Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dan_1985]

When do appearances begin?

[Rr6]

"could time have a beginning without end"?

No is the simple answer.

Occupied Space cannot be created nor destroyed is the 1st law of rational, logical common sense. imho

No one really knows what events occurred 13.7 billion, or more, years ago.

1st law of philosophy is too 'keep it simple'?

Motion is eternally.

Motion is what slows the aging process.

EM Radiation ^v^v has no distance limits

Gravity ( ) has no distance limits.

I believe dark energy is a 2nd property of space-time and like gravity has no distance limits.

~~~~~~

^v^v^v or as ^-v-^-v-^

(^v)(v^)(^v)(v^)

We have no direct evidence of gravity and much less of dark energy, yet the conclusion they exist is based on our current scientific understandings of observe phenomena.

r6

[Felix]

Dan_1985: When do appearances begin?

Whenever the observers of the appearances decide they do: in the case of humankind, that would be with the Big Bang - that's our current verdict anyway.

-- Updated Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:52 am to add the following --

Rr6: Occupied Space cannot be created nor destroyed is the 1st law of rational, logical common sense

Even so, it could, and apparently does, assume different forms. There's no reason to believe a particular universal model (like the one we inhabit) is repeated ad infinitum.

[Rr6]

Rr6: Occupied Space cannot be created nor destroyed is the 1st law of rational, logical common sense

Even so, it could, and apparently does, assume different forms. There's no reason to believe a particular universal model (like the one we inhabit) is repeated ad infinitum.

Felix, I've laid out those forms clearly in many threads using words, concepts, definitions texticons, graphics, links to graphics etc...

If you have some "forms" to add to my givens--- expressed in differrent ways --- then please share.

I've also laid out the expressions of those forms within context of all inclusive, cosmic hierarchy, from day one here at Philo Forums. None here have offerred any rational, logical common sense that would invalidate any of my givens, as stated. many have offered irrational, illogic in abusive ridiculing ways if not also worse in on some occasions.

" U "niverse: The Cosmic Heirarchy.

....1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts i.e. concepts of space, irrespective of occupied or not, etc.....,

-------conceptual line of demarcation expressed with dotted line ----------------------------------------

...2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces the following,

...3} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-Verse or God or G o d or God{ ess }or cosmos.

Some say it is all--- all here being a finite occupied space ---is vibration.

"what we have is moderation or modification of angle and frequency"...R. B. Fuller

^v^v^ = vibration or frequency and specifically sine-wave topological pattern humans have found as one expression many if not all particles, atoms and possiblly molecules.

Mass-- i.e. fermionic matter ---warps space. Ergo space is and occupied space, just as a spoon occupies space. We warp spoons, plywood plastic etc.....

Ive clearly laid out my speculations on what space-time is as my revisions of such expressed as Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space.

That is the fundamental set of vibrations, arcs, trajectories, frequencies of motion, that, we call space-time or any collection thereof, as fermions and bosons.

What is moving? What is in motion? I think some motion we observe as fermions and motion ergo our observed reality or as observed time.

At the ultra-micro levels, what ever is moving I associate with gravity dark energy arcs.

So this leaves what forms, that we suspect exist, that, we have not yet put our finger on--- directly detected ---. Dark matter? Yes.

Virtual particles? Yes.

Then there is the metaphysicall-1, mind/intellect geometric concept of forms, that, we know are limited. Ex;

There exists only 5 possible regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe.

Fuller would have us believe that all other forms are derivatives or combinations of those five in various associations, that, include non-Euclidean ex positive and negative curvature. Does there exist another form of curvature that is not Euclidean, positive curvature, negative curvature, or direct derivative of those basic set?

Fuller leaves open the idea/scenario of a macro-finite Universe, that is subdividing itself infinitely--- ergo multiplication-by-division i.e. seeming expansion via subdivsion. Radical idea that also involves eternal process of subdividing to smaller and smaller particles.

