Time Again

As I stand in a certain spot looking in a certain direction, I do not occupy a definitive point of perception which excludes the reality of all other possible points of perception. Instead I occupy a continuously shifting position within the visual field, which is comprised of an infinity of points of perception all existing simultaneously. Reality here is the totality of this field of vision as opposed to the distinct reality of the individual points.
The same can be said of time. We occupy a continuously shifting position within this field, again with all the individual points of time existing simultaneously. This may sound stranger than the field of vision, but to take a look at the alternative which is that the only point of reality in time is the present moment which is continuously advancing thus sending all previous time into oblivion or unreality. Time from this perspective is a knife-edge of reality surrounded by unreality in both directions, which seems a very artificial picture of the real.

I wrote this a while back, and I was naturally unsatisfied with the weakness of the final line. We should realise that with time, it is a case of one or the other; that either there is this knife-edge of reality constantly disappearing into & surrounded by nothingness, or there is a field of time, all time in a sense existing simultaneously.
The first notion of time would be typically rendered as "The past is dead." If we can talk of something being in a state of non-existence, then this is an absolute. There is no 'did exist at one time, but no longer.' To meaningfully speak of non-existence is to mean absolute non-existence uncontradicted by moments of existence.
Using this understanding of time, there is always a point of perspective which renders all other points non-existent, or unreal. "But you are forgetting that that point of reality is real." But that point is made unreal by another point, and so on. So to say that time exists in the conventional sense, ie all existence is solely within this ever dying moment, is to say that time doesn't exist. This would seem to be contradicted by experience.

The only time is a perpetual present; it does not make sense to speak of a previous moment not existing anymore, or of the past being dead. What exists in the present is the present; it is meaningless to speak of some other events in some other time not existing in this present. If we take a period of time such as the 1970s, everything that exists within that duration exists fully within that duration. It makes as little sense to say the 1970s, or things, events within the 1970s no longer exist in the 2000s as to say the 1970s don't exist in the 1930s. All three are real in themselves, and being real cannot be made unreal.
What is real doesn't become not real in some later dimension. One cannot meaningfully say "Julius Caesar doesn't exist now." The reality of Julius Caesar exists within the time of his existence, he doesn't not exist in another time.
Simliarly it is meaningless to speak of an elephant not existing within the room in which one is currently located, assuming that the room in which one is located does not contain an elephant. Or a glass of water in one corner of the room isn't made unreal by an apple in another corner, which is an approximate in sense to the rendering unreal of previous time by the onwards chronological movement of time.
That past and future are not within the field of my perception, but that is as as far as I can go in terms of claims to their unreality.