What if the natural world didn't always exist?

[SGOS]

Well, if nothing existed "at one time" then time existed while there was allegedly nothing existing.  Time is a something.  Thus, there is no time during which nothing can exist.

Correct, with the Big Bang, both space and time start.

Not following this.  Isn't he saying time existed before the Big Bang, while you are agreeing that it did not, or did I fall into the rabbit hole?

[Gestas]

Let us assume that time is interwoven in the natural world (i.e. space-time). So if there's no natural world then there is no time.

If my original hypothetical is supplemented by the above, then would this mean the natural world was produced by a timeless state of affairs that held no potentiality? So that logically prior to the natural world there existed a timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality which transformed (what would transform?) into or produced (what could produce?) a temporal natural world. But how does zero potentiality produce anything, especially in a timeless state? Even if zero potentiality were given an infinite amount of time it would be unable to transform into or produce anything. So how does zero potentiality, in a timeless state, produce time, matter, and energy?

This does sound like something from The Elder Scrolls.

I'm guessing you guys don't believe in magic, and so you must believe that the natural world is past-eternal in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies up above.

[Hydra009]

I'm guessing you guys don't believe in magic, and so you must believe that the natural world is past-eternal in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies up above.

Since time is a property of the natural world (aka the universe) and the natural world is all anyone really has experience with, believing that the natural world exists from the present time to the earliest point in time seems like a pretty safe assumption.

[Gestas]

Since time is a property of the natural world (aka the universe) and the natural world is all anyone really has experience with, believing that the natural world exists from the present time to the earliest point in time seems like a pretty safe assumption.

I know you think you're making a point.

But the hypothetical asks what if the natural world didn't always exist. Meaning, the natural world, including time, didn't always exist. And if the natural world didn't always exist, then that means there was at least two states of affairs. One state of affairs where the natural world and time exists. And another where the natural world and time doesn't exist. It's safe to assume we're living in the former state.

Now, if you want to say that there was never a state of affairs where there was no natural world (and no time), then fine. Go for it. All you're doing is stating what I said you should believe, which is that the natural world is past-eternal.

But if you don't think the natural world is past-eternal, then you must believe in magic.

[Jason78]

Is the OP simply describing the situation pre-big bang?

[Solomon Zorn]

It doesn't have to be past eternal. You have asked a common question, but you are already answering it, with your assumptions. "Zero potential," is the point you are trying to trap us with. But I see no need for such a concept. There was never nothing, because time requires "something." So there is no "before" time. Potential is proven by existence.

[SGOS]

Even if zero potentiality were given an infinite amount of time it would be unable to transform into or produce anything.
So how does zero potentiality, in a timeless state, produce time, matter, and energy?

Two parts here, crafted to create an unfathomable situation. 

First, you hypothetically conjecture an absence of time and world (more correctly, time and universe) create zero potentiality.
Second, you ponder why it would have potential, when you've already specified that it cannot.

You have made up the rules of your own game in such a way that it is unplayable, always ending in a stalemate.  But discovery doesn't work that way.  Neither you nor Einstein can create the laws for matter and existence (you don't get to make up the rules of the game).  The goal of physicists is to observe and understand the laws, not create them.  This is called science.

I'm guessing you guys don't believe in magic, and so you must believe that the natural world is past-eternal in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies up above.

I don't know what others believe, but speaking for myself, I'm curious about where matter and time comes from.  I try to comprehend the absence of time, but it's difficult because I've never experienced any other state.  Humans have an ability to acquire knowledge, but it is never handed to us on a platter.  And some knowledge may be unobtainable because human intelligence is not infinite.

I think you are making a mistake in your hypothetical when you set limits on possibilities.  That something cannot come from nothing is the only possibility you can imagine, but there are infinite possibilities of how this might happen, and you haven't seriously considered any one of them, and most of them haven't even entered your consciousness.  It's also quite possible that something came from nothing in spite of your inability to imagine how it happened.  It's also possible that there are other explanations altogether, the likes of which have never crossed your mind.

Not knowing everything is universal and unavoidable.  We turn to science as a tool to explain that which we don't yet know.  But it's time consuming, and sometimes difficult.

[Baruch]

Let us assume that time is interwoven in the natural world (i.e. space-time). So if there's no natural world then there is no time.

