The McTaggart's Paradox, a door behind the flow of time?

McTaggart's paradox is, similarly as the Russel's Paradox known from the set theory, one of the most fascinating problems lying somewhere on the boundary of philosophy and science. It witnesses that both disciplines have the same origins. And that good philosophy is not far from science and vice versa. The paradox of John Mc Taggart is very often interpreted as an (controversial) argument for a conclusion that "there is no time at all" or "time is unreal". I don't think that this is a correct interpretation, and also its less controversial inference, that the temporal order of things is (somehow) illusory, which seems to be correct in the light of the Einstein's Theory of Relativity, does not express its full message or information. So, let me to recall it's principle, with help of some mathematical formalism. Let G be some class of events, and I think that in fact there is no reason why G could not be a set. Further, let M be a set of properties (or attributes, in other words), in particular, M contains, at least, the following elements: p stands for "Past", n stands for "Now" and f stands for "Future", and it also may contain some other elements. So {p,n,f} is a subset of M. There can be also some incidence relation between the sets G, M, which is (in Formal Concept Analysis) usually denoted by I. So I is a subset of the Cartesian product G x M. The membership set relation will be denoted by e. Now we will consider three (potentially different) incidence relations P, N, F (in place of a general relation I) between the sets G, M. Again, P stands for "Past", N stands for "Now" and F stands for "Future", but in a slightly different sense that the "small", uncapitalized letters. (Since I am not a native English speaker, I intentionally don't want to use the grammar terminology and speak about various "tenses".) If (a,b) e P, it means that "a had the property b" in Past, if (a,b) e N, it means that "a has the property b" Now, and if (a,b) e F, it means that "a will have the property b" in Future. Further, if (a,b) e P, it also gives us the information, that (a,p) e N, that is, in "Now" the event "a has the property to be in Past" or "it happened in past". Similarly, if (a,b) e F, it also gives us the information, that (a,f) e N, that is, in "Now" the event "a has the property to be in Future", so "it will happen in future". Beside this, if (a,b) e N, it also gives us the information that (a,p) e F, that is, in "Future" the event "a will have the property to be in Past", so "it happened in past", and also (a,f) e P, so in "Past" the event "a had the property to be in Future", so "it will happen in future". Now we may conclude that for any (a,b) e G x M, (a,b) e N => (a,p) e F => (a,f) e N and (a,b) e N => (a,f) e P => (a,p) e N, which together gives (a,b) e N => (a,f) e N and (a,p) e N. Finally, taking a special property b e {p,n,f} we get (a,n) e N => (a,f) e N <=> (a,p) e N I think that it is very a important fact, that the conclusion has the form of an implication. It says, that if we can say "Now" that the event "a has some property b", then the event "a" is also "Past" as well as a "Future" event. But is there really any "Now"? And if so, if we admit that the "present moment" is not illusory, that it is not a some kind of missinterpretation of the nature of time, are we still able to check, at the "present moment", that the event "a has some property b"? Perhaps the following conclusion could be a better, alternative interpretation of the McTaggart's paradox: The "Now" is either only an illusion or it coincides with "Past" and "Future". We can choose. If time "flows", there is no "Now". If it does not flow, "Past", "Now" and "Future" are the same. By the way, there is a related Zen story, a koan. Without any claims for the correct and complete answer, I only reproduce the story below: An old Zen master asked his acolyte, "What do you see?" The apprentice looked up and said, "Oh! The wild geese are flying." He saw the wild geese flying. This answer sent the old Zen master into a rage, and he gave the apprentice's nose a painful squeeze. Then he asked again, "What do you see?" The student replied, "Oh, they have flown away." [audience laughter] The old Zen master raised up his hand and brought it down hard on the apprentice's head. (From the True Buddha School Net) I would also like to note that some people have an experience from their meditation, which they describe as a state of consciousness, in which the time "stops" flowing. And perhaps also God (if He or She exists, of course - I am a mathematician), can see everything "at once". What is your opinion of this?