Existence Without Time: Immaterial Universe & Time

[Iacchus32]

Time is wholy contingent upon the fact that a material Universe exists. Meaning, if there is no physical distance by which to measure the rate of change, there would be no time. However, that isn't to say there wasn't an immaterial universe that existed prior to this, otherwise where would the pre-existing structure (blueprint) exist to give rise to the Big Bang and set the whole material Universe into motion? And what would be the difference between that and say, "rolling out the carpet" (so to speak) with its inherent design? Isn't that in effect what DNA does, the inherent blueprint or code that tells the body what to do? So, if all we have is the immaterial dimension -- ever wonder where we go in our dreams? which, are merely an extension of thought and of the same dimension -- then the only possible thing we can have in the physical sense is stillness which, is an expression of http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=219 and, extended unto Eternity.

 

[cogito]

Time is wholy contingent upon the fact that a material Universe exists. Meaning, if there is no physical distance by which to measure the rate of change, there would be no time. However, that isn't to say there wasn't an immaterial universe that existed prior to this, otherwise where would the pre-existing structure (blueprint) exist to give rise to the Big Bang and set the whole material Universe into motion? And what would be the difference between that and say, "rolling out the carpet" (so to speak) with its inherent design? Isn't that in effect what DNA does, the inherent blueprint or code that tells the body what to do? So, if all we have is the immaterial dimension -- ever wonder where we go in our dreams? which, are merely an extension of thought and of the same dimension -- then the only possible thing we can have in the physical sense is stillness which, is an expression of http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=219 and, extended unto Eternity.

What reason do we have to believe that a necessary condition for the existence of time is the existence of physical space? Further, if you are correct that prior to the material universe (whatever that means, exactly) there existed an immaterial universe (whatever that means, exactly), then you are already committed to the existence of time, as you are committed to the existence of temporal priority. See, you can't say both that 1) Time came into existence with the material world, and 2) before the material world there was an immaterial world. "Before" is itself a temporal notion. So, your position entails a contradiction, and hence it is false.

 

[Iacchus32]

What reason do we have to believe that a necessary condition for the existence of time is the existence of physical space?

Because in order to get from points A to B it requires a physical plane and, of course time. And yet if there was no physical plane, let alone points A and B, what is there to measure, and hence time?

Further, if you are correct that prior to the material universe (whatever that means, exactly) there existed an immaterial universe (whatever that means, exactly), then you are already committed to the existence of time, as you are committed to the existence of temporal priority.

No, you're committed to the fact that there was a before the Big Bang which, could not have been measured at the time because there was no physical plane by which to do so. However, now that there is, we can project any time we want back before the Big Bang, for example, 1 billion years BBB (before the Big Bang).

See, you can't say both that 1) Time came into existence with the material world, and 2) before the material world there was an immaterial world. "Before" is itself a temporal notion. So, your position entails a contradiction, and hence it is false.

Yes, time has always existed, it's just that at one point there was no (physical) rate of change by which to measure it.

 

[Chronos]

It is meaningless to discuss time without spatial dimensions. They are covariant. Neither concept is meaningful without the other. Multiplication by zero can yield any result desired.

 

[cogito]

Because in order to get from points A to B it requires a physical plane and, of course time. And yet if there was no physical plane, let alone points A and B, what is there to measure, and hence time?

All this entails is that if there is movement from A to B, there must be time as well. This entails nothing about the existence of time itself.

No, you're committed to the fact that there was a before the Big Bang which, could not have been measured at the time because there was no physical plane by which to do so. However, now that there is, we can project any time we want back before the Big Bang, for example, 1 billion years BBB (before the Big Bang).

First, I'm not committed to any particular position on the Big Bang, because I haven't made any claims about the Big Bang. Second, you're fallaciously assuming that if there doesn't exist the means by which to measure something, then that something doesn't exist. Third, you claimed in your first post that before the material world there was no time, and now you are claiming (again) that there was something before the existence of the material world. You are contradicting yourself.

Yes, time has always existed, it's just that at one point there was no (physical) rate of change by which to measure it.

Oh, now you are completely changing what you said originally. You began by claiming that time came into existence with the material world (although you went on to contradict yourself). Now you're claiming merely that the means by which to measure time came into existence with the material world, but time itself has always existed. Well, at least this position is consistent. Unfortunately, it is also not the position you took originally. Apparently, you now recognize your previous incoherence.

Cheers!

 

[cogito]

It is meaningless to discuss time without spatial dimensions. They are covariant. Neither concept is meaningful without the other. Multiplication by zero can yield any result desired.

In philosophical discussions, it is customary to give arguments for one's claims, and not merely present semi-coherent assertions. Do you have any arguments? Anyway, just because two things covary, that doesn't entail that they can't be defined independently of one another (ie, it doesn't follow that their respective concepts aren't meaningful in isolation). Second, multiplication be zero does not yield any desired result. It yields one result, the same every time, and that result is zero.

 

[RingoKid]

pre BB as relates to our universe all that existed was time there was no space for objects to move through to make things relative to each other...

If you only have one thing and that is "nothing" then it is only relative to itself there is no thing to compare it to so it exists etenally and infinitely and not at all but it still exists.

So let's give it a consciousness of itself such that it has a thought which then differentiates something from nothing and let that thought be a first cause. The first thought/cause that is our universe is I AM.

 

[quantumdude]

In philosophical discussions, it is customary to give arguments for one's claims, and not merely present semi-coherent assertions. Do you have any arguments?

This being Physics Forums, I think that Chronos was expecting that his readers could fill in the blanks. "Covariance" is a direct reference to relativity, which inextricably couples space and time.

Anyway, just because two things covary, that doesn't entail that they can't be defined independently of one another (ie, it doesn't follow that their respective concepts aren't meaningful in isolation).

I agree that space and time have meaning in isolation. Relativistic covariance doesn't go against that.

What SR does entail is that time and space do not exist independently of each other, not that they don't have meaning independently of each other. And what GR further entails is that time and space do not exist independently of matter and energy.

 

[Prometheus]

Time is wholy contingent upon the fact that a material Universe exists.

I disagree. Time is a fundamental component of the material universe. Without time, there could not be a material universe.

Meaning, if there is no physical distance by which to measure the rate of change, there would be no time.

I believe that you are arguing from a perspective that assumes that the Big Bang is necessarily the beginning. This is a fallacy, I believe.

However, that isn't to say there wasn't an immaterial universe that existed prior to this,

I like this line of reasonaing better, yet it contradicts your previous statement, I believe.

 

[Iacchus32]

I disagree. Time is a fundamental component of the material universe. Without time, there could not be a material universe.

In what way is time active though? I doesn't really affect anything does it? To me, I think it's a lot like a shadow, which is a secondary effect, and entirely contingent upon something to project it. Meaning if there was no space in the first place, there would be no rate of change to measure in the second place. Which, is why I believe it's only possible to live in the moment, for the past nor the future really exist, in the sense that we're speaking of the moment which once was or, the moment which has yet to be.

I believe that you are arguing from a perspective that assumes that the Big Bang is necessarily the beginning. This is a fallacy, I believe.

I'm suggesting that the Big Bang was the beginning of the material universe, yes. Except that something (of another dimension) existed prior to this, which contained the blueprint of the Big Bang (so to speak) and, everything else that came into existence.

I like this line of reasonaing better, yet it contradicts your previous statement, I believe.

By immaterial I don't mean nothing though.

 

[PIT2]

I'm suggesting that the Big Bang was the beginning of the material universe, yes. Except that something (of another dimension) existed prior to this, which contained the blueprint of the Big Bang (so to speak) and, everything else that came into existence.

So 'before' the BB, time and space didnt exist, yet there was something that contained its blueprint. If time didnt exist for this something, wouldn't that make it eternal, meaning that the something-with-the-blueprint still exists(outside of time and space)?

 

[Prometheus]

In what way is time active though? I doesn't really affect anything does it?

I don't understand this. For one thing, time affects all of space. All of space is and must be always in motion through time. Can you provide an example of any space that is not in motion through time? Time affects everything. Space cannot exist independent of time (post Big Bang).

To me, I think it's a lot like a shadow, which is a secondary effect, and entirely contingent upon something to project it. Meaning if there was no space in the first place, there would rate of change to measure in the second place.

Are you saying that if there were no space in the first place, then there would be no people or other entities that could measure time since they cannot exist if there is no space? I agree with this. Without space, time cannot be measured. A major reason for this is that there could be nothing that desires to measure time, and there could be no tool to measure with. However, you have stated that you are speaking of the post Big Bang era, in which not only is there space, but this space is indivisibly integrated with time, as space-time.

Which, is why I believe it's only possible to live in the moment, for the past nor the future really exist, in the sense that we're speaking of the moment which once was or, the moment which has yet to be.

