The beginning of time was a real point in time: proof!

[Burzum fan]

You are assuming in your argument that time does in fact exist and is not merely a byproduct of man's perception of the universe.

Perception is a process and therefore requires time. If you're going to argue against time's existence, you'll therefore have to refrain from the use of all verbs.

[Stefan]

How so?

They're both infinite processes.

Infinite processes remained theoretically troublesome in mathematics until the late 19th century. The epsilon-delta version of Weierstrass and Cauchy developed a rigorous formulation of the logic and calculus involved. These works resolved the mathematics involving infinite processes.[31]
While mathematics can be used to calculate where and when the moving Achilles will overtake the Tortoise of Zeno's paradox, philosophers such as Brown and Moorcroft[4][5] claim that mathematics does not address the central point in Zeno's argument, and that solving the mathematical issues does not solve every issue the paradoxes raise.
Zeno's arguments are often misrepresented in the popular literature. That is, Zeno is often said to have argued that the sum of an infinite number of terms must itself be infinite–with the result that not only the time, but also the distance to be travelled, become infinite.[citation needed] However, none of the original ancient sources has Zeno discussing the sum of any infinite series. Simplicius has Zeno saying "it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of things in a finite time". This presents Zeno's problem not with finding the sum, but rather with finishing a task with an infinite number of steps: how can one ever get from A to B, if an infinite number of (non-instantaneous) events can be identified that need to precede the arrival at B, and one cannot reach even the beginning of a "last event"?[4][5][6][32]
Today there is still a debate on the question of whether or not Zeno's paradoxes have been resolved. In The History of Mathematics, Burton writes, "Although Zeno's argument confounded his contemporaries, a satisfactory explanation incorporates a now-familiar idea, the notion of a 'convergent infinite series.'"[33] Bertrand Russell offered a "solution" to the paradoxes based on modern physics,[citation needed] but Brown concludes "Given the history of 'final resolutions', from Aristotle onwards, it's probably foolhardy to think we've reached the end. It may be that Zeno's arguments on motion, because of their simplicity and universality, will always serve as a kind of 'Rorschach image' onto which people can project their most fundamental phenomenological concerns (if they have any)."[4]

[Don Arb]

What's wrong with the theory that time started with big beng? even Hawking in his book 'a brief history of time' support this theory.

[Burzum fan]

What's wrong with the theory that time started with big beng? even Hawking in his book 'a brief history of time' support this theory.

Nothing, but this is an exercise in metaphysical thinking. Of course we can also see if the logical conclusions we reach through metaphysical arguments fit with scientific evidence. If they don't, we know someone's screwing up. Luckily my arguments do happen to fit the Big Bang theory.

[Svipdag]

You are assuming in your argument that time does in fact exist and is not merely a byproduct of man's perception of the universe.

Kant described time as a "mode of perception" and, IMO rightly so. The following paradox militates against the existence of time as a Ding an sich.
Take the shortest interval of time you can imagine , say 10^-100 second.
Whatever happened just 10^-100 sec ago is already in the past; it's over and done with.

Whatever is about to happen 10^-100 second from now HASN'T happened yet. It is still in the future. The present is only the interval between 10^-100 second ago and 10^-100 second from now or 2 X 10^-100 seconds. But, if we had chosen an even smaller unit of time, say 10^-1000000 second, the duration of the present would be only 2 X 10^-1000000 second. Clearly, then, the actual duration of the present would be ZERO.

THE PRESENT DOES NOT EXIST ! However, if the present does not exist,
WHEN DOES ANYTHING HAPPEN ? What is the time in which I, e.g., can DO anything ? I can't do anything before it happens and I can't do anything after it has happened, and, in fact there being no time in which for it to do so, it can't happen at all.

If the present time doesn't exist and nothing can happen, surely we are justified in assering that TIME DOES NOT EXIST. Perhaps it is just a strategem which we have invented in order to organise and make sense of
our experience.


"Chronon te genesthai eikona tou aidiou" - Plato
"Time was created as an image of eternity"

[Methmatician]

What could even a (smart and curious) man raised by wolves have figured out about time on his own?

He would probably figure out that there was a pattern in his day concerning the distance between certain things that he would call 'time'. He would notice that the sun sets at a certain time (but varies) and it takes a certain amount of 'time' to cook chicken, etc. I don't know what else to say, I can't remember when I first learnt of 'time' so I can't really put myself in this persons mind.

[Methmatician]

By the way, if you believe that time itself began, where did it come from? Usually atheists seem to think time itself predates the (traceable) universe, which began with the big bang.

It didn't come from anywhere. It began with the big bang. There was nothing before the big bang, no particles, no time, no mass, not energy. What brought on the big bang (from what I was taught in school) were certain subatomic particles that could appear and disappear rapidly at any random time. This is where 'something can come from nothing'.

[Svipdag]

Perception is a process and therefore requires time. If you're going to argue against time's existence, you'll therefore have to refrain from the use of all verbs.

Then, how do you avoid the paradox that the duration of the present is ZERO ? That is my point: that assuming the reality of time leads us into an irresolvable paradox.


"INTELLEGO VT CREDAM" - ?

[Smaug]

How so?

Take a jumping ball as an example. If it loses 50% of its energy everytime it jumps, it will jump each time less an less, but will never stop jumping, even if the jump becomes imperceptible.



But this is a quantum mechanics problem. It doesn't apply to a macro-system, so don't worry about that, this is just to you to visualize what Stefan said.

[arcticwolf]

It didn't come from anywhere. It began with the big bang. There was nothing before the big bang, no particles, no time, no mass, not energy. What brought on the big bang (from what I was taught in school) were certain subatomic particles that could appear and disappear rapidly at any random time. This is where 'something can come from nothing'.

How do you know there was nothing? Where is the proof of that?