I do not believe is happening, yet I get his point, that, we begin with the eternall existent, macro-finite whole, and it infinitely--- ergo eternally --subdivides itself. Nothing on the surface of that idea violates laws of conservation.

I'm open to rational, logical common sense ideas. I've seen none posted here in this forum or any other group that my hierarchy does not cover or include in generalized way via some specifics.

r6

[Felix]

Rr6, Do you believe there was a Big Bang, which marked the apparent beginning (not the actual beginning) of our space-time continuum?

[Rr6]

Rr6, Do you believe there was a Big Bang, which marked the apparent beginning (not the actual beginning) of our space-time continuum?

I believe some event, or set of events/phenomena occurred approximately 13.7 years, and labeled by Fred Hoyle as the Big Bang.

There are some who suggest, that, our understanding of what is going on with EMRadiation in inter-galactic space, is not correct ergo their belief is, that, the Big Bang event is closer to 17 Bil yrs ago.

Our beliefs in the big bang event, is due to expansion of space-time--- gravity being a property of space-time ---.
A short moment of inflation of space-time-- at speeds beyond speed-of-radiation ---to account for the way our Universe exists today.

Today we see space-time accelerating in its speed of expansion.

So most believe some space-time phenomena occurred, ( )
then a moment of inflation is believed to have occurred (<(< >)>),
and now, just accelerating expansion of space-time (< >)

( ) gravity

)( or as < > dark energy expansion, or as <)(>

(<(< >)>) hyper-speed inflation

My belief is, that, Space ( ) - Time^v - Space )(, wherein dark energy is a 2nd property of space-time and all three exist, eternally. Ive made sincere attempts to very clear on this, since coming to the tori scenario for every particles of Universe.

This came about from my prime number exploration, with resultant, abstract, 4 level/line numerical set/pattern and the its alternate, inside-outed pattern, wherein,

there is outer surface peak of gravity ( ),
inner surface peak of dark energy )(, and,
the inside body of sine-wave frequency, that, I label as observed time aka observed reality ergo physical/energy aka fermions, bosons and any collection thereof.

I leave open, the possibility, that, there may exist times, that, fermionic matter does not exist.

Occupied space Gravitational Space ( ) exists eternally. I dunno nor does anyone else, and we have no conclusive evidence this not being the case. We have speculations based on what we observe now.

Occupied space of Dark Energy Space probably also exists eternally. I dunno.

Occupied space

of Observed Time may or may not exist eternally. I dunno.

Does that answer you question? Do you have some occupied space "forms" that existed prior to 17 Bilyrs ago?

Do you have some abstract "forms" that regularl/symmetrical polyhedra, that, are beyond the five, Ive mentioned previously and in other threads?

Do you have any rational, logical common sense ideas,that invalidates any of my givens as stated in cosmic hierarchy or other?

Finite = integrity

Infinite = non-integral

r6

[Dan_1985]

So most believe some space-time phenomena occurred, ( )
then a moment of inflation is believed to have occurred (<(< >)>),
and now, just accelerating expansion of space-time (< >)

( ) gravity

)( or as < > dark energy expansion, or as <)(>

(<(< >)>) hyper-speed inflation

My belief is, that, Space ( ) - Time^v - Space )(, wherein dark energy is a 2nd property of space-time and all three exist, eternally. Ive made sincere attempts to very clear on this, since coming to the tori scenario for every particles of Universe.

Occupied space Gravitational Space ( ) exists eternally. I dunno nor does anyone else, and we have no conclusive evidence this not being the case. We have speculations based on what we observe now.

Occupied space of Dark Energy Space probably also exists eternally. I dunno.

Agreed. The idea of there being a boundary to space or the universe - with there being utter non-existence on the opposite side - sounds very counter-intuitive and also very scary. It seems that it must be eternal and infinite. I can't imagine existence and non-existence meeting at a boundary.

Why don't you just say this? What's with the fancy typography and color-coding? I don't see how the typography adds anything here beyond merely providing a visual. Is there anything more to the typography and colors you use which may be useful here?

With respect,
Dan

[Felix]

Rr6: Do you have some occupied space "forms" that existed prior to 17 Bil yrs ago?

