The difference between being and not being is only now.

1) Question:- Is something something even if it ends.

Answer:-  That something is something when it is something but when its not, its not(For itself)

Proof

1.1) What is being something? It is being whatever it is that it is. What is being?

'To be' is to exist, to occur, to take place. https://www.google.co.in/search?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C4835760478(type being for result)

To occur

Things can only occur when they occur. When they dont, they dont.

To exist

The best definition I like is  google's definition which is "in existence or operation at the current time."
https://www.google.co.in/search?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C2768304109(type existence for result)

- So it is "in existance or operation at the current time". If it is not in existence at the current time, it is not existing or being since there is no other time.

Looking at it in a logical way, it can not be that something when it clearly is not. But it is when it is. So when it ends being that something, it clearly is not that particular something anymore. As far as it is concerned(Without an outside observer), it is not that something period. No extention to that definition is allowed because it just is not(The something is not).

X is something on time Y(X is on time Y)

X is not something on time Z(X is not on time Z)

So, X is not on time Z means it is not existent on time Z.

So on time Z, X is not or is not existent.

So whilst on time Z, is there an X as that particular something? No.

So In time Z, X is not existent as that particular something which is X so there is no X.

But

1.2) That something may have a residual effect on other things  that it came in contact with or somehow affected in anyway when it was that something even if it is not that something anymore.

2) Same goes for us living things as individuals.

2.1) As an individual, when the individual is no more, it is no more

2.2) As an individual, what happens next is unknown but in this realm of existence and also talking according to logic and reality(which is reality that we are in) there is no such a thing for the individual because there is no such a thing as that individual at that time or after the individual dies.

2.2.1) So is there an individual after the individual dies? No

2.2.2) Was there an individual?

2.2.2.1) As far as the things that the individual affected are concerned, yes. Because that individual caused some kind of effect on them.(If it did)

2.2.2.2)  As far as the individual is concerned, even the question would be inexistent and invalid.

because the individual is not there to have any effect of it.

Also

2.2.2.2.1) For the individual, being dead after existing would be the same as not existing at all.

Proof

2.2.2.2.1.1) The state that the individual is in during the time it didn't exist is 'no state'

2.2.2.2.1.2) The state that the individual is in after individual dies is also 'no state'

2.2.2.2.1.3) At 'no state' there is no present, past or future since there is no state to begin with.(This article argues there is no past and future per se even if something or individual exists).
At 'no state' there is no such a thing as the individual.

2.2.2.2.1.4) Thus both 2.2.2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2.2.1.2 are the same in everyway possible because there is no way to compare them since both are not existent and are not available and are both inexistent.

So what is the difference between existing and not existing?

3) The difference between existing and not existing or being and not being is only now.

Proof

3.1) As stated above, one of the definitions of 'to be' is 'to occur'.

So

Things can only occur when they occur and no other time.

the concept of time may just be an illusion.

" Time may have no independent existence it may be just a common unit of motion making the world that is filled with motion easier to describe." http://www.timephysics.com

3.2) Something can only exist in the now.(In its own now)

3.3) There may not be such a thing as time per se but occurrences.(again things can only occur when they occur).

3.4) Can something be in the past or future?

- No it can not. Why? Its very hard to explain but

3.4.1) For something to exist it has to be. Something can not be anywhere else but the present. Even the verb be points twoards that.

3.4.2) If we say something is in the past, it is a contradictory statement because the verb 'is' denotes present.

3.4.3) Same for the future. If we say something is in the future, same contradiction.

3.4.4) The moment something becomes, it is present and can not be any other way. It can only be when and only when it becomes.

4) So being or existing is always in present. So the present is the difference between being and not being or existing and not existing.



Posted via Blogaway