# A Justification of Time

#### Prince_James

##### Plutarch (Mickey's Dog)
Registered Senior Member
As time is routinely "attacked" on this forum, I had thought to pen both a justification of her existence and elaborate on her role as one of the fundamentals of existence (alongside her sisters Space and Relation).

Part I: Time is Needed to Explain Motion and Is Itself the Dimension Which Allows Such

Space can be explained as a tri-axial Cartesian grid. Any object on this grid would be represented as a point with a position on the X, Y, and Z axes. Of course, this means that space is, in an ultimate state, static. Zeno proved this quite well 2,500 years ago in the Paradox of the Arrow, which shows that if one were to freeze an arrow at any time in its flight, it would be representable as a point on the aforementioned Cartesian grid. That is to say, any notion of motion, or time, would not be found. To Zeno this was enough to convince him that time did not exist, nor did motion.

Despite Zeno's protestations, we must conclude that it is quite obvious that motion -does- exist, and subsequently, so does time. We witness it every moment of our lives. Indeed, this would not be written were it not for motion, both of the mental variety (the progression of thought) and the actual movement of the fingers dancing on the keyboard to produce the (hopefully!) intelligible combination of letters and words that is here presented.

How then can it be said that time exists, if Zeno showed that it was quite absurd to think so, if one were to look at the arrow itself at any point?

An analogy can be made to a strip of movie film. At any point in a movie, what is being shown on screen is a static image. It is the speed at which the images are shown which gives the illusion of a movement. That is to say, what one sees as one second of continuous motion, is actually 24 discontinuous frames. Time, then, can be thought of as the movie projector pulling the film along at its proper speed. What would be otherwise 24 discontinuous frames becomes instead one coherent second of action on screen because of the projector, just as time unites a series of static moments. Yet it ought to be noted that it is not a mere illusion, like the projector, that time facilitates, but rather an actual movement owing to its unification with space and relation, and which shall be touched upon momentarily.

But because such motion is alien to space as a three dimensional grid, be it of arrow's flight or the projector's spinning wheels, it is necessary to consider time as something very specific, namely a sort of dimension itself, a fourth dimension (a concept which most will be previously familiar with), which serves to connect two disparate three dimensional (and static) images of reality. Yet this must not be held to say that time is ultimately distinct from space. Rather, it is proper to say that time and space are welded together because of this and it is in fact in this notion of relation that we can understand time further.

Part II: Time's Origin is in Relation

Although, as shall be proven in part three, time is held to be eternal, one must nevertheless discuss why it exists, by which the term "origin" should be understood, rather than a "beginning".

If one evaluates what it entails for existence to exist, one will find (as argued elsewhere by myself - See "Argument for the Existence of God" [note: non-Theistic] and "Godless Metaphysics", amongst other places) that existence necessarily demands infinity. Yet so long as it is held that it exists greater than an indivisible monad of infinite smallness, we must conclude that such space would require parts. In an infinite existence - which it is affirmed to accurately reflect reality - we must conclude, in fact, that there is an infinite amount of parts, of all sizes, which compose the greater whole. Accordingly, one cannot speak of an "indivisible infinity" and must admit of infinity as a greater whole, ergo infinity is properly relational. Now if such is the case, then we must admit that even in a timeless universe relation exists. But if relation itself exists, we must also speak of how if we allow its possibility for one arrangement, we must allow its possibility for all arrangements which are not impossible (square-circles and the like). So that even in a permanently static existence, we actually have what can be considered the "seed of movement" and it is this which demands that not one moment, but an infinite series of moments (an infinite amount of things requires an infinite amount of time to infinitely recombine an infinite amount of times) exist owing to these relations, and indeed, even the relation spoken in part I of one point in time with another. Of course, this also demonstrates an eternity of time, but this is appropriate, as our next topic shall be just that.

