So after reading a lot about Hawking's "no boundary hypothesis", I realized that people are still asking what came "before time". Hawking has time going back 1/2 of a second, 1/3, 1/4 like that going to infinity but with no limit ("boundary") towards the end. It's very weird. Hawking's idea is that time get's smaller and smaller and becomes indistinguishable from space. It just goes back a distance, a fraction of that,
another fraction and onward to infinity as it shrinks, but space itself is not the limit. He keeps space and time separate. Time just becomes a haze as the equations look more and more like space with every fraction. Time and space infinitely become indistinguishable near the big bang. Hawking's imaginary time is sort of a hybrid of time and space. Keep in mind that gravity can't exist without time because it's a curve in Spacetime.

When Hawking says we can go to the South Pole thinking, at first, that we can go further, I think he realizes you would have to look up in order to go further. The sky is the no-boundary "nothing" in that analogy and the earth is the universe

I think the theory is kinda a form of eternal universe. Space is just space, but time keeps acting more and more like space and nothingness (absolutely no thing) is the boundary. It's fuzzier than just saying there has been an eternity of days in the past. People are still asking though, what is BEHIND this infinite past with nothingness as the boundary? One guy I read suggested simply that the laws of physics are most fundamental.

(Penrose and Carroll both have their theories about the start of the universe. Penrose said he disagreed with what Hawking said in his final book about this, and posits his own eternal universe which reminds me of an infinite slide with water eternally flowing down)

Finally, my guess is thatif you have two eternal principles of matter and no time, the principles eternally act on each other, outside time, and you would have the first motion of the big bang. Einstein said without motion there is no time. So I think that maybe, with a couple fundamental laws of physics in play (more fundamental even than gravity), movement and time can start and we can have a big bang. Having one eternal principle is harder to conceive as gushing out the universe, unless it's some spiritual principle. But if we stick to materialism, two essential laws of matter might be necessary.

What do you think? — Gregory

Considering something in motion stays in motion and something won't start moving unless a force is acted on it and gravity is always at play (gravity applies force continuously. Perhaps the universe has always been in motion and space/time has always been curved.

The universe doesn't change in the sense that it didn't begin, and thus it continues forever at the same time.
Gravity has always cause motion and gravity has always existed.

I changed this to the universe didn't change in that sense that it didn't begin....

If it makes no sense to have a finite temporal universe, why does making it eternal solve the problem. I think they both stand or fall together

i'll have to reread the OP and read further about finite temporal universe. If the universe was forever in motion then it has no beginning. Stephen Hawkings argued that turtles on top of infinite turtles isn't completely ridicoulous.

Something can't me moved unless acted on by an outside force. Gravity always existed. Why is it so ridicoulous that there was always movement in the universe (even if its on the microscopic or sub atomic scale). Turtles on top of turtles isn't completely ridicoulous. Why do we assume there is no movement inside a black hole or when the universe was really small. Heat = movement.

i looked at the OP again.

So after reading a lot about Hawking's "no boundary hypothesis", I realized that people are still asking what came "before time". Hawking has time going back 1/2 of a second, 1/3, 1/4 like that going to infinity but with no limit ("boundary") towards the end. It's very weird. Hawking's idea is that time get's smaller and smaller and becomes indistinguishable from space. It just goes back a distance, a fraction of that,
another fraction and onward to infinity as it shrinks, but space itself is not the limit. He keeps space and time separate. Time just becomes a haze as the equations look more and more like space with every fraction. Time and space infinitely become indistinguishable near the big bang. Hawking's imaginary time is sort of a hybrid of time and space. Keep in mind that gravity can't exist without time because it's a curve in Spacetime.

When Hawking says we can go to the South Pole thinking, at first, that we can go further, I think he realizes you would have to look up in order to go further. The sky is the no-boundary "nothing" in that analogy and the earth is the universe

I think the theory is kinda a form of eternal universe. Space is just space, but time keeps acting more and more like space and nothingness (absolutely no thing) is the boundary. It's fuzzier than just saying there has been an eternity of days in the past. People are still asking though, what is BEHIND this infinite past with nothingness as the boundary? One guy I read suggested simply that the laws of physics are most fundamental.

(Penrose and Carroll both have their theories about the start of the universe. Penrose said he disagreed with what Hawking said in his final book about this, and posits his own eternal universe which reminds me of an infinite slide with water eternally flowing down)

Finally, my guess is thatif you have two eternal principles of matter and no time, the principles eternally act on each other, outside time, and you would have the first motion of the big bang. Einstein said without motion there is no time. So I think that maybe, with a couple fundamental laws of physics in play (more fundamental even than gravity), movement and time can start and we can have a big bang. Having one eternal principle is harder to conceive as gushing out the universe, unless it's some spiritual principle. But if we stick to materialism, two essential laws of matter might be necessary.

