, mental phenomena are not viewed as existing in time analogous to temporal-points on a line of the passing of time. The illusion of the "I'' of yesterday and the "I" of today have no necessary connection.

In Western literature, it's possible an experience like yours may have been the inspiration for D. H. Lawrence's "The Rocking-Horse Winner.

I must thank you again for your informed post. I must assume nothing is new and as we experience life so must others and they to have made conclusions from theirs. I find it comforting that others have had similar thoughts to explain what is unexplainable in human terms. If I had read their conclusions without my experience would I have taken interest? Life does not give me the chance to contemplate or study but by good luck my experiences give me a certainty others find hard to accept. When the river one day runs into an ocean, will it realise the journey has only just begun. Does time run like a river into an eternity where it has no value ?

What an interesting topic.

Entropy gives us the arrow of time, which in that form has existed since the birth of the universe. From order to chaos. At some point the process might reverse and the universe begin to contract, at which point one would assume that the arrow of time would point in the opposite direction, from chaos to order.

If that is the case then one could infer that we have indeed got a "fate" as part of the universe and our past and future do already exist.

I might be waffling and if I am, its because my small brain aches when I try and think about these things.

Paul, I enjoy the feeling my little brain gets when it boggles .

I agree with what you say about 'fate' although I call it 'determinism' and not 'fate'; and the implication of determinism for eternity. With regard to eternity and determinism, God is determinist except inasmuch as some people say that he gave us people Free Will: not an attribute that exists in my opinion.

Paul, I enjoy the feeling my little brain gets when it boggles .

I agree with what you say about 'fate' although I call it 'determinism' and not 'fate'; and the implication of determinism for eternity. With regard to eternity and determinism, God is determinist except inasmuch as some people say that he gave us people Free Will: not an attribute that exists in my opinion.

What's free will Belinda? Even if our ability has been restricted it can still be called free will. We are still given choices that we must make. If we had no reference points, no inclinations, no education we would not be able to exert any will at all. We may be tainted by life but we all choose what path we take. The problem arrives when we wrongly judge others choices by our ability.

What's free will Belinda? (...)

We can choose to do what we want, but can we choose what we want?

Will cannot be free, if by "free" we mean "independent" and/or "not affected by a given condition or circumstance". Will is influenced by several factors and - considering our current knowledge - is chained to the physical complex phenomena from which it arises.

I agree with Ludwig Von Drake and trust this also answers Xris. I am much influenced by Ted Honderich who calls Free Will 'originator'. I don't believe in originators in this absolute sense,(neither does Honderich believe in human originators), whether they be transcendent God or human person. What I believe is that every event is caused by compound of causal chain , causal circumstances and laws of nature ( nomic circumstances) if such there are.

I claim that freedom is not absolute but relative to good judgement, good feeling, and good knowledge.

PS, Xris, choices we do undoubtedly have but we are never so free that we make uncaused choices.

I am not talking about absolutes here Belinda. We are products of life and we abide by certain criteria that in some ways has been determined. I know certain friends will never let me down and others will never refuse a drink. I tried to explain if you could create free will then no will would exist. If you are colour blind then choosing a paint for your front door is pointless. We need to be informed, bigoted, biased , excellent, stupid to make a choice. It is not about making the correct choice it is about making your will, your informed or misinformed choice freely.

I tried to explain if you could create free will then no will would exist. If you are colour blind then choosing a paint for your front door is pointless. We need to be informed, bigoted, biased , excellent, stupid to make a choice. It is not about making the correct choice it is about making your will, your informed or misinformed choice freely.

I agree with the first part , Xris. This is why I prefer to stick to the definition of 'Free Will' as a supernatural belief, and why I think it's important to distinguish between Free Will and choice. Choices are real and actual: Free Will is neither.

I recognise , of course, that we intuitively believe that our choices may quite often be free choices, the more especially when we are not prisoners or crippled etc. But in my more metaphysical moments I disbelieve this.

I want to relate my deterministic belief to philosophy of science. The high status of scientific theories is a background for my metaphysics which I take for granted. This is a pragmatic choice because science is the best indication of reality that we have, according to my and other people's life experiences. Neuro science has made remarkable discoveries which render moral decisions entirely dependent upon circumstances. There are now important implications for the administration of justice which depend upon the new knowledge regarding personal responsibility. We now see that proper moral education is conducive to human freedom, but that the religious precept and intuitive notion of Free Will is misconceived.

I understand your objection Belinda but I still see it as a human condition. To say we have not, you must define what is free will. I think that is an impossible task.

If the large scale geometry of our universe is hyperbolic - which it seems to be based on astronomical observation, the universe has always been expanding, and has always been infinite in size. In any given part of this universe - such as the region that we can observe - the history of all particles need not be such that there is a finite number of states (photographs, as the story has previously been presented) that can be realized. As our space inexorably expands and everything tends to get farther away from everything else, as well as new phenomena "appearing" - as it were - at our perceived cosmic horizon, there is no reason to believe that nature *has* to repeat itself.

If the large scale geometry of our universe is hyperbolic - which it seems to be based on astronomical observation, the universe has always been expanding, and has always been infinite in size. In any given part of this universe - such as the region that we can observe - the history of all particles need not be such that there is a finite number of states (photographs, as the story has previously been presented) that can be realized. As our space inexorably expands and everything tends to get farther away from everything else, as well as new phenomena "appearing" - as it were - at our perceived cosmic horizon, there is no reason to believe that nature *has* to repeat itself.

Infinity is an illusion. You only ever have what you have.Even if the universe was two inches across it would be no different to it being two million light years across. As nothing can not exist then a begining and end can not be conceived. To imagine infinity you must consider the consequences. Infinity for us is less than second away.

I understand your objection Belinda but I still see it as a human condition. To say we have not, you must define what is free will. I think that is an impossible task.

If we cannot define a thing, it seems useless to discuss about it, to affirm its existence and to declare that someone has got it.

Still I believe that "free will" has several meaning and we should just choose which one we are talking about.

I understand your objection Belinda but I still see it as a human condition. To say we have not, you must define what is free will. I think that is an impossible task.

If we cannot define a thing, it seems useless to discuss about it, to affirm its existence and to declare that someone has got it.

Still I believe that "free will" has several meaning and we should just choose which one we are talking about.

So tell me what free will actually is? Belinda calls it free to choose , thats what I call free will. Now if you have an alternative can you describe it, please?

(…) you must define what is free will. I think that is an impossible task.

(…) calls it free to choose , thats what I call free will. (…)

Your statements seem incoherent.

Anyway, if it's your definition I believe that you should answer to the previous post:

We can choose to do what we want, but can we choose what we want?

Will cannot be free, if by "free" we mean "independent" and/or "not affected by a given condition or circumstance". Will is influenced by several factors and - considering our current knowledge - is chained to the physical complex phenomena from which it arises.