No one can grasp 'time'; Not even a scientist
 

If there was an infinite amount of time in the past, then it would have taken infinite time for time to reach to our present moment. We would never meet the present moment. So, we can't postulate that there was an infinite amount of time before our present moment. But it's also hard to grasp that there was a fixed amount of time in our past and 'nothing before that'. How can we have an idea of what that means? We can't. Conclusion: not even a scientist can grasp 'time' and 'infinity'. Our minds can't grasp it. No math or science can discover this part of reality.
That's one of the mysteries of reality we can only meet with 'awe'.

tl;dr

The idea that infinities can't be traversed is not well founded.

Okay, here we go again: What was there before the Big Bang?

Oo. Oo. Let me -- God!

And I'm still placing my money on the hare not the tortoise.

Propositional analysis FTW.

I can't =/= no one can

There's a lot of things I can't grasp but I don't assume my lack of understanding is universal.

Well I guess that might explain why gods never turn up to meet the present moment. :p

It's almost like "infinite" is a purely abstract concept created by humans (like "gods").

But seriously (sorta), isn’t “infinite amount” an oxymoron? Please explain how infinite can be an amount . . .

To save the infinite vs eternal debate, let’s just say time/existence is eternal.

Or we could say eternity is the infinity of time/existence.

Is this to do with Zeno again?

Time is finite. For example, I do not have time for this. Case closed.

No one can grasp 'time'; Not even a scientist
 

Douglas Adams understood time perfectly well:

“Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.”

The Big Crunch of the previous universe.

Did that occur in *time*?

Yes, unless time was "out to lunch" :p

According to present scientific theories, time started when Big Bang happened. But as far as I know no major scientific theory prohibits infinite future.

How did Big Bang begin to happen before there was time, when the initial act of beginning requires time?

"The chicken and egg came simultaneously" isn't a valid answer.

Why does the initial act of beginning require time?

To claim The Singularity changed it's state of existence (acted) in no time is to say it didn't do it. Doing is an act that takes time (doing time).

Time and space in relativity theory are tightly connected. That's why it's often called space-time. So "before Bing Bang" is probably a wrong question regardless of how counter intuitive this sounds. By "Big Bang happened" I meant time started with Big Bang.

Did space also exist? Or did the universe change its state of existence nowhere? Seems that for consistency if time was required then space was equally required. Therefore no big bang because no state of existence was changed.

Yet the theory seems to have no problem with describing before Bing Bang as being a Singularity. My question is how to change from Singularity to Bing Bang in no time at all?

I'm not the one claiming things didn't exist before Big Bang, or even that there was or wasn't a Big Bang.

Did a Singularity exist before Big Bang? Please don't ask me to define "exist", you do that if you have a problem with the word.

To answer your question - My current "best guess" conclusion is that what exists now has existed eternally in some form or another. The state of existence is constantly changing so it would be no surprise to me if it was much different in the past, in fact it would be a surprise to me if it wasn't. I accept something from something, I don't accept something from nothing. I don't accept time began from no time. I don't accept that time is an actual, substantive thing. Time to me is merely a generic term we apply to actual, substantive things doing things compared to other actual, substantive things doing different things.

Somebody got give The Beginner’s Book of Philosophy for their birthday. Happy Birthday. I look forward to additional threads articulating poorly understood concepts.

Ad hominin attacks the best argument you got?

Oh, how droll.

That's the thing. We don't know.

That doesn't mean you get to make stuff up.

Rubbish! I get to make up as much stuff as I like, as long as I don't claim it's anything other than made-up "best guess" stuff.

I'm not claiming I know, but it seems some are claiming they do.

My point is it takes time for things to begin to happen. How could time begin to happen before there was time in which time could begin to happen?

Droll indeed. You appear to believe that:
A. I’m making an argument, and
B. The post fulfills the definition of an ad-hom.

Its a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey... stuff.

The process and rules that we understand as time, that makes up a necessary part of our understanding of and interaction with the reality in which we find ourselves...

... The very rules that we use to exploit time and space tell us those rules break down under certain conditions. Those same rules tell us that those conditions very likely existed in the past from which this reality emerged.

Go back far enough, and things stop making sense according to the rules we have. That's where ynot finds himself.

Obviously something must have been going on before the big bang. We just have no idea what rules govern it, or whether it's even possible for things bound by the rules of spacetime as we understand them can ever make sense of it.

Since nobody knows what time really is, we also don't know that the act of beginning requires time. Perhaps time is a product of the initial conditions and there was no "before."

No, it was actually ten minutes late.

God? Who is talking about a God here? No one. Strange deduction.

So, you claim you understand all these things? You claim you grasp 'infinity' while it's mind-blowing for most of us? WOW. You must be a real genius.

What you fail to understand is that what might seem to you as a revalation is in no way unique. Your exact argument has been made a number of times on this forum and it almost always boils down to "god did it". So forum veterans are just jumping the gun.

So, you claim that if you don't currently understand anything, nobody can possibly understand it? That's rather arrogant of you.

Dave

No, I don't. But the point clearly went over your head.

What you fail to understand is that it's not because other people made these 'exact arguments' and it boils down to 'god did it' that I'm like these other people. Non sequitur.

Well, scientists tend to move past the awe phase and move right to the "We don't know but how can we find out"-phase.

That was not the point of my post.

It's the complete opposite of arrogance. It's recognizing that we all are small in relation to 'the universe' and its mysteries. And no. No God is mentioned here.

That is because we are just animals. Our whole being responds to circadian rhythms, moon cycles, seasonal migration. So we count time by these cycles.

That is all time is. We can't see beyond the walls of the cave.

Yes, that's right. I completely agree. A scientist is just an animal, thinking he can grasp what the mathematics is pointing to, but he can't. Because he can't see beyond the walls of his cave.

At least we know what comes after ....

BONG!

Nor by me. But, no, it's arrogance; you are, in effect, saying "I don't understand infinity on any level, therefore neither does anyone else." Perhaps you might consider the possibility that some people have better understanding than you.

Dave

Maybe a happy few can grasp the mysteries of the universe no one understands. But how would we, the people, know? You can't blame us 'arrogance' for not being able to know that someone else know something that we all can't grasp.

Don't judge others by your standard.

What is 'mind-blowing' for you might not be 'mind-blowing' for someone else.

I suggest this thread be moved to "Religion and Philosophy". It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the ability of "we, the people" to grasp the concept of infinity.

Do you agree that some things we will never know because our ape brain can't possible graps it?

Can you give some examples of these things?

I think we can safely say that the meaning of P.J. Denyer’s post is something that you failed to grasp.