Does everything have a start?

Devans99

It seems that everything has a start. A simple enough proposition, yet with important implications if its true. For example, time and the universe ; do they have a start? Can you think of anything without a start?

What do I mean by start:

- Everything has spacial start point(s). For example, a human you could choose head or feet
- Everything has a temporal start. This might be a window of time rather than a point. An example for a human would be birth.

And the definition of a thing? A collection of related parts (could be just one part).

Is there anything without a start? I can’t think of anything from the natural world without a start. As far as concepts go, all I can think of is Negative infinity. But negative infinity does not actually exist:

There is no quantity -oo such that -oo < all other quantities because -oo - 1 < -oo.

So there does not seem to be anything without a start (a circle has multiple start points).

What does it mean not to have a start? It means that the object is partially undefined; which means it is actually undefined and can’t exist.

What would it mean to exist without a start? Would you exist if you were not born? Would the universe exist if the Big Bang did not happen?

If the proposition is correct, it follows that:

- The universe has a start in time and space
- Time had a start
- Matter/Energy had a start

The related proposition, 'everything has an end' is also worth a mention.

Relativist

↪Devans99

"The universe has a start in time and space"

If the universe=spacetime, then the universe didn't start IN time and space. Rather, there is a start of time and space.

LD Saunders

Since out of nothing, nothing comes, it's more rational to consider the universe as having always existed.

Rank Amateur

Since out of nothing, nothing comes, it's more rational to consider the universe as having always existed. — LD Saunders

that may or may be true, but you would be leaving science's best understanding of the origin of the universe. I may be behind the times, but i believe that the best understanding is that it is finite, and had a beginning.

Akanthinos

Does a point have a start? Does a line, a surface or a volume have one?

Only things which are 'embedded' in time can be said to have a start. Because we are trapped into temporality, everything appears to have a start for us.

LD Saunders

Rank Amateur: There is no science that states the universe had a beginning. There is a Big Bang theory, but that just tells us when an expansion occurred, not what existed before that expansion. In fact, the prevailing assumption is that the energy that existed immediately after the Big Bang also existed immediately before the Big Bang, consistent with our conservation laws.

In fact, science can never establish a "beginning" to the universe. It's not a science question, but a philosophical one. No matter what science comes up with, like the Big Bang, one can always ask the question, and what existed before that? And on and on it goes, so whether the universe had a beginning is a philosophical issue, and the best argument I know of is that since out of nothing, nothing comes, something must have always existed.

Rank Amateur

↪LD Saunders

this from Hawkings the beginning of time, have we moved past this ?

Rank Amateur

sorry - hit the button before adding -

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.

This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun.

LD Saunders

Rank Amateur: Hawking's books are largely not science. He merely puts out some speculative theory that he thinks may some day turn out to be valid. But, where did Hawkings state that the universe had a beginning? He may have referenced that we consider time starting from the Big Bang, but that is not a statement that nothing existed before the Big Bang. There is zero science to support such an assertion.

This is the problem with the new-atheist movement, rather than encourage people to learn real science by reading actual textbooks, they write some pop-fiction and pass it off as real science.

Rank Amateur

I am a theist - and sent the link where it came from -

Devans99

Since out of nothing, nothing comes, it's more rational to consider the universe as having always existed. — LD Saunders

That leads to an actual infinity of time which is not allowed.

Or put another way, if the universe has no temporal start, then it has no temporal middle or end so we are not here. For example, if you take away Monday could Tuesday still be said to exist? No, so the time and the universe must of had a start.

That's compatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics which tells us that a universe that had always existed would be in heat death by now (and we are not so time had a start).

LD Saunders

Devans99: That's not true at all. If the universe always existed, then it always existed. What you are claiming is that if something always existed, then nothing could exist, which is a contradictory position to make. Moreover, you ignore a very simple resolution, which is consistent with the Big Bang itself -- while the universe may have always existed, time may not have always existed, and may be a much more recent development.

Devans99

What you are claiming is that if something always existed, then nothing could exist — LD Saunders

I'm claiming things can't exist without a temporal start. If the big band did not happen, would the universe be here? If you were not born, would you be here?

Rank Amateur

↪LD Saunders

So take it easy on me - my physics knowledge is limited, my astro physics is non - existent.

