Exactly.
From nothing, nothing can be obtained thus the universe always existed, just in different forms.

From nothing, nothing can be obtained thus the universe always existed — MathematicalPhysicist

The universe always existed outside of time.

If the universe is eternal (inside time), it has no temporal start point, so it can’t exist.
Also if the universe is eternal (inside time), an actual infinity of seconds has past, which is impossible.

Also:

- Could an event have occurred infinity long ago?
- No, because there is no way for the effects of the event to ever reach today (-oo +1 = -oo)
- So nothing can have occurred infinity long ago
- All events must of occurred finitely long ago

For something to 'start' it would also have to 'finish', but for something to finish it would be the start of something else. Considering what happens between the start and finish is what matters

The problem with asking for something to have a start is that the argument might always be circular: there will always be a need for a "prime mover", at least with much of how we understand the world now. People can argue space-time as an emergent phenomona, quantum fluctuations in the void, but none of that ever really solves the problem of explaining how those things themselves came to be. Some will say this is beyond the limits of our understanding, and perhaps that is the correct approach.

However, there are other views as well: existence may very well be a brute fact, without beginning, without end, an eternal wheel. In that sense, perhaps Time itself is the one thing that requires no start (though this does take a very simple view of Time or Change as being something which exists independently of any observer).

However, a contrary view is that worldly existence may also be an illusion, in which no Time or causality exists in-itself, but is just a by-product of the complexity of the present reality we eternally exist in (e.g., block theory of time, boltzmann brain). In this view, the past and future are not real, time does not actually exist, and we exist in a static universe where nothing ever happens because time does not actually exist, we are just deceived into believing it does by how our mind is constructed in this reality of the "present moment" in which we are stuck like a broken record that does not realize it is playing the same moment over and over. If you remove time, you eliminate the need for a start, for causality, because if time does not exist, nothing ever passes or comes into existence, everything just is as it always has been and always will be. You need not ask for a "how" or a "start" in a timeless universe since without time, nothing ever happens, things just exist. There is no need for someone to put them there, for you would need time in order for that to happen and time never was, nor will it ever be, a feature of noumenal reality in this theory.

Having said that, I still find a timeless theory a bitter pill to swallow and would like to believe our experience of time has some validity but I think many assumptions we have of basic reality, especially related to quantum reality and specifically, entanglement, will need to be better understood in order to pave a new theory that will make everyone go "ah-hah! How could I have not seen that before?".

The answer may very well be out there, I just think we are not there quite yet (unless of course the timeless interpretation is real and we are stuck in Plato's cave admiring the shadows).

If you remove time, you eliminate the need for a start — The Existentialist

I disagree. Would a moment exist if the moment before it was removed? Surely not. In fact all moments after the moment removed are undefined/cannot exist. So you actually need a first moment for a time series to be valid. That's the problem with eternity; it has no start so none of it exists.

So I still hold time has a start. Thats completely incompatible with Presentism BTW.

Your response assumes time and causality are real, and not an illusion.

However, the argument states that if you remove time, then causality itself is an illusion.

If you remove time, there is no prior moment, or subsequent moments. There is only this present moment. The only reality, in this theory, is the present moment. Think of a photograph. It is a snapshot of a static universe. What if, in this static universe, certain things were constituted in such a way that they had a brain with a memory, with expectations of things to come, and even an experience of a world that has passed and is now moving and full of life when in reality, nothing happened or is actually happening as it is, in fact, a static universe like a photograph?

This static universe does not need a cause or a start because in order for it to have one, time would be required, but if time is not a fundamental structure of this reality: then it simply is.

Although we may "experience" things are happening and that time is real much as Plato's cave-dwellers worship the shadows on the wall as reality, we do run into several issues if we assume reality as we experience it is reflective of the actual and fundamental structure of reality, qua, questions such as how can something come from nothing, how can anything exist without a start or causation, or why is there anything at all instead of nothing?

Consider this: What is the past if not memory? What is the future if not what we expect? Can you prove the past or the future have occured or will occur? You can only fall back on this very moment of "right now", all else could be an illusion. Even what you just read may only be a result of the complexity of the reality you find yourself in "believing" in such a past when in fact there is only "right now" that has any reality, a now that never passes but exists timelessly (not eternally for there is no time). See the Boltzmann Brain hypothesis for additional elucidation of this theory.

