No, not when we’re talking about time itself. Time can’t begin to begin, because that would require a point in time where time didn’t exist, and that’s contradictory.
CatSci:
Time begins the moment the very first mobile being begins to move. Cosmologically, that would have been at the very first Planck epoch of the expansion from the singularity. Time per se
causes nothing. Things merely are correlative with Time. The Earth makes one revolution around its axis in 24 hours, or 1 day.
Man chose the increments by which we could provide ourselves with information about how many increments transpire for each motion we observe. We settled on seconds, minutes, hours, and days, etc.
That said, Time is not precisely a
manifold. In fact, Physics has postulated the conflation of Time with Space (a real, extensive manifold) in order to make Time more manifold. So, they call it
Space-Time. In this way, certain equations work to make hypotheticals less hypothetical.
A “manifold” is that which permits a plurality of distinctive things to exist and persist side-by-side, even across great distances. Space is a true manifold. In it are all of its objects, existing and persisting. The age of the entire universe can be measured - as a whole unto itself. But, without Motion, Time would be non-existing. Space-time, as modified, can be thought of as a true, extant manifold. Space could exist without objects although it would be rather irrelevant. Space permits
place for objects. Further, it permits distinctiveness between objects, i.e., allows for dis-contiguity, or separation.
Saint Thomas said, “. . . although time is not the same thing as motion, time is never without motion.” - (
Summa Theologica, I, q. 10, a. 1) And, “If everything, including ourselves, were absolutely immobile, we would be unaware of the passage of time and hence unaware of time’s reality.” - (
Summa contra Gentiles, Bk. I, ch. 55.) As a definition, we have, “Time, then, is a number or measure of motion according to the prior and the posterior.” - (
Summa Theologica, I, q. 10, a. 1)
There isn’t even a “before” in which to have the lack of something physical because there is not time in which to have a before.
Don’t you see that this argument only has to do with
language? I’m sure you realize that our idioms fail us on certain occasions. But, our inability to render into proper words a notion
abstracted from reality, is not an argument against that reality, especially in this case. For example, we have no real conception of “infinity.” We can describe it best negatively. When we try to describe, or define, it positively, we find ourselves with statements that do not help us. So, were it not for the
finite, we would have no understanding of “infinity.” Yet, we know what
infinity is. (I can tell you that it is much, much larger than that little box containing a mere abbreviated avatar of it!)
(By the way, you didn’t do anything to me. But I found, a long time ago, that the best way to encounter someone on a totally different tone level from me, is to match their level. So, if you come here full of inhospitality, or full of pride, or full of “I’m smarter than you” attitude, I will meet you at that same tone level. Usually, within a few posts, you will notice that we will both raise ourselves into hospitableness.
)
There is no point in time where there is nothing. At every point in time there is something.
Here is an example of shooting the idea in its head because our language cannot properly depict an epoch prior to that initial moment of motion (expansion). Reality does not
depend upon time. Time is simply correlative with reality. It is correlative in the same manner that matter/energy is correlative. Once existing, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but only its form changes.
When we think about our thinking, we realize that it is more than electric currents scurrying around across neurons in our brains. Even the effects of sensing things is more than neurons scurrying. NDE’s show us that we witness something quite new upon reflection of the experience. But, how is that possible? No matter how complex, all of our thoughts about mundane matters, are dependent on our memories. We create only in a manner of speaking as we don’t really “create.” Real creation requires that there be no primary matter, or secondary matter, existing
from which to fashion some nuance. Creation,
per se, is an activity that only a true Creator can accomplish. A true Creator makes something to be where there was nothing. The true Creator does not
use “nothing,” as though nothingness were something from which to fashion real things.
Therefore, aft of that initial Planck epoch of expansion, there wasn’t anything extant. That is what the Philosopher calls,
Nothing.
continued . . .
