Is there objective Truth?

[Arkilogue]

More what I meant was that an idea is just a series of electrical impulses and chemicals, which is ultimately just electrons buzzing around atoms, like everything else.

The emergent phenomena of reason and consciousness that results is what gives it meaning, like everything else.

Oh I agree with all that.

ETA:

I can think of only 3 possible beginning states:

There are only two.

Nothing,

Nope.

finite something,

Yes.

or infinite something.

Yes.

Can you think of anymore?

Nope. Nor can you.

P.S. Nothing is not a state you thought of.

It is in the way I imagined it as an infinite space with no things in it. But true absence of all qualities including infinite magnitude of space is unimaginable.

Similarly, an infinite block of absolute matter is not physically drawable, engrave-able, image-able. But it can be imagined.

[Edwardo Piet]

Reality may indeed not be intelligible but the reality of reality is certainly intelligible for anyone who can grasp tautologies.

[Arkilogue]

That's true.

Here's another certainty: Nothing happened before time.

What about in an undifferentiated existence in which there is no movement. There is duration of substance but no change/movement by which time could be observed/recorded.

As soon as the substance moves to create space within itself for little bits of itself to move/orbit within, relative time begins. Before the existence of voided space is non-relative time in an eternal homogeneous substance.

[Edwardo Piet]

It is in the way I imagined it as an infinite space with no things in it.

You can't imagine no things.

But true absence of all qualities including infinite magnitude of space is unimaginable.

Yes.

Similarly, an infinite block of absolute matter is not physically drawable, engrave-able, image-able.  But it can be imagined.

No things cannot be imagined, however.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Eternal something.

Infinite would include eternal. If it has no beginning or end in space, it has no beginning or end in time.

Not necessarily. Eternal means without beginning or end; infinite means limitless in quantity, an infinite something can be temporally finite in the past.

[Edwardo Piet]

That's true.

Here's another certainty: Nothing happened before time.

What about in an undifferentiated existence in which there is no movement.  There is duration of substance but no change/movement by which time could be observed/recorded.

It's still true to say that nothing happened before time. Because 'before' is a temporal concept and already presupposes time.

As soon as the substance moves to create space within itself for little bits of itself to move/orbit within, relative time begins.

Nothing happened before time began. So there was no point at which it really began. So it's not true to say that it began or that there was a beginning. It's only true to say that there was a first point in time. It didn't really begin because nothing happened before it for it to arise out of. Because, again, "before" is a temporal concept.

Other things began. The first point in time was not a beginning because it didn't begin because there was no point in time which it really began because there was nothing before it because "before" is a temporal concept.

Before the existence of voided space is non-relative time in an eternal homogeneous substance.

This interests me. If we can start from the premise that nothing happened before time, can you elaborate on that?

[Arkilogue]

It is in the way I imagined it as an infinite space with no things in it.

You can't imagine no things.

But true absence of all qualities including infinite magnitude of space is unimaginable.

Yes.

Similarly, an infinite block of absolute matter is not physically drawable, engrave-able, image-able.  But it can be imagined.

No things cannot be imagined, however.

I can as a point of awareness that takes up no space in a sea of empty blackness. But I cannot imagine no space at all. I can however imagine no empty/voided space if all of available space is taken up by mass/matter.

[Edwardo Piet]

Infinite would include eternal. If it has no beginning or end in space, it has no beginning or end in time.

Not necessarily. Eternal means without beginning or end; infinite means limitless in quantity, an infinite something can be temporally finite in the past.

Existence itself is external because existence itself has never been non-existent because existence itself is always existent because existence itself can never be non-existent.

The universe may not be eternal.

But only if it and its beginning is distinct from the totality of existence itself in all of its eternal entirety.

ETA:

I can as a point of awareness that takes up no space in a sea of empty blackness.

A sea of empty blackness is not no things. It's a sea of empty blackness.

But I cannot imagine no space at all.

True. And if you can't even imagine that which is a subset of there being no things at all then you certainly can't imagine no things at all.

And, of course, you can't imagine no things at all because you can't imagine nothing or no thing or not any thing or not any things. Because nothing isn't anything to imagine and so is hence unimaginable.

I can however imagine no empty/voided space if all of available space is taken up by mass/matter.

Anything you can imagine is a thing you can imagine and not no things or nothing.

[Arkilogue]

Infinite would include eternal. If it has no beginning or end in space, it has no beginning or end in time.

Not necessarily. Eternal means without beginning or end; infinite means limitless in quantity, an infinite something can be temporally finite in the past.

Hah! Thanks fro the intelligence. I even have the same thing happening in my metaversal model: The original Infinite substance quantum fluctuates/breaks symmetry creating a planar cavitational wavefront that leaves a plane of equal sized voided spheres in it's wake. This creates a plane of an infinite number of spheres (spaces/universe) all at the same instant in time. The metaversal plane is infinite in the horizontal but finite in the vertical. A limited infinity.

Here's where it gets even more nuanced: The wave-front keeps going in one direction leaving further planes of universes under the previous and the wave front will never stop traveling and cavitating universes through the original infinite mass body. The metaverse had a beginning in time, but it does not have an end. A limited eternity.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'd say time had a starting point but it didn't "begin" as such because there was nothing before it for it to begin from. A first point in time is subtly different to a beginning, I reckon.

ETA: In a way... there is the first point in time and then it begins.