Part III: Time is Eternal and this is not a Problem

There are three ways this existence could have come to be:

1. Necessity demands existence exists, and thus it is eternal.
2. God created existence, but as God himself would be necessitated would be eternal and thus we would be met with the same scenario as above.
3. Existence sprang out of nothing.

It is here charged that the third possibility is impossible, on account that it is absurd to say that nothing can produce anything. For in order to be nothing, generative powers must be lacking. That is to say, one cannot speak of a "fruitful nothingness", as fruit can only be found on trees. Accordingly, we are left only with the same essential argument as expressed in 1 and 2 - all of which point to an eternity of time.

But as Immanuel Kant (that wily Konigsbergian!) pointed out, an infinity of time existing before the present moment makes it impossible this moment to be ever reached. Hence, eternity would seem to be impossible, and as nothingness cannot produce something (which would allow finite time) we are in quite a pickle!

There has been found, however, a solution:

Time must be considered as composed of three separate relations, not one continuum. These three are: A moment's connection to the infinite past, a moment's connection to the infinite future, and a moment's connection to finite past or future moments.

The graph above represents these three relations in three instances.

To reconcile our relations with eternity, we must first note that it is fallacious to conceive of any two random moments in time as unequally distant to the infinite future and infinite past. By definition, any finite point is an infinitely distant from the "end" of infinity and the same holds true for time. To put it mathematically, 23 and 21342430284320482304823042739472587495327947329847329847234872394732894723894626429374238423742397492347329273400234230942349204206925259234979023 are both an infinite distance away from infinity. Accordingly, the only time we can speak of non-infinite distance is between two finite points of time.

Let us consider this: Because all points of time are equal to an infinity of time in the future and past, but are obviously variously distant from finite points in time, it must be that these are two differing measurements taking place. In one instance, one would be comparing two points in time by their distance from two other points and when finding them alike, declaring them so. On the other hand, when one is seeking to find the time between the 22nd of May, 1862 at 5:00 am, and the 30th of July, 1945 at 7:00 pm, one is comparing two relative points of time to one another. We may thus classify the first as "absolute time", or time as judged by its absolute and static value as infinitely distant from beginning and end, whereas in the latter case we can classify it as "relative time".

In regards to absolute time, one thing further may be said. If one were to compare the two ideal "end points" of an infinity of time, I.E. the infinite past and infinite future, we are allowed by Kant to rightfully consider an infinite passage of time to have taken place, precisely because we are dealing with an actual infinity of time as taken by a whole. Yet what may not be so apparent, yet is so vital to point out, is that this infinite answer is precisely the same thing answer we take when we measure any point in time and measure it to either extreme. Subsequently, we are forced to admit that a measurement from any point in time to an extreme is equal to a measurement from one extreme to the other in absolute time, and therefore, they are identical.

Yet if the above was not clear: We have an instance where, contra-Kant's critique, we have an infinity of time that had an infinity of time take place rightfully with no problem. Moreover, we have found this to be equivalent to any finite time taken in relation to either infinity of time. The conclusion, then, is obvious: In absolute time, it is perfectly rational to conclude an infinity of time has passed to reach this point. Just as it did for the point before, after, and before and after that, and all other points in time and space. In fact, because all points in time are absolutely equivalent, all time holds an absolute distance from both extremes of the infinities of time, and this meshes up exactly with what the concept of eternity demands and entails when, quite literally, it has neither beginning nor end. Contra-Kant, time cannot be conceived as anything but including such concepts of infinite distance from past and future.

Yet there must be a final point made of another factor that drives home the eternal status of time as rational, and this goes back to relation. As noted in part II, it is affirmed that there are an infinite amount of parts to all infinities and in space - within which time manifests, works, and is wedded to - this demands infinite time. If this is so, then it makes perfect sense that every moment is preceded by an infinite series of moments, regardless of where judged, because there is an infinite variety of parts and combinations. Also, relative time comparisons are similarly infinite, because every point in time can be relatively evaluated compared to any other point in time and as the time is infinite, each can infinitely be so compared.