What do you think? — Gregory

If a spirit moved the universe to allow movement? Why do we say a spirit doesn't itself move? To say the universe always moved isn't ridicoulous. Heat = movement. If he feels hot or cold today we know there is currently movement, some movement or there was movement at one time.

There are difficulties with eternal time because it brings in absolute time. How could an eternity lead to now and there be a now? That's a paradox. What I came up with is that there is no eternal time, but that we start counting time from the big bang on. First motion, latter motions.

There are difficulties with eternal time because it brings in absolute time. How could an eternity lead to now and there be a now? That's a paradox. What I came up with is that there is no eternal time, but that we start counting time from the big bang on. First motion, latter motions. — Gregory

Eternal time doesn't bring in absolute time. Einstein said that time is the iteration of events or the iteration of the movement of particles and among other things he said that a clock on space ship (moving fast) will tell time slower than a clock sitting your bedroom. This was proven with tests flying over the chesapeake bay.

You can have forever heat (heat doesn't have a beginning) and still keep with special relativity.

The rest of what you just said is contigent on the initial statements you made so we can go from there.

It gets into absolute time because of the eternity. Consider the Islamic kalam argument against eternal time. If you think there has to be eternal time, you again think of absolute time. Only nothingness was before the first motion, not a frozen eternity

If there is heat/movement (if there is movement there is heat and if there is heat there is movement) it is not a frozen eternity. Have you ever read "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings. Did you read a book or watch a video?

It gets into absolute time because of the eternity. Consider the Islamic kalam argument against eternal time. If you think there has to be eternal time, you again think of absolute time. Only nothingness was before the first motion, not a frozen eternity — Gregory

Absolute time implies that time is not relative. What else are you saying that it implies? What would i search for (be a little more specific) for "the islamic kalam argument against eternal time". Are you saying that is what i should look up?

Absolute time implies that time is not relative. What else are you saying that it implies? What would i search for (be a little more specific) for "the islamic kalam argument against eternal time". Are you saying that is what i should look up? — christian2017

Absolute time says that things change merely speeds and that our perceptions are not the reality of time. So absolute time and relativity are reconcilable. If something moves at a faster speed, it would say that time doesn't slow down, but our perceptions change. As applied to space, this says things have an objective size and sequence, even though observers might differ in what they perceive. It is brought up with eternal time. The kalam argument asks how there could be a now in there is an eternity of past days. If you have an infinite staircase, you will never get to a point (now). We are here, so there wasn't an eternity of time. That's the argument at least. Absolute times seems required to have an eternal universe, and such a situation is paradoxical.

Absolute time says that things change merely speeds and that our perceptions are not the reality of time. — Gregory

Can you rewrite that sentence and then we can continue on, otherwise i'll have to rethink everything else you said based on that sentence. That was your first sentence.

You don't have to have time as part of "space-time" in order to understand the math of relativity. Time doesn't slow down; THINGS slow down and enlarge. Clocks are not time itself. We perceive different "times", but there could be an overarching objective time above it all by which they are compared. Does that help explain my post?

I understand clocks aren't time, but clocks are built from particles and particles are effected by the fact that the linear velocity can't exceed C when you combine the X, Y and Z vectors. This does effect the clock's ability to "accurately" tell time.

I do agree there could be an overarching objective time but thats a separate forum topic.

In reality you could be right (small possibility) about what you believe, but modern Physicists (as opposed to 100 years ago when things were less refined and more simple and less things were known) crunch numbers, run tests and do math all day. What do you know about Newtonian Physics because you really can't skip Newtonian Physics nor Calculus.

Nor Linear Algebra which is not something i'm good at.

What do you know about Newtonian Physics because you really can't skip Newtonian Physics nor Calculus. — christian2017

Not enough. But plenty of philosophers and some physicists believe that time is merely a measure humans give to events. Whether time is infinite in the past definitely applies to this thread's topic. The Kalam argument starts by saying "everything that begins has a cause" then goes on to argue there can't be an eternal past, so there must be a beginning. I see a problem with an eternal universe too. But I don't think we need to posit God just because there is a first motion. The kalam argument is used primarily to argue for God

I actually don't know the answer to this so i'm asking you. Do most (most) Physticists say there was always heat (a temperature above -480 degees farenheit or 0 degrees kelvin) from the beginning or was the original temperature 0 kelvin? Once again what do most Physicists say?

Absolute 0 for farenheit might be -483 point something but i don't feel like looking it up. 0 kelvin is absolute 0 in kelvin.

I actually don't know the answer to this so i'm asking you. Do most (most) Physticists say there was always heat (a temperature above -480 degees farenheit or 0 degrees kelvin) from the beginning or was the original temperature 0 kelvin? Once again what do most Physicists say?

