The below is a conversation with Claude’s most advanced AI model currently available – Opus 4.5. The B-theory of time is sometimes brought up to refute the ‘kalam cosmological argument’ because it problematises the claim to a ‘beginning’ of the universe. Insha Allah, I will explore this criticism more thoroughly later but the below chat was intended to understand whether the B-theory can actually support the idea of an infinite universe. Here’s the spoiler – it can’t. Now that alone leaves the kalam argument standing pretty strong. Actually, B-theorists would concede that time is bounded in at least one direction and that is enough for the kalam argument to hold. But I wanted to go a step further and examine how positing the B-theory makes it problematic to imagine an infinite universe. I am not interested in refuting the B-theory. It’s probably useful and valid in some aspects. But my point is that it would be self-contradictory to posit the B-theory and an eternal/infinite/boundless universe. Here’s the full conversation below:
Me:
What is the B-theory of time? Explain to a layman but be accurate and precise.
Opus:
The B-theory of time holds that all moments in time—past, present, and future—are equally real. There’s no objective “now” that moves through time; rather, the distinction between past, present, and future is merely a matter of perspective, like the distinction between “here” and “there” in space.
The core idea
Think of time as analogous to space. Just as Sydney and London both exist even though you’re only in one place, the B-theory says that 1066 and 2050 both exist even though you’re only experiencing one moment. The year 1066 isn’t gone any more than Sydney ceases to exist when you’re in London.
On this view, the universe is a four-dimensional “block”—three dimensions of space plus one of time—where all events simply are at their respective locations. Your birth, your death, and you reading this sentence all exist eternally at their fixed positions in the block.
What it denies
The B-theory rejects:
- An objective, universe-wide “present moment”
- The idea that time genuinely flows or passes
- The notion that the future is somehow less real than the past
When you feel time passing, B-theorists say you’re experiencing something like the spatial experience of moving through a landscape—the landscape was always there; you’re just encountering different parts of it.
The name
It’s called “B-theory” because it reduces temporal relations to what philosopher J.M.E. McTaggart called the “B-series”: fixed relations like earlier than, later than, and simultaneous with—as opposed to the “A-series” properties of past, present, and future, which the rival A-theory takes as fundamental.
Me:
You said, “all exist eternally at their fixed positions in the block”. It sounds like this 4D space-time block is embedded within some sort of meta-time. Otherwise “eternally” wouldn’t make sense. Is meta-time an implied premise of B-theory?
Opus:
That’s a sharp observation, and you’ve caught a genuine tension in how B-theory is often explained—including in my explanation.
The short answer
No, B-theory does not imply meta-time. When I said “eternally,” I was using loose language that arguably smuggled in the very temporal concepts B-theory is trying to eliminate. A stricter B-theorist would say the block doesn’t persist through any kind of time at all—it simply is, tenselessly.
The deeper issue
You’ve identified a real challenge: our language is saturated with temporal assumptions. Even saying the block “exists” invites the question “exists when?” B-theorists would say this question is malformed—existence isn’t something that happens at a time; rather, times are locations within the structure of existence.
The proper B-theoretic claim is something like: the block is the totality of what there is, and “time” is just a name for one of its dimensions. There’s no external vantage point from which the block endures or persists. It’s not in time; time is in it.
Why the confusion arises
When we try to imagine the block, we tend to picture ourselves looking at it from outside—watching it sit there, frozen. But that mental image implicitly places us in a meta-time from which we observe the block. The B-theorist would say this is a failure of imagination, not a feature of the theory.
It’s a bit like asking what’s north of the North Pole. The question feels sensible but turns out to be confused about the structure it’s asking about.
Me:
So according to the B-theory is it invalid to ask “did the universe have a beginning?”
Opus:
Not quite—the question remains valid, but its meaning shifts.
What the question becomes
On B-theory, asking “did the universe have a beginning?” is asking about the geometry of the block: does the time dimension have a boundary in one direction, or does it extend infinitely?
If the block has an edge—a first moment with nothing earlier—then the universe “began” in the B-theoretic sense. If the time dimension extends infinitely in both directions, it didn’t. Either structure is compatible with B-theory.