If my original hypothetical is supplemented by the above, then would this mean the natural world was produced by a timeless state of affairs that held no potentiality? So that logically prior to the natural world there existed a timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality which transformed (what would transform?) into or produced (what could produce?) a temporal natural world. But how does zero potentiality produce anything, especially in a timeless state? Even if zero potentiality were given an infinite amount of time it would be unable to transform into or produce anything. So how does zero potentiality, in a timeless state, produce time, matter, and energy?

This does sound like something from The Elder Scrolls.

I'm guessing you guys don't believe in magic, and so you must believe that the natural world is past-eternal in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies up above.

I happen to believe in magic, only that most people misunderstand it, and use it as a red herring.  Cosmologists use multiple-universe theory and trans-dimensional theory (11 dimensions instead of 4 for example) to get around the "cause/effect" problem.  Convention simply states that the initial singularity of the Big Bang is an edge to the universe, and that black hole event horizons are corresponding edges (at least empirically) and that black hole singularities are corresponding edges (absolutely).  But this is all speculation not backed by experiment ... experimental universe building is sadly under-developed.  Perhaps more grant money will help?

In my metaphysics, certainly actuality comes out of potentiality.  And potentiality doesn't require space, time, matter or energy.  Potentiality is a place holder that we can't imagine or experience, in the same way that the fully unconscious state isn't accessible to the conscious mind.  But for me, everything is psychological, not physical.  Potentiality for me is boundless, not zero ... it makes no rhetorical sense (as your post illustrates).  Potentiality is the inverse of actuality, like dividing by zero ... which is like infinity, but not, because it isn't a number at all.

BTW .. eternity isn't endless boring time .. it is something outside of time ... temporality is "in time".  And being timeless isn't being in stasis (freeze frame) ... those are categorical mistakes (fallacies).  In human language, we like to equate things that aren't equitable ... it is how metaphors work.  Timeless is a synonym for eternity .. and it means literally .. without time, not without change or without beginning or end.

[Sal1981]

The way time is normally defined as doesn't exist. There is no "passage of time", because only the present moment exists; relativity, for example, is a good indication that there is no real time in the classical sense of the definition.

We experience an illusion of time, mainly because of how our brains are structured and how memories are formed of past events. The more you delve deeper into physics, the less and less using time as an indicator other than differences between present states it becomes.

[SGOS]

The way time is normally defined as doesn't exist. There is no "passage of time", because only the present moment exists; relativity, for example, is a good indication that there is no real time in the classical sense of the definition.

Ha!  I've actually considered this on my own, although I never thought about it in terms of relativity.  Well, I did, but I didn't say the word "relativity" in my thought process.  Nor did I think about Einstein.  But the theory of relativity, does help to reinforce the non existence of time as a unit that is relatively worthless in the bigger picture.

Time is more like a concept, and concepts don't need to exist.  They are more like thoughts.  Time as a concept helps us organized events in a way that appears to us as helpful.  But it's easy to see that time as a concept, doesn't exist outside of the concept.  It's like we just intuitively invent a way to organize events, and we call it time.

I'm getting off on thinking about this right now.

[aitm]

I'm getting off on thinking about this right now.

and me still looking at old pictures of Barbi Benton....

[SGOS]

Our minds create an illusion of the passage of time.  If humans could not form memories, not even memories of what happened a fraction of a second earlier, we would lose the ability to conceptualize time in our minds, and we would never intuitively invent the concept as an organizational tool, because there would be nothing to organize.  Unfortunately, it would probably limit much of our actions and abilities to adapt.

It's odd that psychologists and Buddhist gurus advocate living in the moment.  It may not be the same thing physicists talk about, but it almost suggests that as humans have a vague grasp of the fact that the moment is all that exists.

[SGOS]

and me still looking at old pictures of Barbi Benton....

And the concept of time even allows you to do this without the photographs in front of you.  You can just remember looking at them.  But every once in a while, it helps to have a little refresher and experience Barbi in the flesh, because memories get old and tend to fade.

[sdelsolray]

...
So that logically prior to the natural world there existed a timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality which transformed (what would transform?) into or produced (what could produce?) a temporal natural world.
...

Under your set of conditions, there is no "prior to the natural world".  Use of the word "prior" necessitates the existence of time.  You contradict the conditions from your own thought experiment.  Put another way, your conditions require a conclusion that the natural world (as you define it) has always existed.

[sdelsolray]

...
I'm guessing you guys don't believe in magic, and so you must believe that the natural world is past-eternal in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies up above.

Yes, you are guessing.