This is not some half-baked theory, but something derived from quantum theory, specifically the Wheeler-DeWitt equations, which offer a description of a world where time is not required in order for a world to exist.

Having said that, this is a theory (and not my own). There are many others which assume time is real that I find very appealing as well but no other theory that I have come across can best explain the problem of first causation in a temporal universe as the one that eliminates time.

If you remove time, there is no prior moment, or subsequent moments. There is only this present moment. — The Existentialist

You can't completely remove time; there is 'something' there, whether you call it time or not, that allows movement and supports cause and effect. I will call it time. It must have a start because without a start the present moment is undefined. Think of it as the initial starting positions of all the particles in the universe. If that was removed, what is left? Something completely undefined. So eternity is rather like negative infinity; the start is undefined so the whole thing does not exist.

Also:

- If time did not have a start then an actual infinity of seconds has passed so far which is impossible

- Imagine an eternal being; he would have no start in time so could never exist. Being is possible we therefore conclude Eternal is not

- Intense gravity causes the passage of time to slow so time came to an almost stop at the Big Bang (strong candidate for start of time).

- A moment cannot of occurred infinity long ago, because there is no way for the effects of that moment to get to today (-oo + 1 = -oo), so all moments happened finitely long ago

You are still assuming "movement" and "causality" are real. If, as the argument states, that they are illusions based on the complexity of the state we find ourselves in a static universe of the present moment, then you can completely remove time.

For the other points, I do not believe you understand the argument as you are still assuming time in your premises. This is understandable, I had the same objections when I first encountered this theory but the more I reflected on it, the more I came to see that it could be true.

To take your argument and assuming what we experience as time has "external" reality or reflects change, re: the singularity hypothesis, I am not sure that is a good candidate as you still run into problems explaining how that singularity came to be (as for anything to come to be, time would be required). I suppose one could argue that within a singularity where the laws of physics may not apply, things can occur in ways we cannot currently comprehend that can cause time to start, however, that is still right now as much a flight of fancy as imagining a world without time. It does remind me of one theory that suggested the big bang is actually the explosion of a black hole in another universe, and that each black hole in our universe spawns its own universe, and that we do not see black holes as exploding due to time dilation (if we were to speed up time, we would see them explode like supernova if billions of years were viewed in seconds).

Your inference that everything has a start is influenced by your limited experience here on the Earth.

Everything must have existed forever otherwise you arrive at massive philosophical contradictions.

So no, nothing has a start. It all has existed forever. And that includes you, me, and God.

Everything must have existed forever otherwise you arrive at massive philosophical contradictions — hks

What contradictions?

For the other points, I do not believe you understand the argument as you are still assuming time in your premises — The Existentialist

I am assuming presentism in my premises and then disproving it. For example:

Imagine an eternal being; he would have no start so could never exist. Being is possible we therefore conclude Eternal is not.

I've not mentioned time in the above proof.

Look at it this way: if your moment of birth was removed somehow, would you still exist? Everything, time and the universe included, needs a start.

You should have put that phrase somewhere in your first paragraph then.

Time is simply a measure of change, without change there is no such thing as the concept of time. Maybe it's possible for the absence of change to give rise to change, who knows? Cause and effect is just a way we interpret change, we're used to explaining a change in terms of another change, but that doesn't imply all change needs another change to happen.

Or maybe there always was change and never absence of change.

Time is simply a measure of change, without change there is no such thing as the concept of time — leo

Time is fundamental to the universe. The speed of light speed limit (speed = distance / TIME) is obeyed by every particle in the universe and exists independently of change.

Time is fundamental to the universe. The speed of light speed limit (speed = distance / TIME) is obeyed by every particle in the universe and exists independently of change. — Devans99

We observe change, not time, time is just a tool, there is no such thing as time beyond the clocks we use, the time that shows up in physical equations has no meaning beyond that of corresponding to a clock measurement. We don't know whether everything obeys the speed of light limit, also the theory of relativity can be formulated in a way where light travels at different speeds in different directions (it's called the Lorentz ether theory), and that theory matches observations equally well.

