I think the person who asked this Phys.SE question meant a different thing than any of the people who wrote an answer thought so I'm asking what I'm guessing the author probably really meant. If there is no beginning of time, how is it possible at all for the big bang to have occurred. According to one theory, when matter reaches the singularity, in an area the thickness of the Planck length, matter can enter a new universe. Perhaps the singularity created a new universe as soon as it formed that then started expanding at the speed of light. Isn't it possible to prove that theory wrong and show that no universe exists on the other side of the singularity so if there is no beginning of time, it shouldn't be at all possible for the big bang to have occurred in the first place.
Could the assumption that there is no beginning of time be wrong for the following reason? When the laws are for a universe with no beginning of time, it can end up that there's no solution to what happens in the universe and you can derive something like the assassin paradox in the YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDOP0XynAzA but only if the laws keep a record of everything that happened before. I don't see a way to derive that paradox.
According to https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40273095_On_the_Possibility_of_Supertasks_in_General_Relativity, it might be possible to perform a hypercomputation. I see how simple laws could produce a chain of events of assending order of cause and effect and even an event that surpasses all of the events in that chain of cause and effect but don't see how it could possibly produce a backwards descending chain of cause and effect that starts some finite time in the past. Doesn't that mean we can't derive a paradox from the existence or inexistence of the beginning of time?
