That’s because the notion of time is wrapped up in the word “change”. I’m not that familiar with Big Bang theory, but I’m comfortable with the notion that there is a moment of time for which there is no “before”. I think the universe demands an explanation but not a cause.
“That’s because the notion of time is wrapped up in the word “change”. I’m not that familiar with Big Bang theory, but I’m comfortable with the notion that there is a moment of time for which there is no “before”. I think the universe demands an explanation but not a cause.”
You can look at time two different ways, but I think that either way you look at it, you will come to the same conclusions.
Option A: Time is just a measurement of change. In this case, when a change occurs, time must pass, because time is essentially an emergent phenomenon of any change, a measurement of how different things are from what we remember them to be.
Option B: Time is a dimension (or part of a dimension), in which motion can occur. However, when moving in the other, non-time dimensions, there is always an element of motion in the time dimension. The only exception is if the motion occurs at the speed of light, but nothing with a resting mass greater than zero can attain that speed. So, for all intents and purposes, as soon as anything substantial changes (moves), it is also moving through time.
Now, there could be some “time before time” in which things operated differently, but the physical laws governing it all would have to be different than what we observe today. If they were different, then how could we speculate at all about conditions beyond that point, since we have no way to observe and experiment to find out what the physical laws were at that time? It would be beyond the purview of science to speak of.