I ask this in regards to (what I perceive to be) the paradoxical nature of time and its origins. Two things seem particularly troubling here: A) How could time have had a beginning? Isn't the concept of a beginning only meaningful when examined from a frame in time? B) If time did not have a beginning, wouldn't we have traversed an infinite period of time in order to get to the present moment? Isn't that as inherently impossible as, say, eating an infinite amount of cottage cheese?
One thing is apparent: time exists! From this I can gather there is some flaw in my reasoning. I suspect it resides in B, though I cannot seem to articulate the precise reason why, but I am open to the possibility that A is somehow fallacious as well. Or, perhaps, both A and B are false. Anyway, you guys run a great site! Thanks for answering (if you indeed choose to do so).
I already addressed your second concern in response to a previous question on this site. I'd invite you to take a look at my answer there . As to the first concern, when we speculate about a possible beginning to time, we are doing so from a frame in time. We start at the present, and we conceptually project ourselves backwards through the period that intervened between the present and that supposed first moment. Was there a time one year ago? Yes. Was there a time two years ago? Yes. Was there a time thirteen billion years ago? Yes. Was there a time fourteen billion years ago? No! The supposition of a beginning to time means that there exists a number n , such that there was a moment of time n years back from the present but no moment n +1 years back. The supposition of an infinite past simply means that there is no such number.