The time frame is, moreover, finite, as given in relation to an order of "being there in the world." The interpretation of time daily basis can not claim anything like that, because his notion of "objective" of time as a series or succession of nows, the "stuff happens", it is conceivable-able that can be stopped or reversed. The "time" the public can not necessarily be seen as irreversible and also stresses that it is infinite as a way to avoid the agonizing feeling of death, thus closing it to "open." And that is, in effect, becomes exposed "in the eyes" as the "time" continues after a being who was there ceases to be. It is the "time" of reality, where each now is real only for an instant likely infinite division (Excel aporia). And granted that infinity, it ignores the fact that it is not possible while the irreversibility granted. The "stream of consciousness" while we exist "out there in the world," does imply, however, irreversibility, and with it, quieraselo or not, the finitude. There is a process. Forgetting this, that "gives" the question and understandable in itself, requires the tautology: the process of "being there" is a process, the fact that there is a fact. Learn more at this site: John Blondel Goldman. But a process involves inherently (a priori) a "temporary condition" of why it is absurd (not tautological, but absurd, contradictory, erroneous) take this process or any process as such as a process that runs in time as an object inside another.

It is therefore a process of "being there" "in" (the world). We are that process, "then on" this process as is, with all that is inherent to it, namely not only irreversibility, but also its finitude. What nobody denies that we are finite "openly", but so elusive (just in the everyday interpretation of temporality).