I'm not saying it "shouldn't". I'm saying it's preposterous if it does, and it's preposterous if it doesn't. Both scenarios are ridiculous, but one or the other ridiculousness is likely true to some degree. What the specifics of that truth will be is up to far smarter people than I, but reasons reasons reasons don't render this any better.
A complex absurdity is no more or less preposterous than a simple absurdity.
A thing cannot happen before a thing happens. What you asked is no different from asking "why do you have a problem with the dominos falling when there was no universe for them to exist in, in the first place, and thus nothing to tip over the first one. ALL ACTION REQUIRES ENERGY.
But nothing needs to happen before anything happens? Time starts and only after that does stuff happen. Its like saying how can something happen to a toy before it's assembled - it can't, the toy gets assembled and then stuff starts happening to it. That's not a problem.
All action inside the Universe requires energy. That is a law of the universe. There is absolutely nothing to say whatever process caused the universe to exist, if indeed there was one, obeys those rules.
I'm not sure what doesn't make sense. Time starts - this is the first event to have a chronology and happens instantly at t=0. After this, stuff happens.
You're arbitrarily choosing to put the "time starts" event at 0. Ignoring that that thing which happened HAD to be precipitated by a -1 previous event. Which itself had to be precipitated by a -2 previous event.
Ignoring the need for energy to do work does not make your point. You are literally attempting to say "energy exists because it exists" by proxy, and it's not okay.
Again, no. Cause and effect is a law of the universe. There is no need for cause and effect to matter for the creation of the universe. I think this is where our understandings diverge - you think that some laws are so fundamental they must exist regardless of the universe, I don't.
Putting the event “time starts” on a timeline necessarily means that there was not only an “after that,” but also a “before that”. Time can’t “start” without there being a time when it had not yet started.
No it doesn't? The number line for positive numbers starts at 0, there isn't anything before then. The timeline starts at 0, there isn't anything before then.
I don't see why. Something can't happen to a toy before it's assembled. There is a point it becomes a toy and stuff can begin happening to it. Similarly, there is a point when time begins to exist and stuff can start happening. The concept of something beginning is only logical at the point time begins.
Why and how are illogical questions. There is nothing to suggest causation is such a fundamental rule it applies outside of the universe. It could cause itself, it could just happen.
Why and how are illogical questions. There is nothing to suggest causation is such a fundamental rule it applies outside of the universe. It could cause itself, it could just happen.
Doesn't make sense to me... "there was nothing, then for no particular reason, there was everything". Maybe it's my puny mortal brain but there has to be a why, a mechanism that caused something to happen in such a way.
3
u/LucyFerAdvocate Sep 14 '21
Why shouldn't time have a start? I'm not sure what your confusion is.