In effect it always seems reasonable to ask, for any posited beginning of time itself, for a time before that beginning. This leads to an infinite regress - for any beginning of time we can always ask for a time before that purported beginning. This then implies that to say time had a beginning is nonsensical. It (time) can't have a beginning. So, if time has no beginning, is the past infinite? — TheMadFool

I don't think it is reasonable to say time had a beginning, and then speculate on how we deal with time before that. If time began with the Big Bang, then the concept of time before it is nonsensical, and can't be palmed off as 'infinite'. Whatever existed before the Big Bang (even assuming the concept of 'existance' is any more valid than 'time' to describe it) time wasn't part of it. Even that statement is absurd, because there is no 'before' the Big Bang.

We poor humans don't have the brains or language to deal with this problem!

I don't think it is reasonable to say time had a beginning, and then speculate on how we deal with time before that. If time began with the Big Bang, then the concept of time before it is nonsensical, and can't be palmed off as 'infinite'. Whatever existed before the Big Bang (even assuming the concept of 'existance' is any more valid than 'time' to describe it) time wasn't part of it. Even that statement is absurd, because there is no 'before' the Big Bang.

We poor humans don't have the brains or language to deal with this problem! — Tim3003

Why is it "nonsensical" to ask of time before the Big Bang? What is particularly "nonsensical" about it? Does it lead to a contradiction? How? Where?

Time Before the Big Bang (sensationalism?)

It is nonsensical to say that time began AND then ask what came before but the problem with this is that the very idea of a beginning is incoherent because for any point in time there's always something that precedes it. Basically, the idea of a beginning itself is nonsenical.

Why is it "nonsensical" to say ask of time before the Big Bang? What is particularly "nonsensical" about it? Does it lead to a contradiction? How? Where? — TheMadFool

If you're saying time began with the Big Bang surely you can't talk about time before the Big Bang - any more than you can talk about what's north of the North Pole. 'Northness' starts with the Pole. If you're saying time existed before the Big Bang it's a different question. So you have to decide which route to go down as the Big Bang theory has to differ according to your choice..

If you're saying time began with the Big Bang surely you can't talk about time before the Big Bang - any more than you can talk about what's north of the North Pole. 'Northness' starts with the Pole. If you're saying time existed before the Big Bang it's a different question. So you have to decide which route to go down as the Big Bang theory has to differ according to your choice.. — Tim3003

I agree with what you said but I'm questioning the very idea of a beginning. It's nonsensical to talk of a beginning at all in a sequence (time is a sequence) in which every point has another point that precedes it. Can I not say e.g. 15 billion years ago or 100 billion years ago? Yes, I can and there's no x years ago that can be a beginning because for every x years ago point in time there's another point x - 1 years ago.

Interesting question upon which to speculate. There are lots of these kinds of questions...and I LOVE to do the speculating.

But there is a phrase I use often that many people seem reluctant to use. I recommend it...particularly when contemplating questions like this:

Beats the shit out of me!

That...and the other variations of "I do not know" are as important as answers...

...as is "4" when asked, "In base 10 what does 2 + 2 equal?"

The problem with an infinite past is that the present then becomes impossible for it requires infinite time to have gone by and that is an impossibility. Infinity can't be completed for it is, by definition, something that has no end and the end, if the past is infinite, is now, the present. So, the past can't be infinite. — TheMadFool

This is why it is better to look at time starting from the perspective of the present. We can see that as time passes, the past is coming into existence, it is growing. So the present is the beginning of the past, which is determined existence, and in the same sort of way, it is the ending of the future, which is indeterminate.

Further, if we adopt the principle, that time only has real existence as it passes, then past time is the only real time. This means that the future, properly speaking, is outside of time. And in this way it makes sense to speak of things outside of time.

Now, we can project this principle hypothetically, counterfactually backwards in time. So for example, we can hypothesize about "this time yesterday", when it was the present, before today had any real temporal existence. We can also hypothesize about free will, whether someone had done that, instead of this, removing the real choice which was made, through the assumption that the future has no real existence. You'll see that the person's choices are necessarily constrained by the actuality of the past time. So the actuality of past time puts constraints on future possibilities.

Let's project this point all the way backwards, to a hypothetical point when there is absolutely no past time, and only future. This would mean that there is absolutely no constraint on the possibilities for the future at this time. However, since there is no past at this time, there is nothing acting and therefore nothing to choose, or to bring about any possibility into existence, in any way. So this is problematic, implying that there is either no such first point in time, or there is something outside of time, which can act. That there is no first point can be dismissed for the reason you gave. So we must conclude that something acts from outside of time.

This is not incomprehensible because the premises of the description place the future as outside of time. So what we are left with is the conclusion that there is something acting in the future. What this means, is that as time passes, there is something in the future, from our perspective (the present), which is acting to determine how things will be as the past comes into existence at the present. This activity, these actions are not observable from our perspective, because our perspective is at the present, and these action are in the future in relation to us. Then we can see that all the things we observe at the present, which appear to be determined by the past (constituting natural laws), are really determined by these activities in the future. These activities we have no capacity to interact with, or interfere with, because they are outside our grasp (the present), being in the future. We look at them as fixed natural laws, making the appearance of past existence consistent, but this is really just a reflection of the consistency in these activities which are occurring outside of time, in the future.