What the question doesn’t mean
What B-theory rules out is a certain dramatic interpretation: the idea that there was once nothing, and then the universe popped into existence—as if “nothing” were a kind of waiting room that preceded reality. That framing presupposes the A-theoretic notion of a moving present that crosses some threshold from nonexistence to existence.
For the B-theorist, if there’s a first moment, it’s simply the edge of the block. Asking what came “before” it is like asking what’s south of the South Pole—a question that misunderstands the structure it’s probing.
A remaining puzzle
This connects to why cosmological origins remain philosophically tricky. Even physicists working on Big Bang cosmology sometimes slide between:
- “The universe is 13.8 billion years old” (a claim about the block’s geometry—valid on B-theory)
- “The universe came into being 13.8 billion years ago” (language that can suggest an A-theoretic event of becoming)
B-theory accepts the first formulation happily. The second requires careful interpretation to avoid smuggling in assumptions the theory rejects.
Me:
If I take the first statement about the universe’s age, all it means is that time is finite – is that correct?
Opus:
Almost—it means time is finite in one direction.
The statement “the universe is 13.8 billion years old” tells you there’s a boundary 13.8 billion years toward the “earlier than” end of the time dimension. It says nothing about the other direction.
The block could be:
- Finite in both directions (time has a beginning and an end)
- Finite toward the past, infinite toward the future
- Or some more exotic structure cosmologists debate
So the age claim establishes a past boundary but leaves the future geometry open. Whether time extends infinitely forward, terminates at some final moment, or does something stranger (loops back, branches, etc.) is a separate question the age figure doesn’t answer.
You might also note a subtlety: even “13.8 billion years” is measured along a particular path through spacetime. General relativity complicates things because the block isn’t uniformly structured—different trajectories through it can measure different durations. But that’s a physics wrinkle rather than a B-theory issue specifically.
Me:
If time has a boundary in one direction, it is still finite as a whole. For example, if you are standing on a beach, you see the ocean end from your standpoint although you cannot see the other end. Even if the other end is ‘potentially’ infinite, the fact that you are standing at the edge of it regardless of direction means the ocean is finite. Do you agree?
Opus:
I don’t agree, and I think the beach analogy may be misleading you.
The mathematical point
A ray—a line with one endpoint extending infinitely in the other direction—is not finite. Consider the positive real numbers: they start at zero but extend infinitely rightward. The existence of a boundary at zero doesn’t make the positive reals a finite set or interval. Finite means bounded on both ends.
Where the beach analogy breaks down
When you stand at the water’s edge, you’re imagining yourself as an observer at a boundary. But your inability to see the far end is an epistemic limitation—it doesn’t tell you anything about whether the ocean actually terminates.
More importantly, you’re treating the shoreline as making the ocean “contained” in some sense. But spatial intuition is tricky here. A half-infinite line isn’t contained the way a finite segment is. It has an edge in one direction, yet no amount of travel in the other direction would exhaust it.
Applied to time
If the Big Bang is a genuine first moment, and time extends infinitely into the future, then time as a whole is not finite—it’s unbounded in total “duration,” even though it has a definite starting point.
You might be reaching for some other intuition—perhaps that anything with any boundary is in some sense limited or determinate? That’s a reasonable philosophical instinct, but it’s distinct from finitude in the standard sense.
Me:
We are perhaps differing on terms and their definitions. Do you understand the distinction between an ‘actual’ and ‘potential’ infinite? The ‘real’ numbers example is flawed. Numbers are abstract concepts unless attributed to things that exist in the universe. Just because one can “imagine” numbers to go on infinitely does not mean that it necessarily applies to the physical universe. It’s an inaccurate analogy.
Opus:
You’re right that I glossed over an important distinction, and I take your point about abstract mathematics not straightforwardly mapping onto physical reality.
The actual vs. potential infinite distinction
If I understand you correctly:
- An actual infinite is a completed, fully realized infinity—all the members exist together simultaneously
- A potential infinite is an indefinitely extensible process that never completes—it can always go further but never arrives at infinity as a realized totality
This distinction traces back to Aristotle, who accepted potential infinities (you can always add one more) but rejected actual infinities as incoherent when applied to the physical world.
Your argument, as I understand it
You’re suggesting that if time has a boundary (say, the Big Bang), then whatever exists on the other side is at most a potential infinite—a process of “always more to come” rather than a completed infinite extension. And a potential infinite, not being a realized totality, doesn’t constitute an infinite thing. Therefore time, having at least one edge, is finite in any physically meaningful sense.