If I understand you correctly - you would call the big bang T 0, and your position is that there is an infinite time T minus - during which there existed something - as we would define something - matter, mass, energy - something measurable.

If I understand you correctly, then I have 2 questions - the first is just a step back question,

1. than where did that matter, energy come from ?

2. is there any significant difference between a theist explaining your time t minus as God, and you calling it yet to be explained science ?

Seems to me we are both using faith to explain an unknown - me with a faith in God, you with a faith in science

bloodninja

Everything has spacial start point(s). For example, a human you could choose head or feet
- Everything has a temporal start. This might be a window of time rather than a point. An example for a human would be birth. — Devans99

But you have not defined what you mean by space nor time. If you are using the scientific concept of each of these terms then how is this philosophy rather than scientific dogma? No offence intended.

Also, exist is ontologically ambiguous.

Devans99

I was thinking about eternal beings:

- Imagine an eternal being
- Impossible to exist; he would have no start in time so could not exist
- 'Being' is possible so we conclude Eternal is not possible

So that reenforces the idea that time has a start?

anthonyshinex

How about existence of truths which has always been the same unaffected by time. For example the fact that there are an infinite number of prime numbers. Or are you considering these not to be "things"?

SnowyChainsaw

How about existence of truths which has always been the same unaffected by time. For example the fact that there are an infinite number of prime numbers. Or are you considering these not to be "things"? — anthonyshinex

I concur. Quantum Field Theory describes the universe's existence as an amalgamation of the probability of it existing at any specific point and, even if you remove the universe from existance, that potential is always present, however infinitesimal it might be. Therefore, this potential is both an intrinsic part of reality and can neither begin nor end.

The "truths" @anthonyshinex would work in a similar way.

Devans99

How about existence of truths which has always been the same unaffected by time — anthonyshinex

Yes, I should of called the article 'everything real has a start'. There are concepts that do not have a start for example, like 'love'.

Therefore, this potential is both an intrinsic part of reality and can neither begin nor end — SnowyChainsaw

Its impossible that an actual infinity of time has past so time must have a start. Put another way, say you have an eternal being. He cant exist because of no temporal start. Being is possible so Eternal can't be.

Jeremiah

↪Devans99

As far as I can tell nothing I have ever observered has had a start.

Jeremiah

↪LD Saunders

It is more rational to realize your limits, accept that of such things you are clueless and conclude nothing.

Jeremiah

↪anthonyshinex

I have never seen an infinte number of prime numbers, have you?

LD Saunders

Jermiah: Oh, the IRONY in that last statement of yours. Hilarious.

Jeremiah

↪LD Saunders

Feel free to actually address it.

LD Saunders

Jeremiah: The problem is that you know so little, you are actually impressed with your silly assertions.

Wayfarer

I'm interested by the possibility that (say) the domain of natural numbers doesn't have a beginning and end in time.

anthonyshinex

↪Jeremiah

you can't see number as its a concept. In fact you can't see infinite amount of things. By Euclid's proof by contradiction logically there are an infinite number of primes.

Devans99

Euclid's proof by contradiction logically there are an infinite number of primes — anthonyshinex

I'm interested by the possibility that (say) the domain of natural numbers doesn't have a beginning and end in time. — Wayfarer

Numbers only exist in our head as a potential infinity; they don't exist in reality as an actual infinity.

Jeremiah

↪anthonyshinex

You are talking about a mathematical abstract as if it were real, you need to learn the difference. A logical proof will only show it in the abstract, in reality it is an impossible task to count out infinite primes. It cannot be done and it does not exist.

Pattern-chaser

Since out of nothing, nothing comes... — LD Saunders

Oh really? I understand our latest formulation of the big bang as something emerging from nothing, if 'quantum foam' is nothing.... :chin:

Wayfarer

Numbers only exist in our head as a potential infinity; they don't exist in reality — Devans99

Everyone believes that, but I think they’re mistaken. Mathematical reasoning discloses otherwise unknowable facts about reality. When you learn maths, you’re leaning about something real, and something which enables you to understand things you can’t understand by other means. They’re not simply subjective or ‘in our heads’, that is one of the prime delusions of modernity.

Does everything have a start?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions