# Time cannot began to exist

(Quote source: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2803090#p2803090)

300BC

Think they got us all beat.

How do they know stuff repeats if they are only in one iteration? Where did they get that information? How would they answer the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem?

Anywhayz.

Imagine you make all of time from beginning to end, with none of the moments blended together, so absolutely zero prophecies and zero fulfilled prophecies. You don’t say anything to any of the beings in the sequence. What would it be safe for the beings to assume about you?

Then, put the entire timeline into a shredder that you then shake up like a tossed salad. Then piece it all back together like the worst Quentin Tarantino movie mix up ever. Run it. What would be possible to learn from something so chopped up and out of order?

Both scenarios are possible to do from beyond the sequence.

If you were beyond the sequence, would you leave it 100% untouched (forget the part where it gets its being from your being)? Why would you even make the sequence in the first place? If you made the sequence, what would your motivation be, and how would that influence your interaction with the sequence?

BGV aside… Would you just run the sequence (chopped up or not) with zero interaction in it, then destroy it and start over… and over… and over? hhhhhhhhhhhWhy?

The term infinite does not mean continuous. It is a set of points though. So it is better to ask whether an arbitrary point in the future can be reached from now.

Infinity cannot be reached given its definition: unlimited or boundlessness. Passage of time for example is always finite no matter how much time passes infinite time cannot be reached.

There is an infinite number of cycles in the past in this theory as well.

The point of continuity/pattern (ground) is to be able to recognize when there is a change/interaction (figure). [More comfortable rephrasing that to this: Pattern recognition and change recognition are mutually produced; one cannot happen without the other; it is the essence of self=other; it is the point.] There could be no communication (self=other) otherwise. In that way the ground (pattern) is also figural, and the figural a ground (doesn’t actually change anything essential, but is required…baked in). The over-pattern (self=other figure/ground) is seen everywhere because it is the essence of being (so change/disorder is actually part of the over-pattern… or nihil for the…conflagration). Seeing it everywhere is what was meant the first time I said iteration in this thread. NOT a cyclic model. Rather, every child (example) of “the parents”.

Love is not love without demonstration.

essence is not ontological (is immaterial) without demonstrated existence

iow…

faith without works is dead (nihil…dross)

my brothas & sistas

We can recognize patterns, and extrapolate from them - inferring future actions that we anticipate to happen, based on our understanding of the current environment.
We do not ‘know’, we have a theory which we believe based on evidence.

I don’t know how the ancient stoics would have responded to a theorem that had not been developed at the time of their lives.
I could personally take a crack, yet it’s not necessary to respond to every critique or alternate theory, in order to hold one individually.

I accept your beliefs, regardless of your ability to respond to every criticism ever lobbed at them.
Two different issues - 1) what is the nature of one’s belief. 2) what is the evidence / proof / credibility of one’s belief.
I was speaking to what is, not why is - i.e. stoics believed .

Now, to this actual theorem:
In the Stoic theory of expand, crunch, repeat - the average expansion would be neutral, because the crunch would balance the scale.
Thus, a theory arguing against continuously expanding universes, does not apply to the Stoics’ theory.
It’s that simple.

I could make more arguments if you like, but I believe the above to be sufficient.

One can believe there is no reason for existence.
Simply that existence always was, is, and will be.
That is an attribute of it’s structure - eternal.

It is only the biased living beings,
that seek meaning and
to project / instil their preferences
upon the environment beyond them.

Asking the motivation of existence,
is to anthropomorphize that which is not akin to living beings.
A categorical error.

Given your beliefs,
your perspective is understandable,
but you know why I disagree.

bahman,

I agree with you that time has no beginning.
My post was in response to Zeroeth Nature.

If we could slice existence along the dimension of time,
between the smallest / fastest interactions that ever transpire,
then compare slices:
If the interactions of existence,
are only ever influences by itself,
and always react the same way given the same conditions / environment,
then:
If any slice, matches another slice,
we’ll call these slices C1 & C2,
logically,
the slice after C1 and the slice after C2,
should also match -
and the slice before C1 and before C2,
should also match.
This pattern would continue until you fully connect C1 & C2.
Cycle 1, cycle 2, cycle 3 etc.
But why count or differentiate these cycles at all?
For all intents and purposes, they’re identical to each other.
We can just call it the one cycle - time’s a loop.

( or so I and others believe )

Let’s skip the part where BGV rules out an infinitely cyclic physical model, and you have not answered that.

You’re having a conversation, so you must exist. If you start saying the same thing over and over again and I ask you what your motivation is, am I anthropomorphizing you? Am I just projecting my preferences?

If existence always was, but was not conscious (except the parts that are—like us), what perturbed it into that first action (if you reject the wave/coil is sustained whole)?

Can you give me an example of something that is “infinite” that is NOT continuous?

That begs the question.

Only beings subject to time take time to count things.

Infinity can’t be reached because infinity is not a point, it is a continuation. How the heck could continuation be reached?

Take for example my thread on One Divided By Three. If you try to divide 1 by 3 you will never reach a finite number of decimal positions that can be said to be the end result. You CAN’T finish the division because it is CONTINUOUS. It is INFINITE.

Is there an end point of space in any direction? If there is no end point then space is INFINITE. If there is an end point what is after that point, more space/distance?

No counting required!

it is collected when nothing is excluded

there is only one being that (who) can collect in this manner

bet your neural network on it

I was gonna say you better reconcile but …you can’t.

S’okay.

He’s got you.

Do you speak English?

¿Sprecken Sie Deutsch?

I lived in Germany for 11 years, what do you think?

On deployment?

Deployed for 11 years??