What gives us the idea that there must be ‘a beginning’ that is the beginning of everything – that everything had an absolute beginning ‘once upon a time’? Isn’t it patently obvious that beginnings are context-specific? Then are we thinking of some kind of generalised capacity or potential for things ‘to be’– a pre-universe which we understand in the context of what ‘comes to be’ by supposing some kind of cause that pre-exists everything else? But that opens up the idea of another kind of causality in another kind of reality. The problem is that we can’t reconcile our idea of everything ‘as caused’ with the existence of a preceding uncaused cause. It would seem that existence as a whole is bigger than all the causes we can place ‘in existence’. Also, ideas about the cause of the universe amount to theories that go beyond the empirical evidence. And doesn’t our capacity for contemplating the nature of existence necessitate the existence of a thinker in addition to the natural causes under consideration – suggesting a nascent context of a different order? Or do we think that nothing really changes – that an unchanging core of existence explains all: that all things are really one thing, that nature contains the blueprint of itself, in itself, for itself – because the potential was ‘there’ all along?
Is a definitive cause an explanatory myth? Could ‘once upon a time’ be the stuff of a scientific fairy tale in which everything is explicable in terms of a singular beginning as something else? Doesn’t the reality of change reveal a succession of beginnings that are distinguishable by their specific differences from the way things were? Or is our perception of change an illusion? Some say that the universe was already alive in its primordial state, so that when primitive life ‘appeared’ and subsequently evolved it was really nothing new. And does the evidence not show that life equates to the material properties of a pre-existing nature, therefore it isn’t all that different after all? But why then would we contemplate the event of life as a special case, possibly with its own unique beginning on this planet, if we are of the mind that everything shares a universal beginning in the same fundamental properties? Perhaps there is more to existence than our linear logic can make of it in retrospect, in thinking from effect to cause? Alternatively, the observable divergences and convergences could be joint aspects of a non-linear continuity that encompasses life, us and everything else – so it is no co-incidence that ‘the beginning of everything’ remains as problematical today for the scientific mind as it was for the ancients – because origins aren’t everything.