Absolute 0 for farenheit might be -483 point something but i don't feel like looking it up. 0 kelvin is absolute 0 in kelvin. — christian2017

From what I've read, physicist generally say there was no heat at the beginning because there was no motion.. It went from a point, which is not even a size, to size, and then to great size (expanding universe). What triggered this motion is what the debate is about. But there is no point talking about the point (pun intended). All that is actual is the heat and motion coming from it. Causality is tricky when dealing with a point as the limit

I actually don't know the answer to this so i'm asking you. Do most (most) Physticists say there was always heat (a temperature above -480 degees farenheit or 0 degrees kelvin) from the beginning or was the original temperature 0 kelvin? Once again what do most Physicists say?

Absolute 0 for farenheit might be -483 point something but i don't feel like looking it up. 0 kelvin is absolute 0 in kelvin.
— christian2017

From what I've read, physicist generally say there was no heat at the beginning because there was no motion.. It went from a point, which is not even a size, to size, and then to great size (expanding universe). What triggered this motion is what the debate is about. But there is no point talking about the point (pun intended). All that is actual is the heat and motion coming from it. Causality is tricky when dealing with a point as the limit — Gregory

An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force (Newtonian law)

Not saying you are wrong but are you saying this particular aspect of Newtonian physics is wrong?

Ofcourse not all aspects of Newtonian physics were rejected by later physicists.

As I said earlier in this thread, Aquinas said the faculty of reason causes the power will, which reason needs in order to operate. It causes it and instantaneously uses it in its actions.Likewise, Fitche said we create objects outside us (the non-Ego) but we are dependent on them in order to act. There is an instantaneous grasping of the creation in order to act "within the world". So I've speculated that, if time is more than a mental thing, it was started along with the first motion. There was literally nothing before this, even if you don't argue (as I have recently on this forum) that nothingness is considered sacred by Buddhism. When you have an eternal universe, there will be more paradoxes than are generally needed in these discussions

An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force — christian2017

There is no "rest" before the first motion. There is nothing. Everything is a stream or flow from a single "point"

Heidegger always said the first start of philosophy is with o the the presocratics. Plato makes the one Universe of the eleatics into an infinity of Forms which merge with each other to form objects. Our senses see the noumenic, the avcidental. Not the substance of forms. The highest is as discrete as nothing.

The eyes can link up with mental vision. Hindus call it third eye

An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted on by an outside force
— christian2017

There is no "rest" before the first motion. There is nothing. Everything is a stream or flow from a single "point" — Gregory

If no particles are moving, how is that not rest? Actually now that i think about it can matter even exist in the first place if there is no movement? I'm not sure you can say there wasn't always heat/movement.

Only activity is real. Potential is as nothing as evil it. It only something and good when acutal. Before matter there is no movement and vice verse. You, Christisn, are assuming an infinity of intermediate first motions

Nothingness is powerful but not good. The world is good. We are good. Creation is like the genie creating a greater one

That's where the West in the person of Hegel countered Buddha and said "you can't expect people to do what you do. They will get bored. I say let them watch TV". And the modern world began

Only activity is real. Potential is as nothing as evil it. It only something and good when acutal. Before matter there is no movement and vice verse. You, Christisn, are assuming an infinity of intermediate first motions — Gregory

You didn't tag me so i didn't see the post.

What do you mean by activity? Basically what i'm saying is can electron, proton or whatever subatomic particle that existed in the beginning, how can it exist without motion (because you said there was no motion). At this point in time i believe micro collisions or movement eternally existed going back forever.
An Proton for example as far as i know is a wave of smaller particles moving back and forth. Can matter exist without movement/heat?

The only way you can explain (at this point in the conversation) is a spiritual/religious solution which is what you did with the follow up reply. As you've probably guessed, personally i have no problem with that.

That's where the West in the person of Hegel countered Buddha and said "you can't expect people to do what you do. They will get bored. I say let them watch TV". And the modern world began — Gregory

Actually i agree, watching tv is a great way to pass the time but not a great way to get ideas about how society should work or about how to vote at the election.

You didn't tag me so i didn't see the post. — christian2017

That button doesn't always work on the laptop. Sorry

Can matter exist without movement/heat? — christian2017

No. It everything is dependent on motion and motion on them, but motion is the prime mover.

Actually i agree, watching tv is a great way to pass the time but not a great way to get ideas about how society should work or about how to vote at the election. — christian2017

Plato said learning geometry and would have said watching Snow White are activities that help the society. Platonic stuff

Matter is defined by degrees of solidity. Nothingness must be the softest "thing" possible (although it's closer to an idea than a substance. Sorry Descartes). I think science can answer the HOW but not the what or the why. The how can be explained by a non-existing clock. It clicks, the first second thus exist, and then the second, ect. Suddenly a whole clock exists and it rebirths itself every hour. It didn't come from nothing as far as science is concerned. It just is a brute fact. Nothingness is necessary (how could there not be nothing?) but not brute. It's too soft for that :)