Part IV: In Conclusion

With the above proofs presented, it is put forth that time is not only rational, eternal, and a fundamental of existence, but that it is also a necessary contradiction to affirm the idea that such is not true, so long as one can speak of even imaginary motion or any other behaviour that demands time. That is to say, by asserting the idea that there can be motion and yet denying time, one is saying "there can be motion without the ability to move". When one finds out that time is not something utterly remote from everything else, but united with the other fundamentals, the impetus behind "time doesn't exist" arguments - that time is manifested in motion and other such phenomena - disappears, as it not true that time is supposed to be considered detached and remote from its effects. Do we refute roads by pointing to the fact that it is the car that is moving? Certainly not and thus does it behoove us not to refute time for something ever so similar.

Last edited:
nice thread, it almost works aswell but you left out the proving of times existence but you had basic motion covered .

time is an abstract not a real physical force that effects our universe,

"The concept of time is probably the most misconstrued and misused concept in science. Most scientists as well as the public think that “time” actually exists, just like the physical dimensions of length. Some have gone so far as to even give these “particles of time” the name “chronons.” Many of the so-called reputable journals even publish articles by these ignorant practitioners of voodoo science.

You should have heard the gasps from a presentation on time to a group of scientists when I told them that time did not exist. It was like I had blasphemed their sacred religion. Let me try to explain the concept of time so that you can go forth and spread the factual truth to those with open minds:

The concept of “time” is actually quite primitive with early man recognizing that their were repeated cycles of natural events which could be used to measure the duration of other events. From the recognizing that the four seasons were such a repetitive cycle, to that of a cycle of day/night, which we later came to understand was one revolution of the Earth about its axis. Then came the falling of sand in an hourglass to the repetitious swing of a pendulum, and currently to the oscillation of a quartz crystal.

From all of these definitions of a “unit” of time, we have been able to artificially divide it. The most basic subdivision is that of a second which is 1/3600 of one revolution of the Earth, which we have most recently defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium - 133 atom. The smaller the repetitive natural event that we can measure, the more accurate our measurement of time can be.

But in all of this where is Time as a physical entity. Nowhere. All we have done is to define the duration of a physical event.

Einstein really screwed up most everyone’s perspective with his erroneous use of time and reference (the subject of my next editorial). After his Theories of Relativity, everyone thought they could go and measure time like one would measure the length of a box with a yardstick. I’m not saying that the concept of time does not have a purpose in the measuring of a single event by comparing it to the number of repetitive cycles of a naturally occurring event (i.e. the time it takes me to run a 40 yard dash to the number of quartz oscillations in my stopwatch).

Then how can time work in Einstein’s formulas. It works in the same way that gravity does. Neither gravity (or its “gravitons”) nor time (or its “chronons”) exist as discrete entities. Gravity is nothing but the reactive force from Space to its displacement by matter. Likewise Space and its density cause what we see in the relative variations of the duration of these repetitive naturally occurring events. The more dense that Space is, the slower time is. This is why time slows down as gravity increases.

If one really needed a true concept of time, the best that I could give would be the linear duration of the lifecycle of the universe. This would be the only true time absolute that is not affected by the density of Space, as all time in this universe would have the same starting and ending point. Any subdivision would therefore be allowable. The problem is that we being the ignorant mortals that we are do not know the duration of the universe’s lifecycle (someday with better technology and theory we can do so based upon the expansion and contraction rates).

Therefore the best definition of time using its current understanding would be: “Time as a physical entity does not exist but we have utilized this concept to make relative comparisons of event durations to that of repetitive and reproducible naturally occurring cycles or subdivisions thereof.” But I would like to take time beyond that to my practical definition of time.

