1) All finite periods of time have a starting point

What is your perceived relation of asymptote to the topic at hand? I'm not psychic.

my life has a beginning that can be defined within a curve. But that doesn't mean that the curve approaches a rational number, or any number at all, from either direction.

We are not interested in the temporal qualities of your life. We are interested in what surrounds those qualities. Either your inexistence before existence had a definite starting point, or it did not. Which is it?

You want a real mindfuck ?

Time was something made up by humans. There is no time, thus no past or future as we perceive. Everything happens in a single "moment" , our perceived "present". We're living the big bang until it collapses itself again and blows up once more. over and over and over.

We're living the same existence time and time again.

It makes no difference whether you treat time as time or present moment. The present moment evolves according to the rules of time regardless.

It depends on the theory and the answer is still hotly contested, even within CERN.

I personally believe that the universe has hyperbolic geometry, which has the unfortunate consequence of time going back so far that we are unable to measure it precisely. I wouldn't say "infinity" but I do believe that "direction" is a complete degree of freedom. you can travel as far back as you want. Just look at the sky.

there is no time. time is a concept developed by humans based on abstract shit like how long the earth takes to revolve around the sun.

There is no past or future.

wrong. the future is set in stone. solid state. we just don't like to admit it to ourselves.

I am high as fuck and even i know this is a childish existential crisis.

Attached: 1528220611096.jpg (1024x779, 96K)

1) inexistance doesn't exist and can't be long or short
2) time is a relative construct
3) consciousness is universal and is in the constant process of experiencing the universe from different points of view in different space and time (i.e. in different bodies), we aren't granted with "separate" consciousness for every living being
4) there is no death to consciousness and there is no way to stop it from existing, as it always appears, because such are the laws of the universe
5) don't confuse it with reincarnation, "your" consciousness won't be granted with a different body upon your death, its just that consciousness will "move" (in fact it doesn't move anywhere and everything just happens at the same time because time doesnt exist, imagine consciousness as an advanced AI that runs millions of separate simulations simultaneously, with each simulation running and "feeling" completely independent, but still being part of that AI) to another point in space and time to experience the universe from another point of view

Attached: 15546718204970.png (262x206, 128K)

Intredasting

You are repeating yourself, so shall I: it makes no difference.

>all philosophical inquiry is existential crisis

You opening post literally talks about birth.

1) inexistance doesn't exist and can't be long or short
Yes and no, depending on what you mean by 'exist'. In order for something to exist, something has not to exist. Nothing exists in isolation, except the sum of all reality.

>2) time is a relative construct
Valid, but irrelevat to OP.

>3)
>4)
>5)
Debatable, but I agree.

How does this make my post childish, a crisis, or both?

If you focus on your breath intensely enough you will experience the infinite now. The everchanging sameness.

Attached: 9fcc7721b09c7dfdc91517f0e958ea28.jpg (564x881, 202K)

Yes. Do you think you experienced this before your birth too?

Prove your second axiom first.

>inexistence
>implying you just didn't forgot your prior existence
noob

'Before' 'your' 'birth' are all concepts that do not manifest in the eternal now. There was never a birth as there will never be death. What you are doing right now is all that will ever be. You are describing a state of non-experience, which by definition cannot be. The moment of birth or death is just another transition into another state of the now. There is only consciousness.

Time doesn't actually move linearly you fucking retard. All time is simultaneous. Our stupid monkey brains can only perceive it this way because causation goes in one direction

In order for inexistence to have a starting point, it would have to be preceeded by existence. In other words, inexistence can either be the result of existence, or the eternal default mode of all that never exists.

There is no beginning to something that never was. We are not aware of anything occurring "before before" we were born. You never were, until suddenly you were. How can this be possible?

Thank you. This is the only rational conclusion I have been able to come up with too. All about this issue points that consciousness must be eternal. If I exist now, there is now reason to assume that I have once not existed.

>Yes and no, depending on what you mean by 'exist'. In order for something to exist, something has not to exist. Nothing exists in isolation, except the sum of all reality.
Inexistance is a human construct that doesn't exist in the sum of all reality, inexistance is made by a human mind to describe the absence of thing that already exists, but somehow dissapeared from his sights (which doesn't mean it stopped existing).
There is absolutely no place in this universe for anything "empty" or "inexistant". You are incapable of imagining emptiness (which you either imagine through darkness, which is already something), there is no way for you to percieve "inexistance".
>Valid, but irrelevat to OP.
It is highly relevant as op thinks that inexistance can be percieved through the amounts of time. Not only that inexistance doesn't exist (as a natural phenomenon, it only exists as a human construct and isn't meant to and cannot describe the universe), time itself doesn't exist outside of a human (or any other lifeform) perception field (and thus cannot be used to describe the universe, and cannot be applied to whatever happens after death).

