See whether you appreciate the simplicity of this and find it as obvious.
We are chemical organisms, for which reason we cannot see the world as it really is. This is because our observation obliges us to see Universe only as an active entity. However, as you will see, Universe is different from this and is not subject to any such limitation. It is not apparent where this view from our atomic activity is taken into account when examining the nature of Universe, but the reality must make a difference. Consider the following:
Say 'now and now and now' and, each time you say 'now', the earth has moved twenty miles on its orbit around the sun, and the intricate activity here on the planet has seethed on by one second - this includes our atomic action. Also the sun has coursed a hundred miles around the galaxy, the galaxy has moved two hundred miles towards its appointment with
Andromeda, and the more remote galaxies have shifted onward a further hundred and fifty thousand miles. This view of such action is due to our inevitable metabolic atomic action as living chemical organisms, which is inextricable as an integral part of the development of Universal extent. It is our observation that presents Universe to us 'in action'; we see Universe as incomplete because we witness it only from our protracted shifting spatial
position of 'here'. Furthermore, the limitation of our senses permits us only a glimpse of an apparently 'active' sliver of what we call 'the present'.
- Advertisement -
So, though we might also imagine Universe in all its extent as static as a still photograph, it is also complete, all 'there' - or 'here'. What is between the state of an instant ago and 'now' is difficult to imagine, but it can only be some version of what we living creatures witness as matter 'in action'. So, in the context of already complete Universe, it will be seen that the reality of the complete Universe and the reality as experienced by living creatures are very different versions of the same thing. We might well ask ourselves which is the more reliable, the real physical practice of the complete Universe, or our human theories derived from our strictly limited transient view of a minuscule slice of it.
Even our individual experience of 'time' varies, from the seemingly endless days of infancy to the apparently ten times quicker days of old age - such is the frailty of living perception. We can see the evidence of the past, eight light minutes away in the sun, twenty-odd thousand light years away in our galactic centre, two and a half million light years away in Andromeda, and fourteen billion light years away in those visible remote galaxies. Much beyond that, we cannot see, though, it seems, we can surmise.
However, although the images themselves of 'past' and 'present' are conducted away by space at the speed of light, we have the magical property of memory to recall more or less how the most recent things were, and that they were real. We have to suppose that they still are real, as we cannot imagine that things of the past cease to exist simply because we, in our transient 'present' atomic state and position, are no longer 'there' to envigilate them. We cannot see the images of 'the future' either, as our position has not advanced sufficiently in space to witness them, but we can be certain that 'the future', whatever it may eventuate to be, is already here in Universe. Therefore we have to assume that Universe is already complete, perfect in every detail as - it having no other option - it inevitably has to be.
This is how Universe appears to present itself. Should this view of universal reality be at variance with any accepted opinion, the intention is not particularly to rock any scientific boats. But then this observation is not from any formal scientific standpoint. So if your opinion is contrary, don't fret; to complain to Universe will make no difference, since any and all actions are already incorporated in the reality of its complete entity. But you could always try taking the matter up with the scientific corpus.