:chin:

Leaves you speechless?

:mask:

So, if time has no beginning, is the past infinite? — TheMadFool

Insofar as "infinite" denotes unbounded (like a e.g. circumference, cycle, möbius strip) - yes, spacetime is "infinite" (or, more precisely, unbounded yet finite like the surface of a sphere or torus). '13.81 billion years' is the currently estimated 'age' only of this non-planck radius universe (which is emergent, or non-fundamental (Rovelli et al)) and not of the planck vacuum itself. :sweat:

Insofar as "infinite" denotes unbounded (like a e.g. circumference, cycle, möbius strip) - yes, spacetime is "infinite" (or, more precisely, unbounded yet finite like the surface of a sphere or torus). '13.81 billion years' is the currently estimated 'age' only of this non-planck radius universe and not of the planck vacuum itself. :sweat: — 180 Proof

This view agrees with "many ancient beliefs" of time being cyclical in nature - solves the twin problems of:

1. a beginning being impossible
2. Infinite time also being impossible

So, does this inevitable conclusion lead to the Big Bounce theory (oscillatory universe)?

Time being cyclical itself leads to contradictions because any moment in time is both before AND after another moment in time.

Leaves you speechless? — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

Perhaps another paradoxical way of looking at time is in a pragmatic sense viz. ex nihilo. We need the past and future in order to cognize and exist.

For example, when I think of a thing existing, that thing must have had a past at one time, because it exists. And while I'm doing the actual thinking about that existing thing, I need the future for me to cognize about its existence. That cognizing then required future time for that thing to even come into existence, in my mind. Thinking requires time.

And so we really don't need the present. We need the past and future to make things exist.

Otherwise, the brute mystery that relates to the Time paradox involves change. If time started with the Big Bang, did change exist before time?

Good stuff TMF!

So, does this inevitable conclusion lead to the Big Bounce theory (oscillatory universe)? — TheMadFool

I don't know. Penrose, for example, thinks so, but Carlo Rovelli doesn't seem to. A "universe" (i.e. spacetimemass manifold) might not be fundamental; if so, then "it" isn't "oscillating" and might merely be a dissipative aspect of, or fluctuation in, an encompassing environment (i.e. planck vacuum). The "paradox", it seems to me, is (mostly) apparent: "time" describes only "the universe" and not that from which "it" might have emerged (Plotinus???) :eyes:

If time started with the Big Bang, did change exist before time? — 3017amen

"Before time"? Like ... north of the north pole??? :mask:

I agree with what you said but I'm questioning the very idea of a beginning. It's nonsensical to talk of a beginning at all in a sequence (time is a sequence) in which every point has another point that precedes it. — TheMadFool

..only once it's started - not before. At 'point 1' of time there was no 'before' as that's when time was created. Your concept of time seems to assume that it must be linear and unbounded. Einstein would disagree I think..

Can I not say e.g. 15 billion years ago or 100 billion years ago? Yes, I can and there's no x years ago that can be a beginning because for every x years ago point in time there's another point x - 1 years ago. — TheMadFool

You can talk in theory of 100 billion years ago just as you can talk in theory of time travel. The fact that we can conceptualise these ideas does not guarantee that in the universe they are possible..

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it all had a definite earliest time, or "time zero" as it were.

By free, perhaps lax, application of sufficient reason, we'd then expect a cause.
An "outside", "atemporal" cause.
(This is more or less the kalam cosmological argument.)

By another application of sufficient reason we get something else.
A definite earliest time means an age, like 14 billion years, say.
Yet, with an "atemporal" cause of the universe, there's no sufficient reason that the universe is 14 billion years old and not some other age, any other age in fact.
We'd then expect an infinite age.

At a glance, both of these appear to have some intuitive import, except they render a contradiction.
Hence, the principle of sufficient reason and the like are not applicable in this case.
An antinomy? What gives?

(Besides, spacetime is an aspect, or are aspects, of the universe, and "before time" is incoherent. Causation is temporal, and "a cause of causation" is incoherent.)

:up: :up:

Does it make sense to ask whether time had a beginning or not? Suppose for the moment that it does. So, does time have a beginning?

Suppose time did have a beginning and it was 13.8 billion years ago with the so-called Big Bang. Although some have said to ask what happened before the Big Bang? is akin to asking what is north of the north pole? it seems reasonable to consider not space-matter-energy but a time before the Big Bang. In effect it always seems reasonable to ask, for any posited beginning of time itself, for a time before that beginning. This leads to an infinite regress - for any beginning of time we can always ask for a time before that purported beginning. This then implies that to say time had a beginning is nonsensical. It (time) can't have a beginning. So, if time has no beginning, is the past infinite?