I don't understand. Are you saying that a person cannot at this very moment live his life in yesterday? I agree. That seems pretty obvious to me. I wonder if this is what you mean, however. What do you mean when you say that the past and the future do not exist? If your past and future do not exist, then you could never have been born and you will never die. This also cannot be what you mean. Please explain what you mean by this statement, because I cannot understand what you mean.

 

[PIT2]

I don't understand. Are you saying that a person cannot at this very moment live his life in yesterday? I agree. That seems pretty obvious to me. I wonder if this is what you mean, however. What do you mean when you say that the past and the future do not exist? If your past and future do not exist, then you could never have been born and you will never die. This also cannot be what you mean. Please explain what you mean by this statement, because I cannot understand what you mean.

Maybe he means that, right at this second, the past does not exist and neither does the future. The past only existed at the moment it happened. And the future only exists at the moment it happens(but by then it won't be the future anymore obviously).

 

[Philocrat]

What about the possibility of a missing time dimension - the present - that some people are already advocating? And the wacky possibility that we may be either in the past or in the future? How plausible are these claims?

 

[Iacchus32]

Maybe he means that, right at this second, the past does not exist and neither does the future. The past only existed at the moment it happened. And the future only exists at the moment it happens(but by then it won't be the future anymore obviously).

Yes, this is correct. So, basically if you acknowledge this much, you're acknowledging the original stillness which always was (and still is), before time began ... i.e., due to the advent of matter or, material space. So, before the advent of time, I'm suggesting we had something comparable to the dimension of thought, which is, afterall, realized in the moment ... i.e., through consciousness.

 

[DM]

Because in order to get from points A to B it requires a physical plane and, of course time.

Time came to existence with the material world, "of course time" cannot be stated as we created time, it didn't exist naturally!

No, you're committed to the fact that there was a before the Big Bang which, could not have been measured at the time

Could not have been measured at the time? And now it can? why is that? we didn't exist? or was it the material world in which created time that didn't exist?

I tend to agree that you're contradicting things here...

Yes, time has always existed, it's just that at one point there was no (physical) rate of change by which to measure it.

Another contradiction...

 

[Rader]

What SR does entail is that time and space do not exist independently of each other, not that they don't have meaning independently of each other. And what GR further entails is that time and space do not exist independently of matter and energy.

Tom this is a little difficult to understand since we are discussing what might have been before the Big Bang. I realize that we can not really talk about GR before BB as it does not make any sense. Would it be cogerent language to talk about space before BB in a 0 time frame, before matter came into existence? The reason why I ask, is that following the BB what actually occupies space is 99% empty. Any comments to help clear things up.

 

[Philocrat]

In whose visual frame of reference? Supposing ants, rats, 'microscopoids', 'macroscopoids' or 'cosmolopoids' all perceive and interprete time or spatio-temporal relations differently? How would we, the humans, know how they perceive time, let alone spatio-temporal relations? Come to think of it, our close relatives, animals that we often visually degrade and dumb-down, tend 'see', 'hear' and 'sense' more than we do. For I have witnessed many years ago, animals predicted eathquake and fled inland to safetey 10 days before the actual moment of impact and before the humans knew about it. People woke up that morning to see the entire village completely empty. No single animal in sight. While they spent the rest of the ten days wondering whether the village has been visited by a gang of thieves, the animals were rejoycing miles away from the point of danger. Yet, we claim to be the ones who always see and know best. Well, I think there is more to visual pereception and knowing than what we currently imagine them to be.

 

[Philocrat]

Perhaps, humans have a great deal to learn from other life forms! Just perhaps! At the very least, couldn't we make some effort to scientifically overcome the human visual or perceptual limitations? Must we just sit back, go with the flow, leave things to nature as the prophets of doom often suggest, and ultemately do nothing to improve our visual abilities for which we are, quite rightly, naturally empowered?

 

[Philocrat]

Scientists, and many advocates in other disciplines, often see and think of the human activities as artificial and unnatural. Well, philosophers, especially those with their heads well-screwed on, see this view as a fundamental perceptual error, hence a contradiction. This is the fundamental paradoxical question they have raised:

---------
If man is part of nature, why should anything that man does be unnatural or artificial? For example, if the humans, upon subsequent realisation of their own natural limitations, suddenly dicided to write the structures of the world into themselves as a means of overcoming those limitations, why should such an action be perceived and construed as unnatural?
---------

Upon the same token, we tend to naively detach human activities very often from activities that may be said to have something to do with a Higher Being or GOD. We talk of scientific progress as if though God may have no hand in it. If good science, for example, cures us of diseases and ailments, are we to continue to claim that a Higher Being, if such a Being did exist in the first place, had nothing to do with this? This is the very point where science and religion must reconcile and seek a common ground through proper conduct of interdisciplinary scholarship.

