Destiny, the word needs to be redefined.

Is there anything that really records my future fate?

If there is an omniscient being, then everything is a certainty, nothing is unknown, and there are no variables. Whatever I want is in that omniscient being, like a movie in front of me, I can drag the progress bar at will.

So, even though all of them are only pictorial elements that we perceive at the moment, is there anything that describes them?

Or what about the elements of the picture that describe the future?

No, there is no such thing as a "picture element of the future". This is equivalent to acknowledging the linear passage of time, and arguing that although everything is just a pictorial element and no real person, there is a pictorial element of the previous moment and a pictorial element of this moment.

This untested assumption is a constant trap.

How do I know that the elements of the last moment are real? Like this text, after I write it, how do I know that I wrote the beginning of this chapter?

No matter how real this feeling is, no matter how ridiculous the question is, I really can't prove that I wrote the beginning of this chapter. In other words, how can I be sure that the picture element at the beginning of my writing is real?

That being the case, there is no such thing as a pictorial element that can describe the future. Even if the future of something really happened, as I once understood, it was just another visual element at that time.

For example, a book says I'm going to have a car accident tomorrow, and tomorrow, I'm really in a car accident.

Does that mean anything? Does that show that the book has the ability to predict?

It can only be said that at this moment I am aware that I have been in a car accident, at this moment I am aware that there is a book that says that I had a car accident on a certain day in a certain year, a certain month, and a certain day, and at this moment I am aware that I read this book yesterday with words written on it about a car accident.

That's all.

I can't prove that I really existed yesterday, or that the whole event of "I read this book yesterday" really happened.

There's no way to prove it.

It is precisely because I have no doubt about yesterday's events that I will be easily played by that inexplicable force, so that I will not doubt the linear passage of time, and I will directly recognize the existence of the past and the future.

There is no way to prove its real existence in the past, time does not exist, it is just an illusion created by the content of the realization. Then, the future will not exist.

It's always just this moment.

In other words, it is always the visual element that is perceived at this moment.

What happens is fate, what doesn't happen is just speculation. Even if you guess accurately every time, it won't help. Just like an apple landing, even if an apple lands smoothly 10,000 times, there is no way to prove that the next apple will still land.

Does the future really exist? It is precisely because of my recognition of the past, that the pictorial elements of the past are real, that there is such a thing as the future. I can't prove anything in the past, but I always believe that the past really happened.

Even, it is very difficult to let yourself abandon this acknowledgment of the past.

That omniscient being does not actually exist, or rather, I am already an omniscient being.

The recognition of the existence of omniscience is still based on the assumption of causality of things. I took a bite of the apple, and the apple in my hand was not complete. Whether it happened at the same time, or what caused the cause, it is to admit that these things really happened.

I just remember, but I can't prove that I just took a bite of an apple. In other words, "I took a bite of the apple" is the picture element that I perceive at the moment, and "the apple is not complete" is also only the picture element that I am aware of at the moment, and there is no causal relationship between them.

It is only in the elements of the picture that this causal relationship is recognized.

In fact, I became aware of these pictorial elements at the moment, and then it was over. There is no connection, no cause and effect, no time, just the appearance of these pictorial elements as they are perceived at the moment.

This is omniscience, and there is no need to know the movement of atoms and molecules, nor the condition of another galaxy, nor to know all the secrets of the industry.

I am omniscient, and at this very moment, I am omniscient. Those pictorial elements, the pictorial elements that are perceived at the moment, the content that is realized at the moment, is omniscience.

The elements of the picture only present these things, then for me, these things are omniscient. When I sit at home, how do I know that the road at the entrance of the community exists? When I stand on the road at the entrance of the community, just because it is in a slightly different state, I think that the road has gone through time, and I think that the road still exists when I can't see it?

It's just the presentation of the elements of the picture that makes the whole thing seem very reasonable, it seems real, and it seems that it still passes with time when I can't see it. It's like an old friend who hasn't seen each other for many years, and when I see each other again, I find that the other party is a little older.

There is no then, speculating that the other party really exists, speculating that the other party has existed and experienced time over the years, these are all related, and they all belong to wishful thinking and interpretation in order to make the elements of the picture seem reasonable.

I am omniscient, because at the moment the picture elements only present so much content, I only realize so much content, then I am omniscient. There can't be one that I know more than I know now, and everything outside of the elements of the picture is just wishful thinking.

The visual elements that are perceived at the moment are all there is.

The previous omniscient existence is an acknowledgment of the assumption of causality, an acknowledgment of the interaction between the elements of the picture. But in fact, the picture elements are just picture elements, and the two picture elements of "I took a bite of the apple" and "the apple is incomplete" are just two picture elements.

Correlation is speculation, wishful thinking.

In terms of visual elements, "the apple is incomplete" is caused by "I took a bite of the apple", but only because I was aware of it. So, I want to explain why Apple is incomplete, and naturally I can only explain the picture elements in terms of picture elements.

The elements of the picture are just presentations, and everything else is just speculation.

Moreover, the very tempting argument that time exists at the same time hides another assumption, which is that it really happened in the past. But in fact, it's just what I remember, it's just what I remember.

It's entirely possible that I've only been waking up for a minute, but I have decades of memories and it seems very real. So, are the stories in the memories of these decades also really happened?

Always trying to find a reasonable explanation to prove the truth of the past is the crux of the matter. Because of the emotion, it makes it hard for me to believe that the last moment doesn't exist, and it's hard to believe that the past is just a memory in my head.

Even if it's a memory, I would say it's a memory that comes after the real happens.

If I smell it, that's all. ()

Please remember that the first domain name of this book is:. Mobile version reading URL: