Could everything have existed forever?

[Tamminen]

RJG's "logic" would be consistent if these two metaphysical presuppositions were true: (1) time precedes being ontologically, (2) time is infinite. In that case "empty time" without being would be possible. My view is that being precedes time ontologically so that there cannot be anything like "empty time". And this leaves open the question whether time is finite or infinite towards the past or towards the future. Also science has something to say about this with its theory of spacetime.

Everything that looks like logic is not logic.

[Felix]

Tamminen: My view is that being precedes time ontologically so that there cannot be anything like "empty time".

Was there not "empty time" before the universe and our local galaxy formed?

[Tamminen]

Tamminen: My view is that being precedes time ontologically so that there cannot be anything like "empty time".

Was there not "empty time" before the universe and our local galaxy formed?

I do not think so, and modern physical theories of spacetime support my view.

[Tamminen]

Perhaps we can make a compromise and say that both RJG and devans99 are right. If being is temporal and time begins with the first event, then we can say that something is all the time, i.e. always, as RJG says.

[RJG]

Logically there is absolutely no way to avoid that something has "always existed".

The proper question is: must there be an event before each event? And the correct answer is: not necessarily, if the event is the first event of time.

What is an event? What does it consist of? Is it a "some-thing happening some-where"?

1. If there are NO somethings (MATTER) yet, then WHAT is it that is happening? ...nothing?
2. If there is NO place (SPACE) yet, then WHERE is this happening? ...no where?
3. And if there are NO happenings (TIME; i.e. a "before" and "after" states of existence) yet, then WHEN does this all occur? ...never?
Conclusion: Events/happenings/causations can only exist “within” a pre-existing universe, and NOT "outside" it.

You can't start a universe without a universe to start in!

The universe cannot pre-exist itself (to then cause/create itself).
"X<X" is a logical impossibility.

The only (logical) possibility is that the universe (space/matter/time) has "always existed" (eternal; permanence; never not existed).
"X is" is the only logical possibility in this case of the origins of the universe.

...but if we wish to discard 'logic' as our means of making sense, then feel free to select the "fairy tale" of your choice.

Everything that looks like logic is not logic.

Agreed. But you can only refute 'suspect' logic (/math), with 'sound' logic (/math), and NOT with 'illogic'! (/bad math)!

[Felix]

I said: "Was there not "empty time" before the universe and our local galaxy formed?"

Tamminen said: "I do not think so, and modern physical theories of space-time support my view."

By "empty time" I though you meant a time in which there were no temporal subjects (sentient beings), no? And there is a contradiction between your assertion that being precedes temporal material reality and the experience of being begins with material reality. Which is it?

[Tamminen]

You can't start a universe without a universe to start in!

I define the universe so that there is only one universe, and if there are many of them, the universe is the totality of them all. And then the next question is: what is it like, what is its geometry and so on. And here I see many possibilities.

"X is" is the only logical possibility in this case of the origins of the universe.

Yes, "X is" says everything of the origin of the universe if X = the universe. Now the problem is, what is the spatiotemporal geometry of X. We have many possibilities that cosmologists have suggested, some of them finite, some of them infinite, but most of them containing the starting singularity. And there is really nothing illogical in it, it is mathematically and logically consistent, and conceivable even as a real phenomenon if we try hard. The start of the universe seen as the start of matter and spacetime, or better still, the start of the totality where spacetime and matter/energy are intertwined as Einstein has demonstrated - this is a logically possible scenario that modern physics supports. And even if it is difficult to understand also for me, it is easier for me to understand than infinite physical past, which I see logically impossible for reasons I have given - and here I appeal to Kant. Finally, the start of physical time can be seen as parallel to the start of subjective time, which I see as a logical necessity.

[Tamminen]

By "empty time" I though you meant a time in which there were no temporal subjects (sentient beings), no?

No, I meant "empty time" in the sense Kant used it in his antinomy cited above. But you are right: the lack of subjects, if it were possible, would mean lack of being and so lack of time.

And there is a contradiction between your assertion that being precedes temporal material reality and the experience of being begins with material reality. Which is it?

I said that being precedes time ontologically: it cannot be so that at one time there is being and at another time there is not. Time is an internal property of being. Therefore "empty time" is impossible. And existence is possible only with material reality. I know you think differently about this.

[Felix]

Tamminen: "Time is an internal property of being."

Don't see why you would attribute a sensory based faculty to being, that's a small box to confine it in. Do you put Absolute Being in the same box?

[Tamminen]

Tamminen: "Time is an internal property of being."

Don't see why you would attribute a sensory based faculty to being, that's a small box to confine it in. Do you put Absolute Being in the same box?

What is the difference between being and absolute being? I think being is originally subjective, and realized as the subject's temporal existence in the world. Because it is temporal, also the universe must have a time dimension. In this sense time is an internal property of the subject and also an internal property of the universe. But the relationship between subjective time and physical time is not necessarily as simple as we think.

[Tamminen]

What is an event? What does it consist of? Is it a "some-thing happening some-where"?

This is the usual way of seeing it. But it can also be seen as a matter-creating process without any pre-existing cause, a process that creates space-time as it happens, so that space-time is the internal structure of what happens. The universe as a spatiotemporal whole can be seen as this kind of event. Just speculating.

[RJG]

You can't start a universe without a universe to start in!

I define the universe so that there is only one universe, and if there are many of them, the universe is the totality of them all.

I define the universe the same as you, being the totality of everything. My point above was only to highlight the impossibility of "starting" a universe (as it would take one to start one). Therefore if the universe exists, it has "always existed".

[Tamminen]

I do not follow devans99 with the idea of some supernatural, timeless, intelligent being that would be the cause of the existence of the universe. I think the universe is causa sui, and we just have to understand why its nonexistence is self-contradictory. And whether the physical past is finite or infinite, the same question arises about the reason for the being of the causal chain. Saying that the universe has always existed does not help, because the universe has always existed whether time had a beginning or not, if 'always' means something temporal.

[Sculptor1]

This is a no brainer.
First Cause is a complete contradiction.

[RJG]

Saying that the universe has always existed does not help, because the universe has always existed whether time had a beginning or not, if 'always' means something temporal.

Yes, I understand 'always' is a temporal term. But since time has "always existed" (eternally), this makes this temporal term very appropriate. In other words, if the universe has "always existed" (eternally) then so has 'time' (and the literal meaning of "always existing") since it is a 'dimension' of this universe.

I think the universe is causa sui…

It's either causa sui (self-created) or it has "always existed", ...right? For at the root of all explanations, we are left with only these two options. But then logic tells us self-creation (causa sui; X<X) is impossible. So now we are left with only one option ("always existing") which is NOT refuted by logic.

Again, if we accept logic as our means of understanding reality, then the universe has "always existed" (eternally; permanence). There is no other option.