NOTE: If nature, human and God all acted in a manner that avoids errors in the causal and relational structure of the world, could we not count them as related and as acting progressively for the common good of all? Is there anything in this relation that is artificial or more natural than the other?

 

[Philocrat]

Time may be currently illusive and difficult to understand, but the highest point in the human perception and understanding of time...is that very moment when we can think and act without deadlines...when we have no more miles to cover in order to survive. And by then, the humans (whatever forms they might have finally taken) may have attained a state of physical indestructibility...and survived!

 

[Philocrat]

And finally, with regards to time and the doomsday predictions made by physics, I hereby this day cordially invite the science community to start thinking of INTERPLANTERY MIGRATION! Start informing your local politicians of the TERMINAL CONSEQUENCES of not doing something about this? The time scale of the doomsday that you guys predict may be in a distanced future, but it's still a wise thing to start educating your politicians on the subject.

However, this preparation should be backed with proper conduct of the 'SCIENCE OF MAN'. And here is the Golden Rule:

--------------------
The 'SCIENCE OF NEEDS' must at all times be backed with the 'SCIENCE OF MAN': both must always be combined and actioned in a positive way!
--------------------

Thanks.

 

[Rader]

In whose visual frame of reference?

Yes your right we must pick a who time frame and a where time frame, in order to choose a event.

Supposing ants, rats, 'microscopoids', 'macroscopoids' or 'cosmolopoids' all perceive and interprete time or spatio-temporal relations differently?

Although time is relative to the observer, all substance uses the same physical laws of nature.

How would we, the humans, know how they perceive time, let alone spatio-temporal relations?

An observers perception is relative to its awarenss and time is relative to its observer.

Perhaps, humans have a great deal to learn from other life forms! Just perhaps! At the very least, couldn't we make some effort to scientifically overcome the human visual or perceptual limitations?

Life is a learning procees, it is my perception that humans do learn as we make mistakes and adapt to our environment.

Must we just sit back, go with the flow, leave things to nature as the prophets of doom often suggest, and ultemately do nothing to improve our visual abilities for which we are, quite rightly, naturally empowered?

Again it is hard for me to imagine what the world appears to you, as I see it quite differently, is this your image of the world or the way you think it appears to all others?

If man is part of nature, why should anything that man does be unnatural or artificial?

These terms are not defineable in the context of my understanding. Unnatural or artificial or any other word to describe substance is still of the same essence.

For example, if the humans, upon subsequent realisation of their own natural limitations, suddenly dicided to write the structures of the world into themselves as a means of overcoming those limitations, why should such an action be perceived and construed as unnatural?

Its not as far as I perceive the world. Its a choice with a direction towards change.

If good science, for example, cures us of diseases and ailments, are we to continue to claim that a Higher Being, if such a Being did exist in the first place, had nothing to do with this?

Science can cure nothing, it only modifies a state of being. Cure has a miraculous tone about it and pertains to what we are searching for.

If nature, human and God all acted in a manner that avoids errors in the causal and relational structure of the world, could we not count them as related and as acting progressively for the common good of all?

Only if essence is one in nature, in my humble opinion.

Is there anything in this relation that is artificial or more natural than the other?

That depends if you consider essence to be more artificial or natural than substance.

And finally, with regards to time and the doomsday predictions made by physics, I hereby this day cordially invite the science community to start thinking of INTERPLANTERY MIGRATION! Start informing your local politicians of the TERMINAL CONSEQUENCES of not doing something about this?

Do not worry to much, substance will change but its essence will never vanish.

 

[quantumdude]

Tom this is a little difficult to understand since we are discussing what might have been before the Big Bang.

I was just clarifying and expanding on Chronos' remarks.

I realize that we can not really talk about GR before BB as it does not make any sense.

That's right.

Would it be cogerent language to talk about space before BB in a 0 time frame, before matter came into existence?

If there is no matter, then how can you talk about space and time at all?

It's not as though space is a 'thing' that exists between objects, and that that thing would still be there if you took all the objects out of the picture. What we call "empty space" (which is not really empty, but that's not the issue at hand) is just a relationship between objects that have spatial extension. Take away the objects, and there's no relationship to speak of.