What is the only true constant in this universe besides its lifecycle? The speed of light of course. Time can be easily defined as, “The duration that it takes a photon to travel a preset distance divided by the speed of light.” The smaller that we can define the distance that a photon travels, the smaller the unit of time that we can measure. With this definition, there is virtually no limit to how infinitesimally small of a unit that we can measure. Also we are not limited by using repetitious natural event for our measurement.

In summary, time as a physical entity does not exist, rather it is a means for comparing the duration of an event to the duration of another which is considered the reference standard. Optimally, this reference standard should be the duration that it takes light to travel a preset distance, as this would finally make sense out of our reference standards as we would have the same definition for distance and time: t=d/c and d=c/t.*

James P. Siepmann"

peace.

its witch craft i tell you witch craft.

peace

EmptyForceOfChi:

You do realize that the author of that editorial makes the fallacious concept I discuss in my conclusion? That is, of discussing such things as "duration" and "motion", without a reference to time?

He is, in essence, saying time does not exist, then saying time does exist.

Time may exist, and it may not. I have to go with Emptyforceofchi on this one though. Reason being, time seems to be an ego justification more than anything.

How do you figure, Nicholas1m7?

Whether or not time is anything tangible, it makes little or no difference to humans and society. Didn't Einstein say that time is relative? That's fine. Whatever it is, we as humans are always existing in the moment, not in time. It's always the moment that matters. The ego always makes it hard to appreciate the moment. That's why monks and such people who have no ego, and apparently emptyforce, view time as only a tool. "We are never not in the moment", according to one person.

Where it is true we are never not in the present, certainly the fact that a past exists, shapes us, indeed even causes us, has a say in the matter? And without time, we would not be able to even move - indeed, we would not truly be alive.

i will keep this simple and scientific for you james,

does something realy exist in the physical universe if it has no actual atoms or energy source yes or no?

does time have any physical atoms or energy source to measure yes or no?

can you actualy prove something exists without physical evidence showing this yes or no?

peace,

Empty Force of Chi:

does something realy exist in the physical universe if it has no actual atoms or energy source yes or no?

Yes. Distance/space has no energy source or atoms, yet exists (aside from time).

does time have any physical atoms or energy source to measure yes or no?

Aside from relativistic effects impacting the flow of time in reference frames, no.

can you actualy prove something exists without physical evidence showing this yes or no?

Yes. The laws of logic, for instance, are provable through relation to themselves. Axiomatic mathematical systems like the various geometries are also quite capable of showing they exist, without having no true connection to reality in their idealized forms.

Empty Force of Chi:

Yes. Distance/space has no energy source or atoms, yet exists (aside from time).

Aside from relativistic effects impacting the flow of time in reference frames, no.

Yes. The laws of logic, for instance, are provable through relation to themselves. Axiomatic mathematical systems like the various geometries are also quite capable of showing they exist, without having no true connection to reality in their idealized forms.

finally you said it

thats the answer and reply i have been waiting for, empty force of space.

it exists but has no actual physical structure atoms or energy force that any of our human senses or instruments can detect, but we know it is there through logical process,

now we have got this far and you are on this train of thought you can maybe try to understand some of my other theories and thoughts,

just because something has no physical atoms or structure in the known universe for us to see with our eyes, it does not mean that it does not exist in some way shape or form somewhere,

now if empty space and time can actualy exist without having atoms present for us to "put under the microscope" why is it so hard to comprehend the spirit world and Qi energy maybe actually existing in some way shape or form,

can you see where i was comming from long ago when i was new to the forum?

scientists always debunk my claims and theories due to the fact that my claims have no physical mass to examine so i cannot prove any of it,

but maybe this will make people actualy consider my ideas and take them a little more serious as they might actually be true, because now you see that something doesent have to have atoms or measurable energy levels to actually exist right?

