I sometimes wonder if there is any existential difference between non-existence and existence for no time duration.
If the two are indistinguishable from each other, reality might have used that as a kind of loophole to bootstrap objects into existence.
i.e. If time came into existence with no duration being indistinguishable from non-existence when time first appeared, then time's continued existence would create a non-zero length time duration.
When time starts elapsing within the set of all things that exist for no time duration, all that can exist for any non-zero duration of time alongside other objects would continue its existence for more than 0 seconds, which would instantly create an indefinitely large super-dense highly ordered mass under a tremendous amount of pressure, that pushes itself apart causing the big bang that formed the universe we inhabit.
My another theory is for example let's say time starts to exist
In the sense that there is (was) a start to time itself
All that can exist in time would not exist "automatically"
As possibly existing is not the same as actually existing
So only certain stuff would have started to exist in the (/at the) beginning of time.
