What happened before time itself?Is a time period of an event necessary to say that this happened?In physics the passing of time is relativistic depending on your frame of reference.But we cant escape from time.Maybe from this point of view it is absolute for all of us.

  • 1
    Sorry, but "before time itself" does not make sense, and what is "this" in "this happened"? It is unclear what you are asking. – Conifold Jun 12 '19 at 20:48
  • Before time was created and this is the event. – 4HonorNDFame Jun 12 '19 at 20:58
  • The event of creating time? Since events happen in time this is like asking about the shape of a round square, i.e. a meaningless play of words. – Conifold Jun 12 '19 at 21:00
  • Time may be less absolute/more ethnocentric than we imagine. The goto reference is Whorf who claimed that the native American Hopi notion of time was fundamentally different from ours. This has been strongly de-fashionablized... But here is a Hollywood version – Rusi-packing-up Jun 13 '19 at 3:28
  • How much time does a thought take? Not communicating or indicating it, just the thought? In what time 'space' does logical formalism exist, immediate?, eternal? We do have access and use for atemporal concepts but trying to talk about these in relation to temporal metaphysics, using temporal means of communication, just seems impossible. And what would 'atemporal communication' be anyway? – christo183 Jun 13 '19 at 6:36

Welcome to Philosophy SE. Your question makes some common assumptions which are not necessarily true.

Let me explain the problem with thermodynamics.

If we assume that gases are made of things (for example, molecules), we are able to describe their behavior using the laws of thermodynamics. That is science. Science is knowledge obtained using the scientific method; it is based on empirical facts (facts of our experience). Each one of us has the same experience with objects or things. So, we normally assume that objects are indisputable, non-debatable facts. Scientific knowledge help us surviving.

But there are issues with scientific knowledge. Paradoxes, errors, inconsistencies, etc. That is normal, scientific knowledge is not perfect. The main reason, for philosophers, is - precisely - that it is based only on our experience.

Because gases are NOT necessarily made of things! Things are just manifestations of our experience, more related with our mind that with the physical nature.

So, if you consider that a gas is not necessarily made of objects, thermodynamics is not anymore valid. For example, Boltzmann's formula is useless (because it is highly dependent on accountable objects, which might not be a real fact). After centuries of focusing on the object, science has started focusing on the subject: us, the observer. That is part of the great success of quantum mechanics.

The same happens with Einstein's relativity. It is based on our experience. For Immanuel Kant, time and space do not exist, they are just a framework that our mind creates in order for us to understand the context of our existence.

So, when you say "before time itself", you should consider first if time is not necessarily a fact of the nature outside of our perception, time might be just a fact of our experience, which raises from our five senses and our reason.

If you want to enter into the subject, I recommend you to get an introduction on the early empiricists, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and of course, Kant.

| improve this answer | |
  • I voted this up... Though I must say that the statistical mechanics stuff I find a red herring. The worthwhile part is the last-but-one para which paraphrases Kant's great insight viz. Space and time are forms of our mentation – Rusi-packing-up Jun 13 '19 at 8:44

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.