so how can you rule out other forces like Qi so quickly while stating the invisible fabric of space exists, most scientists just use the vacuum theory to debunk the fact that empty forces actualy exist in the universe and beyond, because they know if they admit that something can exist without actually physicaly "existing" then it would open up a whole new door and window into how we have to view and theorise about the universe we reside in,

i have a lot more to say but can you see my point now? it took me long enough to finaly get it across like this, and i am very sorry that i had to resprt to trickery of such a deep level to do it, but i found it was the only way, i had to get one of you to say it for yourself, so that it cannot be swpet under the debunked rug like all my other posts about Qi and spiritual existence that we cannot detect as humans,

do you see now? we have to be more open minded and not automaticaly think that because we cannot directly study something that it definately does not exist.

im sorry but i had to do that,

peace,

it exists but has no actual physical structure atoms or energy force that any of our human senses or instruments can detect, but we know it is there through logical process,

And empirical observation. Time is certainly observable, as is Space and Relation.

just because something has no physical atoms or structure in the known universe for us to see with our eyes, it does not mean that it does not exist in some way shape or form somewhere,

Granted. So long as it is deducible from reason or somehow otherwise being perceived.

now if empty space and time can actualy exist without having atoms present for us to "put under the microscope" why is it so hard to comprehend the spirit world and Qi energy maybe actually existing in some way shape or form,

Are they capable of proceding from reason? If so, do you have an argument?

Qi, by the way, would be far more of a physical phenomena according to Taichi, Gung Fu, Aikido, Ninjutsu, et cetera.

Personally, from a parapsychological level, I find it really crappy that they never did any serious tests on Morihei Ueshiba when he was alive.

but maybe this will make people actualy consider my ideas and take them a little more serious as they might actually be true, because now you see that something doesent have to have atoms or measurable energy levels to actually exist right?

If it is of a certain type, yes.

so how can you rule out other forces like Qi so quickly while stating the invisible fabric of space exists, most scientists just use the vacuum theory to debunk the fact that empty forces actualy exist in the universe and beyond, because they know if they admit that something can exist without actually physicaly "existing" then it would open up a whole new door and window into how we have to view and theorise about the universe we reside in,

Well the vacuum theory basically is an affirmation of space existing and non-space not existing. That is to say, there is always something present. "Nature abhors a vacuum" it is claimed.

i have a lot more to say but can you see my point now? it took me long enough to finaly get it across like this, and i am very sorry that i had to resprt to trickery of such a deep level to do it, but i found it was the only way, i had to get one of you to say it for yourself, so that it cannot be swpet under the debunked rug like all my other posts about Qi and spiritual existence that we cannot detect as humans,

Although I don't think it wa sreally trickery, there is no need to apologize for using what amounted to a Socratic line of questioning for me to freely admit that time does not exist in space in the same sense that objects exist in space.

but regardless time is still a measuring device to me, and i do not believe in anything whole heartedly, even my own physical existence.

my philosophy is that anything could be true, so keep an open mind because the universe is far greater than we all think it is, i know one thing for sure, and thats humans do not know as much as we think we do,

if a human was raised in a fish bowl that is not se through he would think thats the universe, and thats kinda like us, theres just no telling what the real nature and purpose of existence is,

time, space, reality, physics, mass, emptyness,

we are but mere creations, not creators, we can create nothing, we can only manipulate what is before us,

always remember that like i do, we are never creators only manipulators,

even our own thoughts we do not create, we only manipulate something that we did not create in the first place, we can manipulate the minds eye, but not create the mind,

when we think we are creating life by giving birth we are only simply manipulating something that already has been created,

we should always keep an open mind and try to stay in the center where anything is possible,

i think of the human mind like an empty circle, if you stay in the center and understand that when you drift too far to one side of the circle you might be drifting further away from the real truth, you may think the right or the left side holds the true knowledge of existence but who is the one to confirm your beliefs, in the end nobody can, so the center of the circle is the most neutral place, where you cannot drift into a set mind frame, its when you think you know too much that you most likely are losing touch with the humble truth,

and that truth is, keeping an open mind (not nieve) and realising our theories will not be confirmed as solid proof about the source and mystery of utter existence, so be carefull of how far across the circle your mind is set, because you might be heading in the wrong direction,

the answers may lay within science? maybe, the answers may lay within religion? maybe, they may lay in the mind of a 5 year old child from india? maybe

the truth is that you or i do not know, and it scares us to not know, but dont give in to the fear by believing you know the answer.