It's also possible to formulate physics by taking velocity as the fundamental thing (rather than distance and time) and then time doesn't show up explicitly in equations anymore, and it becomes clearer that time is just a reading on a clock.

We don't know whether everything obeys the speed of light limit — leo

But to be a normally functioning universe, a speed limit is required. Else it's possible to accelerate objects to infinite velocity and thus straight out of the universe. This was a flaw in Newtonian mechanics that is corrected by relativity.

So we must have a speed limit theoretically; empirically it is maybe the most well tested scientific constant. So the universe has time built into it.

But to be a normally functioning universe, a speed limit is required. Else it's possible to accelerate objects to infinite velocity and thus straight out of the universe. This was a flaw in Newtonian mechanics that is corrected by relativity.

So we must have a speed limit theoretically; empirically it is maybe the most well tested scientific constant. So the universe has time built into it. — Devans99

I think you're adding implicit assumptions there, why would a speed limit be required if the universe is infinite? (the universe could have been infinite at the time of the big bang already)

What we measure empirically is the average speed of light over a round-trip, we are unable to measure the speed of light in one direction because that requires synchronizing distant clocks, and we do that by assuming a speed of light from one clock to the other in the first place. We can have physical theories as accurate as the current mainstream ones without a universal speed limit.

Also light doesn't actually always travel at the same average speed, light moves slower in presence of gravitation (that's called the Shapiro delay), Einstein assumed that the speed of light was a universal constant which led him to a complex description of curved spacetime, but without taking that postulate it's possible to formulate a theory with a varying speed of light and without curved spacetime yet equally consistent with observations (in such a theory clocks do not go slower in presence of gravitation because "time is curved", but because physical processes go slower in presence of gravitation).

I think you're adding implicit assumptions there, why would a speed limit be required if the universe is infinite? (the universe could have been infinite at the time of the big bang already) — leo

The universe is finite:

- The universe is expanding so it cannot be infinite in space else there would be nowhere to expand to
- The universe started with the Big Bang 14 Billion years ago and has been expanding since then; it must have a finite radius
- Actual infinity is an impossibility (covered here at length: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4183/do-you-believe-there-can-be-an-actual-infinite/p1)

light moves slower in presence of gravitation (that's called the Shapiro delay — leo

Light has a constant speed; I understand the Shapiro effect to be spacetime dilation, which increases the path length the light has to travel; its does not slow down the speed of light.

- The universe is expanding so it cannot be infinite in space else there would be nowhere to expand to
- The universe started with the Big Bang 14 Billion years ago and has been expanding since then; it must have a finite radius — Devans99

What is expanding is the distance between galaxies, that's all we infer to expand, we don't actually observe some space substance expanding, the distance between galaxies can increase in an infinite universe, it's a bit of a misnomer to say that it is the universe that is expanding, even though that's a widespread misconception.

These things used to drive me crazy some years ago, but I thought about it long and hard and I realized how many misconceptions are spread regarding the concept of expanding universe and expanding space, even in research journals, it's the distance between galaxies that we infer to expand, that's all, the universe doesn't have to have a finite radius.

- The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says if the universe has been around for ever then it should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now — Devans99

The second law of thermodynamics is based on assumptions so that's not necessarily true, and again the universe could have been infinite at the time of the big bang.

- Actual infinity is an impossibility (covered here at length: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4183/do-you-believe-there-can-be-an-actual-infinite/p1) — Devans99

I haven't read that thread but even though it's impossible to measure infinity empirically, that doesn't mean the universe can't go on forever, this infinity would simply be out of reach.

Light has a constant speed; I understand the Shapiro effect to be spacetime dilation, which increases the path length the light has to travel; its does not slow down the speed of light. — Devans99

This is the interpretation within the context of general relativity, which postulates the universal constancy of the speed of light, so of course in that theory the speed of light doesn't change and one has to invoke a curved spacetime, thus a longer path length, but again the observations that are considered to be tests of general relativity are equally explained in a theory with a varying speed of light and no curved spacetime, so one can assume a varying speed of light and remain consistent with observations.

What reason do we have to think that an actual infinite is impossible?

It can't be logically impossible since the statement "every natural number has a successor" entails an infinite series of natural numbers.