Is that a fair reconstruction?
Where this leads
If you’re working within a framework that denies actual infinites can exist in physical reality, then your conclusion follows. The interesting question becomes whether B-theory—with its commitment to all times being equally real—is compatible with merely potential infinities, or whether it implicitly requires the future to exist as a completed totality.
That seems like genuine tension worth probing. Does this capture what you’re driving at?
Me:
Yes that’s correct. If B-theorists agree that the universe has an age (a time boundary in at least one direction) they are necessarily dealing with a potential infinite not an actual one. Is that correct?
Opus:
I see the argument, but I think B-theorists would resist this conclusion—and it exposes a genuine incompatibility between B-theory and the actual/potential infinite framework.
The tension
B-theory is committed to all times being equally real. The year 3025 exists just as robustly as 2025—you’re simply located at one point in the block rather than another. This seems to require that the future is already there, fully determinate, not merely a process of becoming.
If the future were only potentially infinite—always extendable but never complete—that would imply the future doesn’t exist yet, that it’s still “arriving.” But that’s precisely the A-theoretic picture B-theory rejects.
So B-theorists face a choice
- Accept actual infinites: If time has a beginning but no end, the block contains an actually infinite future—a completed totality of future moments all equally real. This is coherent if you permit actual infinites in physical reality.
- Deny time is infinite in either direction: The block is finite, with both a first and last moment. This avoids actual infinites but commits you to time having an end.
- Abandon B-theory: If you think actual infinites are incoherent and time has no end, perhaps B-theory is untenable and something like A-theory is required.
Your deeper point
You’ve identified that B-theory doesn’t sit comfortably with the Aristotelian framework that permits only potential infinites. If one insists that physical infinites can only be potential, B-theory’s “block” with an infinite future looks metaphysically suspect—it would require a completed totality that, on your view, cannot exist.
Is this the incompatibility you were driving toward?
Me:
I don’t see the first option as a viable choice for B-theorists for two reasons:
- As you pointed out above, a potential infinite is not compatible with B-theory. It assumes “moments” are being added which is problematic according to this view. To clarify, I am working with the assumption that all moments of time are equally real.
- An actual infinite cannot be bounded on one side. If all moments are equally real, and past, present and future are merely relative, then the direction in which time is bounded is less significant. I can look towards the edge of time from any given instance and see it ending. Hence it cannot be an actual infinite.
The only option then remains that time is finite. True?
Opus:
This is a well-constructed argument. Let me see if I can reconstruct it formally:
Your argument
Premise 1: B-theory holds that all moments of time are equally real (the block exists as a complete totality).
Premise 2: A potential infinite is incompatible with B-theory, since potential infinites involve a process of “becoming” or addition, which B-theory denies.
Premise 3: If time has a boundary in any direction, it cannot be an actual infinite—because from any point within the block, one direction terminates. A completed infinite totality cannot have an edge.
Premise 4: The universe has an age (cosmological evidence points to a boundary ~13.8 billion years ago).
Conclusion: If B-theory is true and the universe has a beginning, time must be finite in both directions.
My assessment
The argument is valid—the conclusion follows if the premises hold. The premise I’d scrutinize most is Premise 3.
You’re claiming that an actual infinite cannot be bounded on one side. But why exactly? The standard mathematical notion of infinity permits this (rays, half-lines, etc.). Your response, I anticipate, is that mathematical abstractions don’t constrain physical metaphysics—and that a realized, existing infinite collection with an edge is incoherent in a way the mathematical analogue isn’t.
Can you say more about why boundedness in one direction precludes actual infinity? That seems to be doing significant work in your argument.
Me:
Precisely because of the lack of exact and absolute correspondence between maths and reality
Opus:
I understand the move, but I think this needs more support to be fully persuasive.
The gap in the argument
You’re asserting that a physically realized infinite cannot have a boundary, even though a mathematical infinite can. But this seems to require some principle explaining why physical instantiation changes what’s structurally possible.
One could simply reply: “If mathematical infinites can be bounded on one side, and the physical world instantiates mathematical structures, why can’t the physical world instantiate a bounded infinite?”