I did but lost them while vacationing in a black hole.

Rr6: I leave open, the possibility, that, there may exist times, that, fermionic matter does not exist.

Do you mean times such as prior to 17 Billion years ago? Not quite sure what you're saying.

[Rr6]

I tried posting this reply yestereday a few times and would not go through.

"Dan_1985"---Agreed. The idea of there being a boundary to space or the universe

There exists, no boundary to space, only a boundary to occupied space aka Universe or Uni-Verse ergo you comment appears to misunderstand my concepts as stated.

- with there being utter non-existence on the opposite side - sounds very counter-intuitive and also very scary.

Counter-intuitive? Whats scary is that that what seperates biological life on Earth from the 'outer space' is only abut 10 miles of atmosphere. We live on a spaceship called Space-ship Earth. See Fullers 1960's book.

It seems that it must be eternal and infinite. I can't imagine existence and non-existence meeting at a boundary.

Then you do not agree with my concepts as stated. Think of a basket ball or Earth as Universe. Unitl bring moon into the picture it is easy to imagine a nothing embraciing Earth or a basketball in space.

Why don't you just say this? What's with the fancy typography and color-coding? I don't see how the typography adds anything here beyond merely providing a visual. Is there anything more to the typography and colors you use which may be useful here?With respect, Dan

I say what I believe is truth. IF you have rational, logical comments that invalidate my comments, as stated, then you need to be very specific on both accounts. You have not offfered any such rational, logical common sense ideas that invalidate my givens.

If you cannot handle typography, texticons or colored letters/words, then ignore them. The concepts remain as stated irrespective of additional visual aids. Critical to my scenarios is geometric shape/pattern ergo visuals of negative and positive shape space via cross-section of a torus.

Sine-wave ^v frequency pattern--- observed time ---is key differrence from ultra micro gravity and dark energy in my scenarios.

Once you or others want to grasp the relatively simple concepts Ive presented, then I can explain what is also fairly simple set of consistent colors and texticonic typography, that, is I have rational, logical common sense reasons for using.

Some around here have repeatedly posted unnecessary, abusive ridicule. Sad lack of integrity on there part. :--( imho

r6

-- Updated August 31st, 2016, 9:45 am to add the following --

Tried to post this few times yesterday, would not go, so see if it goes today.

"Felix--.."Rr6: Do you have some occupied space "forms" that existed prior to 17 Bil yrs ago?"...
I did but lost them while vacationing in a black hole.

I can only help with the forms I offered you, cannot help you with your lost forms.

Rr6: I leave open, the possibility, that, there may exist times, that, fermionic matter does not exist.

Do you mean times such as prior to 17 Billion years ago? Not quite sure what you're saying.

Yes, and any time within the context of and eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe.

I've posted my version of heat death of Universe scenarios around here somewhere. They are based on the ideas of one or more 4-fold, cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron--- aka Vector Equlirbrium{ VE } ----with its 8 surface triangles having an icosa{20}hedron attached to each one, on the outer surface.

That is the more static Euclidean base idea. Then we consider the conceptually dynamic, primary set of 87 great circles-- as toroidal tubes ---of Universe.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... 3201b.html

31 left O and right O skew set of the5-fold icosahedron

25 set of the VE that flatten out at heat deat ergo |

In the simplest to grasp version of this, we have the VE--- aka jitterbug ---contract and flatten out one of four possible differrent patterns, however, the one I use most often as the octa-bonded triangle set |.

On each side of this flatten VE is qaudra-bonded set of 31 great circles/tubes, ergo the visual is likend to this as follows;

O|O or as ( (|) )


Think of the flatten vertical red line as a single photon i.e. very large, vary flat, lowest frequency ergo longest wave photon, with 31 left skew great circles one side and 31 right skew great circles on the other side. With this concept, we have all matter of Universe, becoming a very large, single, least energy photon, that is accompanied by two sets of 5-fold, 31 great circles/tubes of icosahedron on each side.

