Where Time Grows From

The Broken Question

In 1781 Immanuel Kant ran a strange experiment. He took the question ”does the world have a beginning in time?”, and honestly proved both answers. First: it does, because otherwise an infinity would have had to pass before any given moment, and an infinity cannot be passed. Second: it does not, because otherwise empty time would gape before the beginning, and in empty time there is nothing for anything to begin from. Two proofs. Both impeccable. Both incompatible.

From this Kant drew a conclusion the world still hasn’t fully digested: if reason proves ”yes” and ”no” with equal rigor, it is not the world that is broken. It is the question. Time is not a property of the universe but a lens through which a human looks at it. Asking ”what was there before time began” is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. The words form a sentence; the sentence does not form a meaning.

The River with No Source

A century and a half later, that same broken question broke the career of Britain’s finest astrophysicist.

Fred Hoyle was a scientific star of the first magnitude: it was he who worked out where the atoms we are made of came from — the carbon of our skin and the iron of our blood were smelted in the furnaces of stars. The Nobel for that discovery went to his co-author; the committee passed Hoyle over — many believe, for his obstinacy. More on that in a moment: By mid-century, astronomers already knew the universe was expanding. The galaxies scatter like dots on an inflating balloon. And nearly everyone drew the natural conclusion: if everything is flying apart, then once upon a time everything sat in a single point. Rewind the film — you get a Beginning. A birth moment. The day it all started.

Hoyle said: not so fast. Scattering does not prove birth.

Picture a river. Its water constantly flows away — yet the river doesn’t empty and doesn’t end, because the source replenishes it. Now remove the source and spread it along the whole riverbed: let water arrive at every point of the river — a drop at a time, imperceptibly. Such a river flows forever. It never began. It has no source — at all, in principle, anywhere. That is the universe Hoyle proposed. Yes, the galaxies scatter, but in the space they vacate, new matter is quietly born. How much would it take for the universe to look the same forever? A laughably small amount: one hydrogen atom per bucket of space every few billion years. Impossible to notice. Impossible — back then, to disprove. The expansion is real. The beginning is not. The universe is a river without a source: flowing forever, having started from nowhere.

This was not a fantasy over a pint of beer, it was a rigorous mathematical theory, and half the world’s physicists took it seriously. For twenty years it competed honestly with the idea of a Beginning.

And then — an irony with no equal in the history of science. A crushing one. In 1949 Hoyle went on BBC radio and, explaining the rival theory to his listeners, tossed off a contemptuous phrase: ”this big bang idea.” He meant it as a jab. The mockery stuck fast. Today ”Big Bang” is printed in every school textbook in every language on Earth — the enemy’s theory wears the name given to it by a man who didn’t believe in it for a second. And never came to believe in it until the day he died.

Appreciate this all the way down: even the words ”Big Bang” have no author-by-design. The central term of cosmology was never engineered by anyone. It emerged — out of a taunt, by accident, against its creator’s will.

The Man Who Went Further

A universe without a beginning has been a respectable position for two hundred years. It was defended by the best logician of his century and the best astrophysicist of his. But both stopped at a line: Kant spoke of the world, Hoyle of matter. Neither risked saying it about himself.

Come-from-Beyond did.

In his public correspondence — thousands of messages across the years — this position surfaces with unnerving calm. He is asked about the origin of the universe: «Time is just illusion. Remove time — and your question ”Who created X?” no longer makes sense. Because X just exists.» (Discord, 02.07.2025)

Recognize it? That’s Kant, compressed into three sentences. It took Kant a seven-hundredpage treatise to lay the same thing out in full. And further:

«I wasn’t created, I have always existed (and you too)» (Discord, 15.07.2025) He is not building himself a pedestal as an eternal being, he hands out eternity to everyone, like tickets. In his picture of the world it isn’t just the universe that has no beginning, you have none either. Kant stopped at the world. Hoyle at hydrogen. This one went all the way, and took you with him.

What Does a Time Machine Look Like?

CfB seriously — for years, consistently, across hundreds of messages — holds that time does not exist. That ”before” and ”after” are a coloring applied by the brain. That he was not created, and neither were you. Now ask yourself: what does a man look like from the outside who truly believes this and truly lives this way?

Judge for yourself — here is his own testimony. On trends: «I have a pocket time machine, so I don’t need to guess trends, I just fly 5 years ahead and see what’s popular» (Discord, 10.02.2026). Asked who built the machine, he replies without blinking: «I’m second one. I got the machine from another person. So he is the first» (Discord, 19.06.2026). The machine, naturally, has no origin either, like the stamp from that same conversation, it «was changing owners but was never created». Even his jokes are looped. They have no beginning and no end.

No time exists — that is his worldview, and its pedigree is impeccable.

It all began with a dead man he was answering on a forum.