palou said:
I do feel that that is making conclusions using intuition in a situation where intuition has no place to be applied. The Hawking proposal you talked about (which isn't inherently more true than there being no beginning - again, it's outside of what can be observed, and thus, in any way confirmed) doesn't require a first event. I don't have the knowledge on the matter to describe it any better, but I estimate, neither do you...
Mathematically, even if you insist on time being finite, you don't require a first event. Think Zeno's paradox, with the turtle. (in reverse, let's say). So, let's say, time exists as long as Achilles hasn't reached the turtle; In that case, at any period that you look, there is something that follows; even if the total time spent by Achilles being behind the turtle is finite.
I'll again insist that our brain is certainly not made to comprehend reality outside of the physical conditions that we can plausibly encounter; the beginning of the universe certainly isn't among that reality, specifically, time and space does not behave as we would intuitively comprehend it, so I find it rather dubious to make *philosophical* arguments, reliant on our direct logical intuitions, in that context.
|