What is expanding is the distance between galaxies, that's all we infer to expand, we don't actually observe some space substance expanding, the distance between galaxies can increase in an infinite universe, it's a bit of a misnomer to say that it is the universe that is expanding, even though that's a widespread misconception — leo

Don't you see how mad infinity is? It's larger than any possible thing. Yet we require it to expand; implying it was not larger than any possible thing.

that doesn't mean the universe can't go on forever — leo

That's not science, that's believe in magic. I'm a materialist and I do not allow science and magic to mix.

I suggest you read some of the infinity thread; actual infinity is marsh gas. For example, actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:

There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X

Further, actual infinity does not follow common sense or mathematical rules:

oo + 1 = oo implies
1 = 0

Its just a mental concept and a mad one at that; actual infinity does not exist in the real world.

Don't you see how mad infinity is? It's larger than any possible thing. Yet we require it to expand; implying it was not larger than any possible thing. — Devans99

Well I agree it kinds of boggle the mind, but then if you don't want infinity you can think of an arbitrarily large universe and an arbitrarily large speed limit, and time doesn't have to be encoded as some fundamental entity.

Infinity is a tool, it comes with different mathematical rules which only defy common sense because we don't actually observe infinity.

We don't have to believe the universe is infinite, but we don't have to believe either that time is something fundamental that is a prerequisite for change, instead of simply saying that we observe change and time is just a measure of that change, a comparison of various processes relative to what we define as a standard process (a clock)

Potential infinity (as in calculus's limit concept) is a great tool. Actual infinity (as in set theory's transfinite nonsense) is not a useful tool; it just leads to paradoxes. Cantor's paradox, Galileo's paradox, Hilbert's hotel etc...

Potential infinity (as in calculus's limit concept) is a great tool. Actual infinity (as in set theory's transfinite nonsense) is not a usual tool; it just leads to paradoxes. Cantor's paradox, Galileo's paradox, Hilbert's hotel etc... — Devans99

https://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfaithless/2013/03/25/infinity-minus-infinity/

What do you think of this mathematician's defense of actual infinities?

Okay, I agree I don't like infinity either, but I still stand by my point that time doesn't have to be fundamental to the universe, that it is superfluous to talk of time as a fundamental entity rather than simply talking about change, that it is change that gives rise to the concept of time in the first place :smile:

I read some of it; some people have a lot invested in infinity. They are defending the indefensible in my opinion. The axiom of infinity is the root cause of the problem; it just says an infinite set exists without actually proving anything. Yet its easy to prove that such a set cannot exist; it would have the cardinality greater than any number (which I proved was impossible above).

it just says an infinite set exists without actually proving anything. — Devans99

They want to show that there is no logical problem with an actual infinity

They want to show that there is no logical problem with an actual infinity — Walter Pound

There is a logical problem with something you can add to and not change. Nothing in the real world behaves like that.

Cantor and co associated the spinning head feeling you get when you think of infinity with god and they wanted maths to include infinity because of their faith. Unfortunately, the spinning head feeling is just due to the contemplation of something very illogical and not anything to do with God. We are left with a spiritually inspired branch of maths (rather than logically).

There is a logical problem with something you can add to and not change. — Devans99

This is the problem, you are thinking about infinity in the same way that a toddler might count her fingers.

Here is a wonderful summary of why that is wrong which invokes set theory:

"Lane Craig uses an argument ... to ‘establish’ that time cannot be infinite in the past and still proceed into the future, on the ground that an actual infinite cannot exist because, among other reasons, if it did it would be impossible to add to it. But this claim is vitiated by the facts that (i) in contemporary set theory it is easy to show that there exists a sequence of infinite discrete ordered sets each with a greatest but no smallest member, each set extending its predecessor by an additional largest element; and (ii) the things in the domain of any consistent theory, as set theory is thought to be, are possible existents. " -Philosopher Colin Howson

Thats all a pipe dream. Infinite sets do not exist. Take the natural numbers; it has no end {1, 2, 3, 4, ... }. So it's not completely defined; IE IT IS NOT DEFINED. So as soon as you try to do stuff with it, paradoxical stuff happens, like you start inventing magic numbers to represent its cardinality. Utter drivel.

This is really all covered on the infinity thread; I don' t really want to repeat it all here.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4183/do-you-believe-there-can-be-an-actual-infinite/p1