"There is always something in existence before. There is no beginning in string theory"

If there is always something in existence before, then you are saying time is infinite, since you would never find a beginning. If time has been doing this forever, as you suggest, then it HAS taken an infinite amount of time to reach the present right now. It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself: You say we cannot reach an event that takes an infinite amount of time to reach, but then you say there is always something in existence before.

Think about what you're saying. You are saying that before this point in time(the present), there has always been something in existence(time). You are basically saying that time has lasted forever before the present, or infinite.

• Also - highvoltage - July 7, 2001 - 22:12 UTC
  • I like that - stormcrow - July 8, 2001 - 02:13 UTC
    • It does not matter what we say - yanniru - July 8, 2001 - 20:13 UTC
      • Then explain it - stormcrow - July 8, 2001 - 23:20 UTC
        • It just happened - yanniru - July 9, 2001 - 13:14 UTC
          • Then I'm sorry - highvoltage - July 9, 2001 - 16:39 UTC
            • Highvoltage, there is NO logic in your words. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 18:03 UTC
              • You are WRONG! - highvoltage - July 9, 2001 - 19:05 UTC
                • Incorrect understanding of INFINITY. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 19:18 UTC
                  • Yes, finite time between events, that's it! - highvoltage - July 9, 2001 - 20:04 UTC
                    • So what? - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 20:28 UTC
                      • A finite point is not actually finite on an infinite timeline - highvoltage - July 9, 2001 - 22:26 UTC
                        • It just starts at a reference point - yanniru - July 9, 2001 - 23:37 UTC
                          • I see what your saying but there's a problem - highvoltage - July 10, 2001 - 16:40 UTC
                            • Time is reversible in math - yanniru - July 10, 2001 - 16:52 UTC
                              • This is not a logic, this is LACK of logic. - alexander - July 10, 2001 - 17:11 UTC
                                • Nope alex - highvoltage - July 11, 2001 - 04:37 UTC
                              • You rely too much on math - highvoltage - July 11, 2001 - 04:41 UTC
                                • Pointless - yanniru - July 11, 2001 - 12:05 UTC
                                • Mike, what is you math background? - alexander - July 11, 2001 - 16:22 UTC
                                  • Part of post was missing. - alexander - July 11, 2001 - 18:16 UTC
                                  • Part of post was missing. - alexander - July 11, 2001 - 18:18 UTC
                • Quick question, Mike - stormcrow - July 9, 2001 - 19:20 UTC
                  • I'm not saying that - highvoltage - July 9, 2001 - 20:11 UTC
                    • OK= the proof - yanniru - July 9, 2001 - 23:39 UTC
                      • Not ill defined, but undefined. - alexander - July 10, 2001 - 17:15 UTC
      • Yes please explain - highvoltage - July 9, 2001 - 05:18 UTC
        • No proof availabe - yanniru - July 9, 2001 - 13:18 UTC
          • Then someone else please explain - highvoltage - July 9, 2001 - 16:47 UTC
            • Highvoltage, there is NO logic in your words. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 18:11 UTC