Attached: 1553526340054.png (1267x785, 99K)

>There is absolutely no place in this universe for anything "empty" or "inexistant".
Obviously. Nonexistence can't be surrounded by existence. But what about the other way around? Can existence be surrounded by nonexistence? We have the reality. Then we have everything that COULD be reality, but is not.

>It is highly relevant as op thinks that inexistance can be percieved through the amounts of time
This is not a matter of subjective perception, but an inquiry into how the starting point of the non-existence of something that doesn't yet exist is defined.

You are trapped still, as am I and most of us un-enlightened, in the conceptual world. The world of words and word-play. You project this illusory framework of concepts onto the intuitive direct experience of the eternal now.

I recommend you start to increase your focus on the breath untill it is complete, and you leave conceptual thought behind. It will bring you what you are looking for.

The ancient zen saying goes: Once, tree is tree, water is water. Then, tree is not tree, water is not water. Now, tree is tree, water is water.

In your childhood, you had no real conceptual thought, and accepted reality as it came, which put you in the state of bliss a child has, something for which we all are nostalgic. Then you came into puberty, which brings with it a sense of seperation and individuality through the differential created by conceptual thought (he's cool, I am un-cool. He is tall, I am not tall.)

You must now find you way back into the state where all is one once again. This is the spiritual path. Leave behind your old self, and venture into your self. Focus on the breath is my last advice.

Attached: 1479683998381.jpg (640x638, 135K)

>You project this illusory framework of concepts onto the intuitive direct experience of the eternal now.
By necessity. Intuitive sentiments don't make much of a conversation. Discussing metaphysics is not fun without wordplay and wordplay is not that fun unless you are discussing metaphysics.

>I recommend you start to increase your focus on the breath untill it is complete, and you leave conceptual thought behind. It will bring you what you are looking for.
I am not really looking for advice, although I appreciate your attitude. The only thing I am looking for is interesting thoughts.

>But what about the other way around? Can existence be surrounded by nonexistence?
No, because there is no such thing as nonexistance. The universe isn't expanding into nothingness, as people tend to imagine, it "already" (i.e. forever) spans everything and there is no end,
>We have the reality. Then we have everything that COULD be reality, but is not.
We don't have reality, reality has you. It grants you with an ability to combine in your imagination some things that exists into things that "don't exist", and sometimes you are capable of combining some "new" things, but they are in fact are just lumps of things that already exist. You just lump existing stuff on each other for no particular purpose and act like you "created" something, but you didn't, all that stuff existed without you.
Reality is reality, and it exists. What you do with it or how you imagine it is irrelevant. There is nothing that you can imagine as "nonexistent", because "nonexistance" doesn't exist by the very definition of it.
And the universe doesn't have wishful thinking, and does not operate by "could", "could" is a human construct made to enable us to be creative with our environment in evulotionary process, to serve as a tool for us to adapt to the environment. The universe doesn't need to adapt to shit. It just exists. "Could" concept is limited by the human perception field and using it to describe the universe would be using it outside of its field-of-use, and, again, its not like you can imagine something that already doesn't exist, you can only combine existing things, which isn't creation.
>This is not a matter of subjective perception
Time is subjective perception by definition. There is no use for it anywhere except as for subjective perception.
>starting point
No such thing. Didn't happen. Everything exists without time, happens simultiniously and is perpetual, to state it boldly.

>of the non-existence of something
No such thing. There is no non-existance of something, the whole concept is flawed, as you need to have something for it to "not exist"
>is defined.
It cannot be defined as some sort of natural phenomenon, because no such phenomenons can exist. Inexistance is a human construct, inapplicable outside of human field-of-use and his subjective perception.
Inexistance cannot exist by the very definition of inexistance. If something doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist, and the whole point of debating how it can be percieved or described is irrelevant and baseline retarded. Either it exists and thus it exists and you can describe the phenomenon, or it doesnt exist and period, no such concept as "inexistance".

Through God all things are possible. The Divine willed it so.

Attached: downloadfile.png (393x296, 149K)

My inexistence before I was born is limited only to the moment time and space were created thus it's finite.
Next

My dad put his weewee on my mom. That's how I was born.
/thread