To block this, you’d need something like:
- A principle that actual existence imposes constraints that abstract mathematics doesn’t capture
- An argument that “being bounded” and “being infinite” are jointly incoherent for real things in a way they aren’t for abstract things
Merely noting that maths and reality don’t perfectly correspond doesn’t establish which mathematical features fail to carry over, or why boundedness specifically is incompatible with realized infinity.
A possible route for you
One argument might go: for an infinite to be actual (fully realized, complete), it must be a determinate totality. But a totality bounded on one side and unbounded on the other has an indeterminate “extent”—you can’t circumscribe it as a completed whole. Completion requires closure, and closure requires boundaries.
Is that the intuition driving your claim? Or is there another principle underwriting the assertion that physical infinites can’t be half-bounded?
Me:
Not sure if that’s the intuition driving me but I am testing the coherence or the B-theory. Let’s go back to the age of the universe:
- If the universe has an age, time is finite.
- If the universe has an age only looking at one direction, then it is aged (from one direction) and ageless (in another). And that’s a logical contradiction.
Is that a fair observation?
Opus:
This is an interesting move, but I’m not sure the contradiction holds.
The objection
“Aged” and “ageless” would only contradict each other if they were predicated of the same thing in the same respect. But in your scenario, they’re predicated of different directions along the time dimension.
Compare: a ray has a length of zero in one direction (from endpoint to endpoint—there’s nothing there) and infinite length in the other. Is it “lengthed” and “lengthless”? That sounds contradictory phrased that way, but it’s really just describing an asymmetric structure. No contradiction arises because we’re measuring different aspects.
Similarly, saying the universe is “13.8 billion years old” describes the distance from now to the past boundary. Saying the future is unbounded describes the absence of a future boundary. These are two different measurements of two different features. Contradiction requires asserting and denying the same property of the same thing in the same respect.
Where I think your stronger argument lies
Your earlier point was more compelling: that B-theory requires a completed totality of all times, and a half-bounded structure cannot be a completed totality—not because of logical contradiction, but because completion/totality is conceptually incompatible with open-endedness.
The “aged and ageless” framing might be a rhetorical way of gesturing at that deeper problem, but stated as a formal contradiction, I think it’s vulnerable to the reply that asymmetric structures aren’t self-contradictory—they’re just asymmetric.
Does the distinction I’m drawing here seem right to you, or do you think the contradiction holds even accounting for different respects?
Me:
The contradiction still holds. I think you are overdetermining the significance of “direction” whereas it’s a relative thing in B-theory. “Aged” Vs “ageless” cannot be simply dismissed as a semantical contradiction. You are essentially saying time can be quantified in one direction and not the other. We are not merely talking about any two distinct moments. We are talking about the totality of the universe. It’s like saying we can measure the circumference of the earth in one way and not the other. The direction somehow supposedly alters the attribute of measurement, of putting a number to distance/time, whereas direction is itself supposed to be relative and thereby relatively less significant.
Opus:
I see your point more clearly now, and it’s stronger than I initially gave credit for.
The force of your argument
You’re saying: if B-theory treats temporal direction as merely relative—just a matter of perspective, like “left” and “right”—then direction cannot be the kind of thing that grounds a fundamental asymmetry in the measurability or determinacy of time itself.
To put it another way: B-theory flattens the ontological distinction between past and future. They’re just two directions along a dimension, neither privileged. But if that’s so, how can one direction be bounded (yielding a finite, measurable quantity) while the other is unbounded (yielding no such quantity)? The asymmetry in structure seems to reintroduce a fundamental distinction between the directions that B-theory officially denies.
The circumference analogy
Your earth analogy sharpens this. If I claimed the earth’s circumference was measurable going east but not going west, you’d rightly object that I’m confused—direction doesn’t alter whether a quantity is determinate. The circumference is a property of the whole, invariant to direction of measurement.
Similarly, you’re suggesting: the total extent of time is a property of the whole block. If that extent is finite, it’s finite. If infinite, infinite. Saying it’s measurable “from” one boundary but not “toward” the other treats direction as doing metaphysical work B-theory says it cannot do.
Concession
This does seem like genuine internal tension. B-theory’s commitment to directional symmetry sits uneasily with an asymmetrically bounded structure. I think you’ve identified a real problem.
Qur'anic Reflections 
Leave a comment