 

[Nereid]

Yes, this is correct. So, basically if you acknowledge this much, you're acknowledging the original stillness which always was (and still is), before time began ... i.e., due to the advent of matter or, material space. So, before the advent of time, I'm suggesting we had something comparable to the dimension of thought, which is, afterall, realized in the moment ... i.e., through consciousness.

Wait a minute (or a parsec, or a meta-minute)! Either you have just introduced an undefined entity ('consciousness') and you could equally well have said '6oihserioserh', or you are using 'consciousness' with at least some of its usual meanings, and I can ask why you think 'consciousness' can have an existence independent of (human) brains?

 

[Nereid]

Perhaps, humans have a great deal to learn from other life forms! Just perhaps! At the very least, couldn't we make some effort to scientifically overcome the human visual or perceptual limitations? Must we just sit back, go with the flow, leave things to nature as the prophets of doom often suggest, and ultemately do nothing to improve our visual abilities for which we are, quite rightly, naturally empowered?

So here is some what we presently understand other lifeforms (on Earth) can perceive beyond what the mammal Homo sap. can (probably not an exhaustive list), together with what that puny mammal can do, when augmented with gee-wizz gadgets and instruments:
- UV (some insects)
- IR (esp pit vipers)
- infra-sound (e.g. elephants)
- ultrasound (many animals)
- air-borne chemicals, a.k.a. 'smell' (almost every living thing is more sensitive than Homo sap.!)
- water-borne chemicals (ditto; note that some bacteria are extraordinarily sensitive to the gradient of certain 'food' chemicals)
- surface vibrations, which may be low-intensity earthquakes, or merely a heavy mammal walking nearby (lots of insects, and others, e.g. cockroaches)
- magnetic fields (some bacteria, some birds)
- electric fields (platypus, some fish).

The puny mammal (with its instruments) can detect UV, IR, sound, surface vibrations, and magnetic fields better than any animal can; puny mammal (with its instruments) can detect some chemicals, and (probably) electric fields much more clumsily than the relevant animals, and probably less sensitively (in many cases).

Can anyone add anything significant to this list? I mean, AFAIK, no living thing can detect cosmic rays, or neutrinos, or alpha particles, or EM in the radio part of the spectrum ...

So, in terms of the consciousness or experience of any living thing, what might Homo sap. be missing? If we could re-wire Philocrat's brain so he (she?) could perceive electric fields as well as the best platypus, what new, deep philosphical insights do you think he could provide us?

 

[Rader]

If there is no matter, then how can you talk about space and time at all?

Your are right in a sense, its understood that at time 0, there is no theory or math to even talk about this. The only answer for that is, take a choice, conscious humans ¿only my opinion? assume its a better assumption to conceptualize time and space existing before matter, in a different time and space frame, verses time and space, was non-existent yet a universe virtually pooped into existence from nothing. We now know that space or the vacuum is not so empty. Particles can appear out of a vacuum but is not that only at the expense of the destruction of others?

It's not as though space is a 'thing' that exists between objects, and that that thing would still be there if you took all the objects out of the picture.

Why is that the present understanding of science? Is it just that, that is all we know for the moment? Knowledge changes over time, using my analytical philosophy, it would seem more logical that it might not be understood in the same way, when we understand what is time 0.

What we call "empty space" (which is not really empty, but that's not the issue at hand) is just a relationship between objects that have spatial extension. Take away the objects, and there's no relationship to speak of.

So is it, the problem that we just can not understand for the moment and coneptualize time in negetive time frames and Hilbert space models of whatever there was before?

 

[Philocrat]

So here is some what we presently understand other lifeforms (on Earth) can perceive beyond what the mammal Homo sap. can (probably not an exhaustive list), together with what that puny mammal can do, when augmented with gee-wizz gadgets and instruments:
- UV (some insects)
- IR (esp pit vipers)
- infra-sound (e.g. elephants)
- ultrasound (many animals)
- air-borne chemicals, a.k.a. 'smell' (almost every living thing is more sensitive than Homo sap.!)
- water-borne chemicals (ditto; note that some bacteria are extraordinarily sensitive to the gradient of certain 'food' chemicals)
- surface vibrations, which may be low-intensity earthquakes, or merely a heavy mammal walking nearby (lots of insects, and others, e.g. cockroaches)
- magnetic fields (some bacteria, some birds)
- electric fields (platypus, some fish).

