It depends on what you mean by “everything”. Some things by their nature cannot exist prior to our Ability to “see” it.
Are you taking a roundabout route to talking about determinism?

Are you taking a roundabout route to talking about determinism? — DingoJones

Really, I’m just going on a journey.

Some things by their nature cannot exist prior to our Ability to “see” it. — DingoJones

What sort of things?

I’ve just scanned some material on eternalism which I’ll read a bit more closely. That may clarify my thoughts a bit more.

For anyone not familiar with it, there is Einstein's train:

1. A passenger sits in the middle of a train with two light guns
2. He fires each gun at either end of the train
3. The two light pulses hit simultaneously; these two events define his present
4. There is a guy at trackside, also positioned in the middle of the train
5. To him the train is moving to the right so the right beam has slightly longer to travel than the left beam
6. But the speed of light is constant for both beams
7. So he sees the left beam impact before the right beam. That defines his present.

So in summary, two people in the same spacetime location have different interpretations of what 'now' is. This is clearly contrary to presentism and is therefore supportive of an eternalist / 4d spacetime interpretation of time.

Linear time => life activities are arrayed along a sequence of past, present and future. (Hint: 3D perspective)

Circular Time => involves repetition of activity over and over again, even though the succeeding cycles are variants of the first and there is some awareness of similarities and analogies despite the inability to get out of the rat race because it is believed to be necessary and integral to those life activities. (Hint: 4D perspective)

Spiral Time => involves repetition of activity as in circular time but with the capacity to learn the greater lesson (the fundamental principle) and therefore develop the capacity to move on to greater dimensional awareness, perception and activity. (Hint: 5D perspective)

Spherical/All-encompassing Time (All/Absolute Time) => Life is being. Time is only generated when one chooses to perform an activity whose perspective is limited in comparison to the whole of being. Therefore, time relations are generated through the perspective of multiplicities within the whole. The whole itself is not limited by time and only uses it as a tool for counting and keeping of records (relating, translating and expressing) within a certain dynamic. (Hint: Much higher than 5D perspective)


Life is perspective. What you see is what you get.

If our fate already exists out there, waiting for us, then does everything exist at once? And if so does that mean no time?
Can the past affect the present, can individuals be affected by those from what we regard as the past, can the present have an affect on the past? Or is there nothing? — Brett

Well, there is a sense in which fate is real; after all the universe seems to obey rules, aptly named "the laws of nature". Whether everything in the universe is subject to laws is an open question but it is quite odd to think that a subset would be exempt from the laws the rest of the universe operates under. Ergo, it wouldn't be totally inaccurate to say, given the universe has laws, that fate is real.

If fate is real then every possible point in the future is nascent in the present just as the past held the seeds of the present. What relation, if any, does time have to fate? For ease of discussion let's take a seed of an oak in the present. The fate of the seed is to grow into an oak in the future. The process of growing from a seed into a mature oak requires the passage of time, doesn't it? Fate to be realized requires the existence of time, which could be taken, for this example, as a gap in the temporal dimension which the seed must traverse for it to become an adult oak tree. Ergo, time must exist for fate to be real.

Also, notice that fate is a combination of determinism and time: determinism is true AND determinism explains why something happened at a particular time (past/present) or why and when something will happen (future). Time is an essential aspect of fate.

As for Socrates, he seems to be talking about truths and the general impression is that truths are timeless, eternal as it were and all it takes for a person to discover it within himself is a question. Does fate claim eternal truths? Indeed if what fate decrees must occur then it does for it is about a fact and even if it has yet to become actualized, it'll inevitably happen.

Notice however, that truths are time-independent i.e. it doesn't change with it. For instance 2 + 2 = 4 was/is/will always be true irrespective of time.

Fate, however, differs in that though the pronouncements of fate may have an eternal tinge to it that which is fated requires the passage of time. So, if a person were to look back into his past, assess his actions, and realize that his present circumstance is inevitable then he has knowledge of his fate but then time passed between whatever pivotal moments occured in his past and his present condition.

For an absolute being, everything exists and will always exist NOW.

For those with limited perspectives, it will always take time for cause and effect to manifest and express. The law of cause and effect is instantaneous but the limitations of the situations in which they are manifest and expressed simulate the multiple variants of time and perspectives. For example, for a lazy, obese, totally physically unfit human, the difference in moments from when the will (intent or impulse to action) is actualized to the moment the hand is raised in an attempt to sucker punch a bully whose dissing them, is far greater than if the intent were generated by the current heavy weight boxing champion of the world.

For an absolute being, lacking any limitations means that everything is at this moment because everything is actualized right now. Yes, your arms are too short to box with GOD. :wink:

Really, I’m just going on a journey — Brett

Ok. It sounds to me like its taken you towards deterministic ideas, that ideas and actions are already laid out somehow and they are just waiting for you “discover” them (become aware of the casual chains to some degree).

What sort of things? — Brett

Things that are created, like ideas or an iphone. It depends on what catagory of things you are getting at.

I agree with your overarching idea. In this scenario though any absolute being, is present with any limited being at all times and in all places and in any sense. So the limited person is in communion with all absolute beings eternally, were they to know it.

If our fate already exists out there, waiting for us, then does everything exist at once? And if so does that mean no time? — Brett

Sounds like you are talking about the notion of Eternalism, which is a modern version of Fatalism. Its scientific justification is based on the concept of Block Time, which is an inference from Einstein's Theory of Relativity. All I can say about that hypothetical possibility is, if you experience change (flowing time) in your world, and don't experience Stasis, then Eternalism is not real for you.

Regarding Fatalism, if you are anxious about the future, by all means consult a psychic or fortune-teller, and you will feel better. But it won't change your fate.