That is the basic static concept. In reality, how much that varies form the concept is whatever those of us want adjust that mental picture, however, that is just one of few possible verions I have in mind, that, all all versions of the 4-fold VE, and 5-fold icosahedron.

The 4-fold VE contains, all 3-fold tetrahedral associations, and all 4-fold associations.

The 5-fold icosahedron contains its own version of the VE in its 10 great circles/tubes and it is those patterns that I associate with EMRadiation. See following URL
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/Lynn/LynnS54.html

My version o standard model is based on the 7 sets of great circles found in VE and icosahedron. None of those sets have I yet figure out how, would seeming associate as the Higgs boson.

The four great circles/tubes, that define the VE, I associate with the unstable, two quark boson, nuclear force.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f5511.html

So it all begins to more complicated in these latter statements above i.e. more complex to understand the basic heat death of Universe presentation.

Here again is jitterbug transformations, that, only a few of the 7 or more exotic shapes of space, I have found in the VE/jitterbug.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f6108.html

A core belief of mind, is that the stable triangle of the VE, are eternally bound to the triangles of an icosahedron i.e. the 4-fold and 5-fold are eternally linked this way, and with contracting collapse of the unstable VE, the icosahedron remain as spherical whole patterns.

r6

[Dan_1985]

Well, first, I'm very dissappointed in myself for coming across as ridiculing, if that is how you perceive me: This is not my aim. So apologies, first, for my own style. Furthermore, did I not state in my private message that I was interested in your approach here on the forums?

Second, I was not disagreeing with anything you have said: I believe, actually, that I was agreeing (even if in ignorance).

"Dan_1985"---Agreed. The idea of there being a boundary to space or the universe

There exists, no boundary to space, only a boundary to occupied space aka Universe or Uni-Verse ergo you comment appears to misunderstand my concepts as stated.

- with there being utter non-existence on the opposite side - sounds very counter-intuitive and also very scary.

Counter-intuitive? Whats scary is that that what seperates biological life on Earth from the 'outer space' is only abut 10 miles of atmosphere. We live on a spaceship called Space-ship Earth. See Fullers 1960's book.

I'm sorry if I have injected my own opinions in here, but I think that a meeting between existence and non-existence (i.e., by a 'boundary') would not make sense in relation to the topic (Could time have a beginning without an end?). Whether discussing time, space, or causality, the notion of 'absolute beginning' is similar.

The question, to me, is necessarily invoking a claim that time is an actual entity (in-and-of itself). The topic is "Could time have a beginning without an end?" and not "Does the time it take to boil water have a beginning without an end?" So here is my claim that an 'absolute' analysis be used...

So, how could the non-existence of time meet with its existence (in producing a 'beginning')? After all, isn't time just the mere measurement of apparent phenomena? This (the first sentence of this paragraph) is what I find counter-intuitive.

It seems that it must be eternal and infinite. I can't imagine existence and non-existence meeting at a boundary.

Then you do not agree with my concepts as stated. Think of a basket ball or Earth as Universe. Unitl bring moon into the picture it is easy to imagine a nothing embraciing Earth or a basketball in space.

If time is not an entity in-and-of itself (see previous reply above) but simply a mere measurement, then what exactly is being asked by the OP?

I think your "nothing" isn't a true 'nothing', just an unobserved.

Once you or others want to grasp the relatively simple concepts Ive presented, then I can explain what is also fairly simple set of consistent colors and texticonic typography, that, is I have rational, logical common sense reasons for using.

I have already sent you a private message. No need to discuss it openly - that would be out of topic and against the rules.

-- Updated August 31st, 2016, 11:10 am to add the following --

Sorry, connection issues.

So, the above is what I meant. If I have misunderstood you, I hope you would clarify because I probably don't understand.

[Rr6]

Dan_1985"--Well, first, I'm very dissappointed in myself for coming across as ridiculing, if that is how you perceive me: This is not my aim. So apologies, first, for my own style. Furthermore, did I not state in my private message that I was interested in your approach here on the forums?

