Does everything have a beginning and an end to it?

What if there is no end, and no beginning?
What if there is only now, and things like ends and beginnings are concepts that make sense because of how we are?

That's true: there is only now, because only people who are alive and able to observe life can "see." It's the beginning for some, and the end for others. This transition continues with no beginning or end.

@cicerone imposter,
Although it seems like a hard concept to grasp, it could be that there only exists a now and what we see as a beginning and an end is just part of an everlasting circle.

energy and matter

well yess:-)

Nothing lasts forever.

How can you be so sure that nothing lasts forever?

If not all others, transformation would last forever...
...the rules of transformation, independently of complexity, therefore last forever...

Hi!

Not something - Everything.

This universe is the result of an event that was preceded by another event and so on.

As infinity demands repetition, it will re-occur an infinite amount of times, both in its present state and every other variation according to its' composition, as will you and I and everything within it.

You will exist as everything that ever existed, but will be restricted to the mindset of that which in which you dwell.

Everything is the same thing in an alternate location, unaware of its own wholeness.
Out of sync with itself, myself, yourself....ourself!

Anyway, have a great everything always! And when you are me (which you are, but unaware of it due to localised identity restrictions) have a splendid existence...Which I am certain you shall.

Bye now.
Mark...

how long is a piece of string

Nothing doesn't exist - So it cannot last forever.

So according to you the universe has been created as a result of infinite amounts of events with no beginning and no end. On top of this, you are also saying that we are everything, and everything is us..... right?

It is not hard to see how a line can have a beginning and an end. So based on this understanding we apply the same logic to something that appears linear from our perspective.
But a circle is an example of where it is not meaningful to talk of beginning and end. So beginning and end are not neccesarily meaningful concepts in all places we would want to apply them.

But strictly rethorically there is an answer to this question, and the answer is yes.
Anything that we can categorize as "thing" has beginning and end, since the identification of beginning and end are vital ingredients in the definition of "thing".

Be wary when you transfer these concepts to abstract levels of thinking. It may not be correct to assume that their internal relationships stay the same if you change their application.

Hi Fear less fury!

Yes.

Thank you!
Mark...

Hi DJ!

When measured from the perspective of a consciousness observing from our quantum realm, it is about the size of 1.8 billion of our universes, give or take a few galaxies.

When percieved by a consciousness observing from a point where our universe is the observer's relative quantum realm, not even measureable.

This is how long a piece of string is.

As with size, height, width, time and a host of other dimensions - The identity of a thing is only relative from the observer's location (see 'theory of relativity' then add all dimensions that Einstein never actually got around to revealing, mainly because he was overly focused in specific areas and couldn't see further than his own ego)

Nice to see you again DJ!
Be well, merry and prosper accordingly!
Mark...

Let us examine the idea by using an ancient two element metaphysics.
A thing is defined as any material difference in any form, or shape, or boundary, if you will.
The boundary of a thing is not a thing, nor is it the material difference of a thing.
The material difference of a thing is not a thing, nor is it the boundary of a thing.
Thus every thing is composed of two, and only two elements, that things form, and the material difference in that form. Neither form nor material difference is a thing, and consequently cannot be said to exist.

Every thing then is made up of these two elements, which, in of themselves are nothing.

Do you claim that the Universe is a thing?
If you claim it is a thing, then it has a boudary which separates the material universe from another material of some other thing, i.e. another universe, ad infinitum, and you have the logic impossibility of an infinite regression.

There for, the Universe, qua Universe cannot be a thing.
But, if it is a material difference, it has no form, i.e. no end or boundary at all.

Why is an infinite regression a logic impossibility? There is nothing in your 2 element metaphysics that states infinity doesn't exist. In fact your definition would imply it does exist since every thing is different in some way and I can probably find infinite number of ways that things differ.

Can you ever arrive at a first principle through an infinite regression? Or more fundamentally, which perhaps you will not understand, can you predicate a boundary of a material difference?

Something that Aristotle did not understand--predication. Since you cannot assert or deny anything at all of the elements, then predication is the inverse function of abstraction. i.e. of things. One cannot predicate of an element. This alone is Einstein's demise, and the demise of non-Euclidean Geometry.

Plato did get it right, however. One can neither assert nor deny existence to an element.

But you are assuming that there must be a beginning. You have no proof of that.