Ergo,

1. Time has no beginning i.e. the past is infinite

The problem with an infinite past is that the present then becomes impossible for it requires infinite time to have gone by and that is an impossibility. Infinity can't be completed for it is, by definition, something that has no end and the end, if the past is infinite, is now, the present. So, the past can't be infinite.

Ergo,

2. The past can't be infinite i.e. time has to have a beginning

1 & 2 is a contradiction.

What gives? — TheMadFool

I think the problem with this is we assume that the present is important atleast when thinking about reality. I'm not trying to depress you, but i'm sitting in my house right now (present), ten minutes from now i could walk outside and get bitten by a copper head snake or i could get in a serious car accident.

I think your theory is too contigent on whether the "present" is important.

If something always existed or if matter & mass always existed, then heat & movement always existed.

If a creature always existed even if it was "spiritual" creature, it would probably have thoughts or feelings if it was creature. Perhaps these thoughts are just connected visual representations of reality.

Either way i don't think it is entirely implausible for movement, heat, matter & time to have always existed. The matter of whether there is a present doesn't matter. The "present" is only important based on context, like if a person likes living in the present. What i mean by like is if that person has positive feelings associated with being in the "present". If a person has negative feelings associated with being in the "present", they not see the "present" as so important.

Currently i enjoy not working, so i like being in the "present". I'm not trying to make you feel bad.

The fact that we can conceptualise these ideas does not guarantee that in the universe they are possible.. — Tim3003

What makes it impossible?

before time" is incoherent. — jorndoe

On what grounds?

Hence, the principle of sufficient reason and the like are not applicable in this case. — jorndoe

I haven't mentioned anything about causality.

How about it just is what you say it is, for the purposes for which you say it, and not for the purposes for the which you're not saying it, with requisite rigour and care at the boundaries - not of meaing, but of what you mean.

@Metaphysician Undercover@tim wood@Tim3003@180 Proof@jorndoe@christian2017@3017amen

Imagine, for the moment, that we have a clock that's keeping time for the universe. From our vantage point, the universe began 13.8 billion years ago; this beginning can be thought of as 12 midnight (0000 hours military time) by that clock. It is not impossible to imagine winding back this universe clock to another time like 11 PM or 6 PM before 12 midnight (when the Big Bang is supposed to have occurred).

Metaphysician Undercover@tim wood@Tim3003@180 Proof@jorndoe@christian2017@3017amen

Imagine, for the moment, that we have a clock that's keeping time for the universe. From our vantage point, the universe began 13.8 billion years ago; this beginning can be thought of as 12 midnight (0000 hours military time) by that clock. It is not impossible to imagine winding back this universe clock to another time like 11 PM or 6 PM before 12 midnight (when the Big Bang is supposed to have occurred). — TheMadFool

Some argue the condensed universe (similar to a black hole) could only break free of gravity under wierd circumstances involving alignment of something (like most theories going back this far its a Pop sci article for the most part). Perhaps the universe always existed (heat & movement) but for much of its history it was just a really dense and small thing of matter/mass (alot of stuff in a small space). Time goes back forever possibly but some areas of history just don't matter that much (pardon the pun).

It is not impossible to imagine — TheMadFool

No end of things that can be imagined.

@christian2017@tim woodThe gist of the commments in this thread is that a time before the alleged beginning (the Big Bang) is incoherent. The all-time favorite response "there is no north of the north pole" is clearly visible in the responses so far.

This however isn't a satisfactory answer. Why? Take the oldest idea about the structure of time viz. past, present, future. These 3 divisions of time are inseparable in that the future becomes the present and the present becomes the past and none of them make sense if considered to the exclusion of the other two. Since the Big Bang was, at some point in time, a present (now), there must be a time before it, the past, just as it had a future which we're currently experiencing.

The gist of the commments in this thread is that a time before the alleged beginning (the Big Bang) is incoherent. The all-time favorite response "there is no north of the north pole" is clearly visible in the responses so far.

This however isn't a satisfactory answer. Why? Take the oldest idea about the structure of time viz. past, present, future. These 3 divisions of time are inseparable in that the future becomes the present and the present becomes the past and none of them make sense if considered to the exclusion of the other two. Since the Big Bang was, at some point in time, a present (now), there must be a time before it, the past, just as it had a future which we're currently experiencing. — TheMadFool

I suppose to some extent (and you would agree) these questions don't matter. My biggest problem with the big bang being the beginning is it is possible that dense mass in the beginning sat for X (?trillion years?) time prior to exploding.

On a different note i don't have a problem with eternal matter, eternal heat, eternal pressure, eternal movement, eternal time but maybe i'm just stupid.

Does it make sense to ask whether time had a beginning or not? — TheMadFool

How are you defining "time" and "beginning" when you pose this question?

How are you defining "time" and "beginning" when you pose this question? — aletheist

Good question. Time meaning that which is measured by a clock and beginning in the sense of coming into existence. Did that which a clock measures come into existence (time began) or was it always there (infinite past)?

:flower: