Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Lagayscienza]

If we delete the word "magically" from the first option, then I think it is still in the game. If the universe had a beginning, then there is a physical explanation for that beginning. Coming up with such an explanation is a scientific work in progress. It is what physicists and cosmologists worry their heads over.

[RJG]

An example is Terrapin Station who claimed that there are just 2 options to explain the universe:

1) the universe either magically sprung into existence
2) the universe magically always existed

Option 1 is logically impossible.
Option 2 is logically possible.

If we delete the word "magically" from the first option, then I think it is still in the game. If the universe had a beginning, then there is a physical explanation for that beginning.

But it is logically impossible for the universe to have "had a beginning". In the absence of time (i.e., prior to the existence of a universe; prior to space-time-matter), there can be no "NO beginnings". Nothing can "begin" in the absence of time. Time cannot exist before it exists. X<X is logically impossible.

• P1. Option 1 is logically impossible. Time cannot begin in the absence of time. X<X is logically impossible.
  P2. Although option 2 is unpalatable to many of us, there is no logic that refutes an "always existing" universe.
  C1. Therefore, if the universe exists, then it has always (infinitely; permanently) existed.
  C2. Therefore, option 2 is the ONLY logical possibility/explanation for the existence of the universe.

[Lagayscienza]

P1 might be open to question. Or at least reformulation. Why can't time begin in the absence of time? Why can’t time have a beginning just like piece of string has a beginning? I can imagine a beginning of time, just as I can imagine a beginning of space.

According to the Big Bang theory, our universe, which includes all of space and time, began at the Big Bang. If this is right, then nothing, not even space and time, existed before the Big Bang. According to this theory, time only exists as the universe exists. The problem, then, is how to explain the initial singularity and low entropy state from which the universe unfolded giving us the arrow of time.

However, if we live in a multiverse, then our universe, with its own space-time, may have budded off a pre-existing bubble of the multiverse. If that scenario is true, we’d then have to ask whether the multiverse has always existed or whether it, too, had a beginning.

There are a number of cosmological theories. At the moment, we just don’t know which, if any, of them is true. Physics and cosmology are still trying to come up with a theory that works. And efforts to collect data that could indicate which of the theories might be true are ongoing. Cosmology probes the very boundaries of human understanding.

However, if the religious creation story is true, then there is an all-powerful being who created the universe - a being who exists outside space and time, a being who magicked the universe and its space-time into existence. In which case, space and time would have begun at the time of creation and asking what came before would make no sense.

The question of whether time had a beginning may not be susceptible of proof with a simple syllogism. This is because we don’t have all the data to ensure the premises of the syllogism are correct and, if the premises are not correct, then the conclusion won’t be either. I don't think the answer can necessarily be derived from a priori knowledge that comes from the power of reasoning based on self-evident truths alone. Some things may not be self-evident at this time.

[RJG]

Why can't time begin in the absence of time?

…because nothing can “begin” in the absence of time. “Beginnings” (and “before/after” states of existence) have no meaning; have no existence; are not possible, in the absence of time.

Simply put, time cannot exist before it exists. X<X is logically impossible.

I can imagine a beginning of time…

This is like saying “I can imagine a time to start time” (or "I can imagine a time before time existed") and not realize that “time” is a prerequisite to “beginning/starting”. In other words, time must first exist before the “beginning of time” is possible. "Beginnings" can't happen without the pre-existence of time. And therefore, the "beginning of time" is a self-contradictory phrase, and therefore, logically impossible.

According to the Big Bang theory, our universe, which includes all of space and time, began at the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory is Bad Science (science that defies/contradicts simple logic) on many fronts.

If this is right, then nothing, not even space and time, existed before the Big Bang. According to this theory, time only exists as the universe exists. The problem, then, is how to explain the initial singularity and low entropy state from which the universe unfolded giving us the arrow of time.

However, if we live in a multiverse, then our universe, with its own space-time, may have budded off a pre-existing bubble of the multiverse. If that scenario is true, we’d then have to ask whether the multiverse has always existed or whether it, too, had a beginning.

Yes, this is just more Bad Science, kicking-the-can-down-the-road (“turtles-all-the-way-down”), avoiding the only logical conclusion. Current physics/cosmology are so caught up in the experiential details that they fail to see the simple logical conclusion. They fail to recognize that the only logical explanation for our universe (space-time-matter) is that it has always (infinitely; permanently) existed. There is no other logical explanation. Endlessly kicking-the-can-down-the-road to avoid admitting that something can exist 'infinitely' is Bad Science. (Note: there is no logic that refutes an infinite existence).

There are a number of cosmological theories. At the moment, we just don’t know which, if any, of them is true. Physics and cosmology are still trying to come up with a theory that works. And efforts to collect data that could indicate which of the theories might be true are ongoing. Cosmology probes the very boundaries of human understanding.

Many great scientists (and cosmologists) are poor logicians. Drawing good conclusions (truths) from experiential evidence requires good logic skills. It is a shame that our universities don't focus more on teaching rational thinking; drawing logical conclusions. Just think how much wasted science (unnecessary energy put towards foolish inquiry that) we could prevent.

However, if the religious creation story is true, then there is an all-powerful being who created the universe - a being who exists outside space and time, a being who magicked the universe and its space-time into existence. In which case, space and time would have begun at the time of creation and asking what came before would make no sense.

Again, there is no way to deny or avoid the fact that something exists infinitely, whether it be a God that created the universe, or the universe (space-time-matter) itself.

The question of whether time had a beginning may not be susceptible of proof with a simple syllogism. This is because we don’t have all the data to ensure the premises of the syllogism are correct and, if the premises are not correct, then the conclusion won’t be either.

I don’t think we need a syllogism to prove the impossibility of a “beginning of time”. For there is nothing more objectively certain in all of reality than a logical impossibility.

A “beginning of time” is an obvious X<X logical impossibility. Time cannot exist before it exists. Plain and simple.

[Lagayscienza]

I agree that time cannot exist before it exists. If that is so, and if the universe is of a finite age, then time had a beginning. It's hard, but it is possible to imagine there being absolutely nothing - not even space-time. If the universe did not exist there could be no space-time. So the question boils down to whether the universe has always existed or whether it had a beginning. And that is a question science is still trying to answer. I don't think it is a question that can be answered a prior.

[RJG]

So the question boils down to whether the universe has always existed or whether it had a beginning. And that is a question science is still trying to answer.

If science used logic, then science would know the universe has always existed.