all we can do is guess and study the universe, nothing more,

so try to keep an open mind about all theory types, and dont believe everything because theres not a better theory at the time, we might all be wrong, we might be right, but the truth will not be confirmed in this life you are living now,

so try to be happy and make people around you happy, dont worry to much because life is short on this earth, just try to be a good person and look after this earth,

try to be gratefull and send thanks to the universe for giving us all glorious life,

ahmen

peace,

EmptyForceOfChi:

but regardless time is still a measuring device to me, and i do not believe in anything whole heartedly, even my own physical existence.

Certainly one cannot doubt the doubter?

i cannot doubt doubt itself,

i can debate everything from various viewpoints, i can be on both sides of the argument, including against myself, with 2 opinions that contradict each other,

the more points of view you analyse something from, the better the results you get, try to not be who you think you are for awhile,

and during a debate try it out, just visualise the topic at hand, and try not to form moral viewpoints straight away about what you are witnessing.
just read the argument and visualise a scene of actions telling the debate in visual form so it is more vivid and real, try not to judge anything before you have heard all sides including a few of your own, (you dont have to have just 1 opinion thats set in stone) then just realise that its not a battle to be won, its an investigation to uncover the facts and what is true and what is not, then just be aware of all of the truths of the situation and learn about it, leave emotions out of it, im not reffering to fights on this forum etc etc, nothing like that by the way, this is just some advice to everyone, something to try out and see if it works for you, not only for debates scientific or religious, you can use this to all kinds of life situations, it makes you become more logical and productive, "time" is wasted with emotions when it comes to debates and fact finding or analysing an issue etc etc.

try to be the observer of the universe, dont get caught up in the emotional rights and wrongs, it is primative (no offence to anybody, seriously none atall)

anyway yeah i should make a thread about my philosophies, but i prefer to just say things at the spurr of the moment sometimes, even when totaly off topic,

time yes yes, maybe it does maybe it doesent, but either way it opens up a way of thinking, trying to detect what emptyspace really and truley is with solid solid proof might be something to work towards? or saving the planet,

something worthwhile.

peace

I think you have two concepts of time highly confused, in one aspect, time exists because there is an essence of change, time is defined by the interval of change, or you could argue that it is an illusion of time, as phillip K dick writes, But none the less, the time of death and decay, is one heavily argued to this day. Many belive timme doesn't exists becase time is tangent, in circular motion, never stopping. For instance reincarnation, but others liek Catholics would say that you live for the end of time, which would be heaven of course. Time meaning the end of your existence on earth. So there is a certain spirituality to this whole thing, in physics we need time to explain certain functions of the universe and world, but as far as things dying, we may never know. But that is in essense what philsosphy is about, love for the questions.

Moses207:

I don't think spirituality is at all relevant to my argument, which is fundamentally secular, and would not be impacted whether or not this life is governed by a static afterlife or a reincarnational process.

ok.09

PJ, you are wrong to dismiss the possibility that everything sprang out of nothing (number 3 on your list). I think that this is the only case possible, whereas you dismiss it with no justification (except your own limited experiences with causality which all occur on a macro level).

Causality is not an innate feature of the universe. Virtual particle pairs spring out of a vacuum all the time, emergent behaviors often defy the predictions of causality, and many quantum processes seem random at the core, not just as a feature of our limited understanding.

What is more, nobody has any idea about what the features of a completely static environment might be. It could be that a complete stasis has such powerful negative energy that it instantaneously creates all that we see around us. It could be that the beginning of our universe really was the beginning of all things, period.

