Argument Against an Infinite Past

[max-greece]

Well.....lets start with a circle - find me the beginning.

Now consider time - we are used to it flowing in one direction from an earlier point to a later one. We therefore surmise time had a beginning and we can put that at the beginning of the universe (which is known as space/time). There is no before the beginning as time itself did not exist (nothing existing - as in nothingness).

Describing 'nothingness' as 'existing' is a contradiction.

Several thoughts going on from this include:

Suppose time is circular.
Was nothingness infinite? Can nothingness be infinite?
What if (as is proposed under Quantum Physics) nothingness is inherrently unstable?
Could a universe form in those circumstances (if the net energy state of the universe is zero)?
Without outside interference?

Calling empty space 'nothingness' is unhelpful and bad in my opinion. Empty space is something, not nothing. And nothingness could not have properties like instability.

OK.

I am not calling empty space nothingness. I am calling what existed prior to the universe as nothingness - no fields, no particles, no gravity - nothing.

To illustrate. Matter and anti-matter collide - they eliminate each other completely. That resultant state is nothingness.

The universe from nothing theory is essentially that process in reverse.

The argument as to whether we can refer to nothingness as existing is mute. In that we are making reference to the something that makes up the universe I think we can refer to the existence of nothingness - if nothing else to recognise the possible state where there is nothing.