The solution to this problem is to posit that something has always existed since nothing is impossible. — kindred

Perhaps we misunderstand nothing. As post bang beings, our concept of "nothing" by any measure returns the result of "no thing."

There is no beginning to an infinite amount of force X, there is no end to an infinite amount of force X, and there is no movement to an infinite amount of force X at rest. An infinite amount of force X at rest is a state of being that by any measure returns a result of "no thing".

So for those who consider pre-bang being to be an infinite amount of forces X, Y, Z and whatever in an infinitely small space and all at rest, then pre-bang being is a state of being that by any measure returns a result of “no thing.” And out of nothing . . .

Perhaps I will name my next band Post Bang Being. :smile:

I was thinking something similar, I believe.

My thought process was:

When we refer to "reality" or "the universe", we are referring to: the entire collection of objects (ultimately made up of quarks, leptons, etc.), space, and time.

However, what if these "things" had precursor, "things" that aren't like any of the "things" that we are familiar with as constituents of reality.

These original things can therefore be eternal - (like you say, perhaps fields) - and have existed always.
The only one of the original familiar elements that I take as having to also be an infinite precursor as well, would have to be time.

Maybe, like a chemical reaction, these original, always existing fields, could go for a long time before reacting. eventually, though, they do react, and space, and particles, etc. came to be, with time still existing from the original set.

eventually, though, they do react, and space, and particles, etc. came to be, with time still existing from the original set. — 013zen

Good stuff. Infinite amount of forces X, Y and whatever in an infinitely small space and all at rest. The only finite element of the scenario is the at rest.

There is no time in nothing therefore the creation from nothing is impossible. — MoK

i disagree with the stance taken in the op, i think it is possible. Time can tell, but not you or anyone living today perhaps.
no thing is still bound to time just not time alone...are you saying "nothing" is impossible to connect to any time? or a time? The clock is ticking, do you have a watch? can you count down from 100?....maybe The time can come , the time exists and is knowable in a moments time and it vanishes just as quick as it comes, or slow...time drags, flies, and moves. noticing that time is hard... I think time is WITH NOT IN nothing as long as things move in space. No thing vs some thing, no vs some....things. Within a creation (do you know this scope? i think its knowable only because of time) of no thing is not time, time made it possible or fit or suited to see or notice no thing because the motion or movement is/ can be a/the "thing" in itself. Time and motion are linked together. What do you know of stillness? Dark matter?

And although it may be tempting to say that time is required for change, it is perhaps more accurate to say that time is change, assuming that time is in fact a dimension of spacetime. — Michael

:up: or instead of time is change, time allows change to happen in many places, small and large degrees. It can be/is measurable assuming time is a dim of movement (or change) in spacetime.

Hot and cold...marco and polo

Circularity is not infinite regress, we are not always going back to new reasons, but looping. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up: loop de loop, round and round.

The solution to this problem is to posit that something has always existed since nothing is impossible. That’s the only conclusion to be drawn from it. The obvious question is well where did this something come from and again we’re faced with the brute fact that it’s always been — kindred

:up: this is where i am at...

Always existed vs made existing by and from creation of something from nothing
innate vs taught
natural vs the nature
nothing is that thing so some thing can be created within and with time and motion is some thing knowable from nothing
materials vs backround or invisible plane
nothing is something with no time or space relevance? how is that possible?
nothing is no thing, until it is...tangibility from the transferring energy is possible i think?

so mathematical theorems are valid even if there is no man who could deduce or know them — MoK

valid? who cares if its valid...its not telling if time prevents any man from knowing...time helps the right man know.

A gifted gift giver gives gifts to the gifted, for both the gifted and non. A win-win.

This time there was no thing....next time could happen in no time, who is counting? who can? who can be in no time? where is no time?

I was thinking something similar, I believe.

My thought process was:

When we refer to "reality" or "the universe", we are referring to: the entire collection of objects (ultimately made up of quarks, leptons, etc.), space, and time.

However, what if these "things" had precursor, "things" that aren't like any of the "things" that we are familiar with as constituents of reality.

These original things can therefore be eternal - (like you say, perhaps fields) - and have existed always.
The only one of the original familiar elements that I take as having to also be an infinite precursor as well, would have to be time.

Maybe, like a chemical reaction, these original, always existing fields, could go for a long time before reacting. eventually, though, they do react, and space, and particles, etc. came to be, with time still existing from the original set — 013zen

eventually, though, they do react, and space, and particles, etc. came to be, with time still existing from the original set. — 013zen
— Arne

Good stuff. Infinite amount of forces X, Y and whatever in an infinitely small space and all at rest. The only finite element of the scenario is the at rest. — Arne

yes im with this, always was since i started typing here at least...
-I go full circle, as i typed in my first paragraph to MoK before I read the rest of the comments. I then see the last comment of the thread, where Arne mentions rest with delight....thats why I asked in the first paragraph of my reply to WHAT is known of stillness?

WHAT is known of stillness — Kizzy

It is clearly not infinite. Arguably, the big bang is the annihilation of the "stillness".