I'm not pretending to know, but I can posit questions that you can not resolve, and therefore your premature dismissal of the only logical explanation of the past is just that, premature. Please prove that all events must have a causal agent before you wave your hands and move on.

And your treatment of time is pretty lame and does not deserve a sticky in a philosophy forum. Time is a measure of the change in state of a system. It isn't a fourth dimension a'la Einstein. It isn't something to prove or disprove. It is just the 't' in the equation, giving us a reference for the state of a dynamic system.

And since any period chosen for 't' will have some finite length, an infinite number of them can not extend into the past. Doesn't work, never will. By ignoring this, you do yourself an incredible intellectual disservice. So many of the things that you ponder will vanish if you can just wrap your brain around the reality of this.

Swivel:

Ever so glad you've chosen to participate in this. I've been waiting for you to give it a look over.

PJ, you are wrong to dismiss the possibility that everything sprang out of nothing (number 3 on your list). I think that this is the only case possible, whereas you dismiss it with no justification (except your own limited experiences with causality which all occur on a macro level).

Consider this:

In order for something to be an effect, it must have a cause. What is the nature, however, of a cause which does not exist? Nothingness - which we can call an absolute vacuum, with no energy (not even vacuum energy), no space, and no other content, no existence - does not exist. Therefore, to speak of it in relation to causality is to speak of an absurdity.

One either must default to a "pregnant nothingness" - which is, in fact, a somethingness - or one must say "nothingness cannot cause".

Causality is not an innate feature of the universe. Virtual particle pairs spring out of a vacuum all the time, emergent behaviors often defy the predictions of causality, and many quantum processes seem random at the core, not just as a feature of our limited understanding.

Virtual particles come from vacuum energy - not nothingness.

Emergent behaviours are relational entities, which though they can surprise people (and may even be computationally irreducible), nonetheless arise from deterministic systems.

Quantum randomness is not random in the sense that it is uncaused. As there is a controversy (and has been for about 100 years now) over whether or not Quantum Mechanics is deterministic or probablistic (but not random in the chaotic, causeless sense) I shall not enter into that debate, but I will say this:

If it is deterministic, nothing at all is said against causality.

If it is probablistic, it is still causally caused, just not -deterministically- causally caused.

What is more, nobody has any idea about what the features of a completely static environment might be. It could be that a complete stasis has such powerful negative energy that it instantaneously creates all that we see around us. It could be that the beginning of our universe really was the beginning of all things, period.

Nothingness would not even be static. It would not exist. It would not have the ability to be static, as it would have no existence to be static.

I'm not pretending to know, but I can posit questions that you can not resolve, and therefore your premature dismissal of the only logical explanation of the past is just that, premature. Please prove that all events must have a causal agent before you wave your hands and move on.

Certainly.

Either existence is ordered or chaotic.
If chaotic, chaos must itself adhere to chaos.
Yet to remain chaotic over time is a syptom of order.
Thus chaos would have to be ordered in order to be chaos.
Ergo, chaos cannot satisfy itself.

In essence, in order to be chaotic A != A.

As A != A is impossible, chaos is irrational.

And your treatment of time is pretty lame and does not deserve a sticky in a philosophy forum. Time is a measure of the change in state of a system. It isn't a fourth dimension a'la Einstein. It isn't something to prove or disprove. It is just the 't' in the equation, giving us a reference for the state of a dynamic system.

Why do you affirm that it is not a dimension? Might you show how motion can exist purely in a three dimensional system?

That is, show us where motion is by reference to the X Y Z axis, without another axis for time?

And since any period chosen for 't' will have some finite length, an infinite number of them can not extend into the past. Doesn't work, never will. By ignoring this, you do yourself an incredible intellectual disservice. So many of the things that you ponder will vanish if you can just wrap your brain around the reality of this.

What is a fininte, non-zero length, times infinity?