The puny mammal (with its instruments) can detect UV, IR, sound, surface vibrations, and magnetic fields better than any animal can; puny mammal (with its instruments) can detect some chemicals, and (probably) electric fields much more clumsily than the relevant animals, and probably less sensitively (in many cases).

Can anyone add anything significant to this list? I mean, AFAIK, no living thing can detect cosmic rays, or neutrinos, or alpha particles, or EM in the radio part of the spectrum ...

So, in terms of the consciousness or experience of any living thing, what might Homo sap. be missing? If we could re-wire Philocrat's brain so he (she?) could perceive electric fields as well as the best platypus, what new, deep philosphical insights do you think he could provide us?

GOOD Question! Who knows? Frankly, I have no idea! What do you think? Could any of your listed abilities attributed to those classes of life forms be applicable, let alone be useful, to the humans?

 

[cyfin]

This whole discussion is completely unnecessary. The answer is simple. Time does not exsist.

Time is a logical contradiction. For every cause, there is an effect. And if time exsists, when did it start? Logically, if time exsists, there has to be a time when time did not exsist. In order to explain the change from time not exsisting to time exsisting, you need to have time. Therefore, it contradicts itself and cannot be logically accepted. Time can only be used under asumtions.

As Rene Descartes says "I think therefore I am". I am the only thing I know exsists. If time does not exsist. Spacial dimentions are completely useless becuase there can never be any transformations on them. Only one thing needs to exsist. Call it space if you want. call it thought. It is exsistance. It is at a fixed constant state.

Funny thing about "I think therefore I am": It is present tense. Do we need to remember our past in order to know we exsist?


All this is completely theoretical. Obviously my observations tell me time exsists. Based upon the asumtion that time exsists, I think its obvious you're referring to God, but as a scientific discussion, we'll leave him/her out of it. Before time exsisted, there has to be an immaterial universe. The material universe is a transformation of space around time (or vice versa). Without time to define space, it is then boundless and would occupy everthing. Hence, there is an immaterial universe before time that consists of all space. Aka "Everything". Once time was created, it came into exsitance at a single point in space. Since its all arbitrary, we'll call it the "Center" of the universe. From the "Center" of the universe poured out "Everything". Tada! The BIG BANG! Yadda Yadda Yadda. Trillions of years later, we are the current end result. Next question to follow: Will we ever run out of "Everthing"?

 

[KaneOris]

otherwise where would the pre-existing structure (blueprint) exist to give rise to the Big Bang and set the whole material Universe into motion?[/URL] and, extended unto Eternity.

What is to say there was a blueprint, why could or universe not be the first. If we arent, and there are ones before us, then they would have followed a structure, and that would go back for infinite aeons. But there must have been an instigator of the structure, to say things have existed forever is fiction, there has to be a starting point of any existence

 

[Prometheus]

Logically, if time exsists, there has to be a time when time did not exsist.

I am sorry, but I do not understand the logic that you speak of. Would you please elaborate on how your statemet is logical?

 

[cyfin]

I am sorry, but I do not understand the logic that you speak of. Would you please elaborate on how your statemet is logical?

Physical space is chaged from one configuration to another. The process and rate at which this takes place is called time and typically measured in seconds. B changes into C and C changes into D. In order for D to exsist, C must exsist. And for C to exsist, B must exsist. Logically, we can infer that there must be an A because B exsists. Unless B is the first. If B is the first, What was there before B? There has to be a condition where this law (time) does not apply.

 

[Prometheus]

If B is the first, What was there before B?

If B was the first, then obviously there was nothing before B.

Logically, we can infer that there must be an A because B exsists.

I still don't understand this. I can recognize that you accept this, however I do not see how this must follow logically.

 

[cyfin]

Time is defined as this condition: "A follows B". When the condition is no longer true, it ceases to be called time. Therefore, A can be the first condition of time, but not the first exsistance of anything else.

 

[Iacchus32]

It's not as though space is a 'thing' that exists between objects, and that that thing would still be there if you took all the objects out of the picture. What we call "empty space" (which is not really empty, but that's not the issue at hand) is just a relationship between objects that have spatial extension. Take away the objects, and there's no relationship to speak of.

So what exactly is space then? Is it comprised of something? Or, is it comprised of nothing? Does it contain an elemental structure, with atoms and electrons and protons and all that good stuff? In other words did space itself exist before the Big Bang? Surely if there was nothing before the Big Bang, there would be no space either, right?