Designer,
If I continue with my analogy of time being like the flow of the river, then there is another similarity I failed to mention before. Just as the flow of the river is not consistent (in regard to speed, strength of current etc) the same can be said of time not being consistent, due to speed (time passes by more slowly, the closer the speed of light is attained).
As it stands, I am just interested in the subject of time-travel. My 2 favourite films are Looper and 12 monkeys. I’m not even sure if time-travel into the past is even possible.
“The problem with you fluid idea is the past will constantly be destroyed by a newer past.
That’s the nature of water in a river.”
I honestly think that the “past” in this life (we are currently experiencing) is gone, and like I said before its prior existence is made evident by such things as historical records, photographs, video’s etc.
“If history is not static by default it then destroys all historic true content.”
In the model/analogy I have conveyed, history has occured; what has happened, has happened. The History of our current experience of life can only occur once. Similarly the NOW only occur’s once imo… I am not saying that I’m right, but that is how I view the issue of time and the NOW, at this present moment <<(Lol, english language problem)
In the very title of this thread, you assert: Why Now means nothing. From my perspective, everything is dependant on something, even nothing/emptiness etc. Within buddhism, a dependent relationship can be identified between sunyata and truth; emptiness is form and form is emptiness; nothing is everything and everything is nothing. This is how I view the NOW and its dependent relationship on time and times dependent relationship on the NOW. This dependent relationship is also manifest between SPACE and TIME.
In your 2nd post, you assert:
“Now mean nothing since what was once there is already gone and probably never existed.”
If you assert that “what was once there is already gone”, you are making the inference that “something” existed, so you cannot qualify your assertion by saying “and probably never existed”.