I don't recall your being ridiculing or of accusing you of such. I appreciate any with sincere desire to understand any concept I've presented. Very few around here have made any sincere attempts.

Second, I was not disagreeing with anything you have said: I believe, actually, that I was agreeing (even if in ignorance).

I know you stated "agreed" yet I think I made clear that your misunderstanding my concepts as stated, ergo some of your comments did not appear to be in agreement with my relatively simple concepts, as presented/stated.

I'm sorry if I have injected my own opinions in here, but I think that a meeting between existence and non-existence (i.e., by a 'boundary') would not make sense in relation to the topic (Could time have a beginning without an end?). Whether discussing time, space, or causality, the notion of 'absolute beginning' is similar.

Sorry here also,, that your having difficulty grasping relatively simple concepts Ive presented. I don't recall my making any "absolute beginning" statements, as your above comments appear to suggest, that, I some how suggested.

Ive been very clear in what Ive stated. If you can stick to addressing what Ive stated, rather than injecting a concept, and then going off a quasi-related tangent, we can have clarity in communication.

Our finite, occupied space Universe, exists eternally ergo a sum-total set of beginning and ending time events eternally exist as our finite, occupied space Universe.

You perhaps confusing time and space.

Occupied space is to infinity, as beginning and ending time, is to eternity.

Macro-infinite, non-occupied space also is eternally existent ergo eternally embraces our finite, occupied space Universe, and those sum-total set of beginning and ending time events that compose our finite Universe aka Uni-Verse.

The air molecules of Earth end ergo outer space begin. That is clear analogy to my more cosmic scenario of our existent, finite, occupied space Universe, being embraced by, an existent, macro-infinite, non-occupied space.

The question, to me, is necessarily invoking a claim that time is an actual entity (in-and-of itself). The topic is "Could time have a beginning without an end?" and not "Does the time it take to boil water have a beginning without an end?" So here is my claim that an 'absolute' analysis be used...

There exists, more than one kind of time. I classify observed { quantified reality } time with observed reality. See the above sum-total set of observed time events as our finite, occupied space Universe.

So, how could the non-existence of time meet with its existence (in producing a 'beginning')? After all, isn't time just the mere measurement of apparent phenomena? This (the first sentence of this paragraph) is what I find counter-intuitive.

Yove lost me with your boiling water and other stuff. It takes finite seconds, finite minutes or hours to boil water. These are finite. A sum-total of finites is a finite. Our occupied space Universe, eternally exists, ergo the sum-total set of events keep occurring eternally, in some shape/form/pattern or another.

If time is not an entity in-and-of itself (see previous reply above) but simply a mere measurement, then what exactly is being asked by the OP?

More than one kind of time or aspect of time. The understanding of time is not as limited as you seem to believe.

I think your "nothing" isn't a true 'nothing', just an unobserved.

This statements suggests that, you do not believe we live in a finite, occupied space Universe. You have not stated that, ergo you leave such belief ambigous. It is real simple, if you so choose it to be i.e. you need to clarify what you believe, so we are not talking a bunch of ambigous chit that talks past the other.

I repeat again, if we live in a finite occupied space Universe ergo if that is true, then what is beyond/outside of the finite, occupied space Universe, is macro-infinite, non-occupied space. That is the only option. This very simple concept, that Ive presented you nor anyone else has addressed directly.

Either you agree with that concept as presented, or you believe, that, we live in a macro-infinite, occupied space Universe.

These are the only two options. When you can clarify specifically what you believe, by addressing my commments specifically s stated, then we can begin to have clear, rational, logical common sense communication. imho

To otherwise and try and have it both ways is what I call a Trumpism.

I have already sent you a private message. No need to discuss it openly - that would be out of topic and against the rules.

1} You first need to grasp the simple concepts Ive presented.

2} Then address those specifically, one at a time, with specifics of yours that, are rational, logical common sense, and invalidate mine. You have not done that. None ever have.

3} if you want to grasp my consistent set of typography, color coding etc...then I give you my rational, logical common sense reasons for all of them.