Eternalism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

No, everything doesn't 'exist at once'; the universe is all existing at once, but in other verses and universes nature and time is different.

Yes.

Yes.

Quite.
Is this a philosophical discipline, or is there literature relating to it?

If our fate already exists out there, waiting for us, then does everything exist at once? And if so does that mean no time? — Brett

Yes, it seems that everything exists at once, as all possible paths/events, in no time, as eternal, which we can logically find out since what has no beginning cannot have any input; thus, everything, Maning all possible particulars/events.

Why, then, do we experience 'becoming'? Somehow, we are traveling through the Everything Block along some particular path.

I am unclear how you are getting from the fact that we seem to have some information about reality imprinted on our souls, to the conclusion that therefore everything exists at once. That doesn't seem to follow at all - it's a crazy leap.

I mean, we do know some things independent of experience, otherwise we'd be unable to take experiences to imply anything.

But that doesn't imply we know everything independent of experience.

It doesn't imply there's no past or future or present.

It doesn't imply that I am the same as the objects I seem to be experiencing.

If everything is one, then you deserve punishment for my wrongs - yes? I mean, you committed them as much as I did, for we're one and the same person.

Yet that's manifestly absurd as the reason of all but the insane will confirm. So we're not all one. And if we're not all one, everything is not one.

I don’t necessarily see fate as deterministic. By that I mean I don’t think our life is already set up for us with an intention or objective. When I say fate I mean that our end will take place at a specific place and time. We can zig zag as many times as we chose, it’s not our fate that determines those actions, though when we look back from that moment at the end we will see how we got there. Different actions will lead to a different fate, but it will be our own whatever it is. This is free will in action, isn’t it?

So I don’t know if determinism is true.

However, if I accept determinism then our fate is definitely set in stone and most certainly must exist.

However your point about time I have to think about, because it makes sense. So there is a question over ‘no time’, or of what time is. But doesn’t ‘Einstein’s train’ allow for time be perceived differently than your seed analogy?

The ‘laws of nature’, does that mean acts that are inevitable?

Things that are created, like ideas or an iphone. It depends on what catagory of things you are getting at. — DingoJones

I had contemplated the idea of things that exist and always have, and things we invent. It seems to me that when we invent we apply the knowledge we have if things that always existed, like maths. So those things you mention we invented. My other thought was that the things we invented, man-made, turn out to be problematic.

t I am unclear how you are getting from the fact that we seem to have some information about reality imprinted on our souls, to the conclusion that therefore everything exists at once. That doesn't seem to follow at all - it's a crazy leap. — Bartricks

That was a mistake of mine to begin with Socrates and has created a false idea of where I was going. I had meant that everything already exists, like maths, not that we have information about reality imprinted on our souls.

It doesn't imply that I am the same as the objects I seem to be experiencing.

Also, I had not claimed that, someone had mentioned it. So I’m not claiming that we are all one.

So in summary, two people in the same spacetime location have different interpretations of what 'now' is. This is clearly contrary to presentism and is therefore supportive of an eternalist / 4d spacetime interpretation of time. — Devans99

If passenger ‘B’ (trackside) sees the light pulse on the left hit before the light pulse on the right does that mean the pulse on the left is the present and the pulse on the right is the future if there is a difference in time between them for ‘B’ ?

Why, then, do we experience 'becoming'? Somehow, we are traveling through the Everything Block along some particular path. — PoeticUniverse

:up:

It seems to me that when we invent we apply the knowledge we have if things that always existed, like maths. — Brett

Some people believe in Archetypes, while others believe in Platonic Forms. The problem is how can we access those abstractions in the real world.

Why, then, do we experience 'becoming'? Somehow, we are traveling through the Everything Block along some particular path. — PoeticUniverse

By this do you mean ‘becoming’ as a linear event and so of time?

Some people believe in Archetypes, while others believe in Platonic Forms. The problem is how can we access those abstractions in the real world. — Gnomon

I’m not sure what you mean in relation to that post.

I’m not sure what you mean in relation to that post. — Brett

Reality is a space-time world. But Archetypes and Forms are "things" (ideas) that are assumed to have always existed. Yet we only have access to them in imagination. Real things are temporal. So they couldn't have always existed. Only unreal things can exist eternally.

But Archetypes and Forms are "things" (ideas) that are assumed to have always existed. Yet we only have access to them in imagination. — Gnomon

This is a problem, isn’t it? Things of the imagination are not real. Real things are temporal. Only unreal things can exist externally and because they don’t exist they don’t count.

an economy with at the core a usury-infested fiat bankstering system (run by depraved pagans -- ed) — alcontali

Savonarola.

But if your claim is only that everything that exists, exists now, then surely it is not very controversial? I mean, how can something exist and 'not' exist now? Something that does not exist now, doesn't exist - surely?

So, all you're saying is that things that exist, exist.

Well math isnt something that has always existed. “”Always existed” is problematic, but even without that math is a man made description and/or a modelling structure. I think you might be confusing our description (math for example), with the reality we use something like math to describe or interact with. So that might be a useful distinction to make in your journey.
Im missing the connection between man-made things being problematic and the above, but none the less Im curious. What is it about man made things that is problematic? By what standard could you possibly measure it differently that the horror show that is the natural world doesnt also qualify?

I hadn't realised that controversy was the point of being here.

Nor did I make a claim, I asked a question.
I was alluding to the idea of past, present and future existing right now.

But that idea is incoherent. I mean, by 'right now' I take it you mean 'in the present', yes?

Well, the present isn't the past, is it? The past is the past. The present is the present. And the future is the future. They're mutually incompatible properties.

Something that exists now, is in the present. It may have existed in the past - but that's not the same as saying that it exists now.