Like most every body else, you need to go back to my cosmic hierarhcy i.e. begin with the most comprehensive, wholistic, cosmic view, and that way--- as Fuller makes clear ---no parts are left out.

Here again I will only briefly touch on that heirarchy that few will touch with a ten foot pole, because, tehy have no rational, logical common sense ideas that invalidate my givens. Rather, they save their ego by stating, that, they dont understand it. That is true, to whatever degree, in some cases.

" U "niverse: The Cosmic Heirarchy.
...1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of Universe, God, Space, Dogs, Cats etc...,
..take note Dan, U is in italics as is all of 1a}...........

------line of demarcation--------------------------------------

...1b} macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces the following 1c,

...1c} our finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-Verse.

.......1c2} blue = gravity ergo positive shaped space curvature/ ( ), arc/geodesic,

.......1c3} red= observed time/reality aka frequency, aka topology of sine-wave ^v,

.......1c4} dark red = dark energy ergo negative shaped curvature/arc/geodesic

I hope this helps you Dan, as Ive made sincere attempts over many years to clarify what I believe. And before you start in with some set of multiverses outside of our local universe, let me make clear, that, when I state Universe, that includes a finite set of local universes, that, sum-total to a finite, Univerese. Put the capital U in bold, if it helps you, to emphasize the finite sum-total as one whole Universe.

And I say whole or integral whole, because there is no distance limit between and finite set of local Universes in multiverse scenarios.

And, if you want to go the we live in an infinite occupied space Universe scenario/concept, then that almost deserves its own thread. :--)

r6

[Felix]

Rr6: if we live in a finite occupied space Universe ergo if that is true, then what is beyond/outside of the finite, occupied space Universe, is macro-infinite, non-occupied space. That is the only option

.

It is not the only option or even the most reasonable one. We can only speculate what may be beyond our finite universe or even if there is a "beyond." Physicists say there is not, our Universe is all there is, that's why it's called a Uni-verse.

Rr6: Think of a basket ball or Earth as Universe. Until bring moon into the picture it is easy to imagine a nothing embracing Earth or a basketball in space.

Bad analogy, as the earth or a basketball are both surrounded by occupied space, not nothing.

[Dan_1985]

The OP asks, "Could time have a beginning without an end?"

No, because I can't imagine the existence of time or space coming up against their opposites at a boundary. How can space meet non-space or time meet non-time?

My Axiom: Time is not an entity, but a mere measurement contingent upon designation; a thought, idea, mental apparition.

I repeat again, if we live in a finite occupied space Universe ergo if that is true, then what is beyond/outside of the finite, occupied space Universe, is macro-infinite, non-occupied space. That is the only option. This very simple concept, that Ive presented you nor anyone else has addressed directly.

I agree.

Our finite, occupied space Universe, exists eternally ergo a sum-total set of beginning and ending time events eternally exist as our finite, occupied space Universe.

I agree.

Occupied space is to infinity, as beginning and ending time, is to eternity.

I agree.

-- Updated August 31st, 2016, 10:20 pm to add the following --

Could time having a beginning without and end, or an end without a beginning, or one without the other?

No. If we take 'time' to be a measurement, it must have both beginning and end, otherwise it wouldn't be a measurement.

[Rr6]

Rr6: if we live in a finite occupied space Universe ergo if that is true, then what is beyond/outside of the finite, occupied space Universe, is macro-infinite, non-occupied space. That is the only option

.

It is not the only option or even the most reasonable one.

Not only is that the only option, you offer no rational, logical common sense options, other than what Ive stated. I made this clear no one ever has and you have not either.

We can only speculate what may be beyond our finite universe or even if there is a "beyond."

Felix, you obviously are being difficult for no rational, logical common sense reason, other than your ego allows you to behave this way. My speculation is the only option, to what is outside of finite occupied space.

Physicists say there is not, our Universe is all there is, that's why it's called a Uni-verse.

Physicist say there is not what? Your not offering us any rational logical common sense dude.

You do not want to address my givens as stated, and that is clear. Ego mental blockage.

If we live in a finite occupied space Universe, then there is only one option for what is outside of that finite occupied space Universe. Non-occupied space. Now you can state all kinds of illogical irrational, that do not address my comments specifically as stated. That is becuase your ego does not allow you to follow a simple rational line of thought.

Typical of most around here. imho

Rr6: Think of a basket ball or Earth as Universe. Until bring moon into the picture it is easy to imagine a nothing embracing Earth or a basketball in space.

Bad analogy, as the earth or a basketball are both surrounded by occupied space, not nothing.

No it is not a bad analogy. More irrational illogical ego mental blockage on your part. Your ego does not allow you to accept an analogy. If your ego did not get in the way, the you would accept the analogy for what is. I would say that you apparently do not know what an analogy is when Ive just presented one to you.

I.e. you just being difficult for no rational reaon, other than your ego is hurt so you dont want to have a rational logical disscussion.
Learn what an analogy is, drop your ego then come back and have a rational, logical common sense disscussion with me.

r6

-- Updated August 31st, 2016, 10:59 pm to add the following --

The OP asks, "Could time have a beginning without an end?"

No, because I can't imagine the existence of time or space coming up against their opposites at a boundary. How can space meet non-space or time meet non-time?

You skewing the concepts.

.....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept are not space they are concepts of Space, God, Universe, Dogs, Cats etc...
...Ive been very clear in these regards for many years now...


----line of demarcation-------------------------------------------------

....1b and 1c} It is occupied space meeting metaphysical-2, non-occupied space. As Ive clearly stated for some years now.
...not "space meeting non-space"........

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts eternally exist as complemetaries to occupied space and that part of occupied space we quantify ergo observed time

My Axiom: Time is not an entity, but a mere measurement contingent upon designation; a thought, idea, mental apparition.

Thats one definition. One axiom. I believe there exist others.

I repeat again, if we live in a finite occupied space Universe ergo if that is true, then what is beyond/outside of the finite, occupied space Universe, is macro-infinite, non-occupied space. That is the only option. This very simple concept, that Ive presented you nor anyone else has addressed directly.

I agree.

Great, you are least do not have ego mental blockages to obvious truths and rational, logical common sense. Now if Felix can drop his ego we may have 3 to 6 people who grasp the simple concept, acknowledge it, and accept is as the only rational, logical option.

Our finite, occupied space Universe, exists eternally ergo a sum-total set of beginning and ending time events eternally exist as our finite, occupied space Universe.

I agree.

Yay!, two for two...were on a roll with rational, logical training of thought. Felix has dissconnected the caboose this and looking for another rational, logical track option, where none exist. He will just slowly continue on this track, know in his heart and mind, it is the only rational, logical option.

Occupied space is to infinity, as beginning and ending time, is to eternity.

I agree.

Oh good. 3 for 3.

-- Updated August 31st, 2016, 10:20 pm to add the following --

Could time having a beginning without and end, or an end without a beginning, or one without the other?

No. If we take 'time' to be a measurement, it must have both beginning and end, otherwise it wouldn't be a measurement.

[/quote]

I agree. So that is 4 for 4 we agree on..YAY!........Hi Hip Hooray!.....Today!......Is what I SAY!

r6

[Felix]

I said: Physicists say there is not, our Universe is all there is, that's why it's called a Uni-verse.

RRr6: Physicists say there is not what?

Not what you said, anything beyond our universe.

Rr6: If we live in a finite occupied space Universe, then there is only one option for what is outside of that finite occupied space Universe. Non-occupied space.

The predominant scientific theory is that our finite universe started (or restarted) with the Big Bang. It can be both a finite and eternal cyclical process: big bang, expansion, big crunch, replay, etc. And there are alternative explanations as to how the cyclical process may work that involve parallel dimensions or universes (multiverses).

There are many problems with your proposal that there's a Big Nothing outside of our universe. For example, how can Nothing be said to exist?, what is the nature of this Nothing?, how did Something (our universe) arise out of Nothing?, what forms the boundary between Something (our universe) and Nothing?, etc.