1. ‘Can get something from nothing’, IE matter is created naturally. With infinite time, matter density would be infinite. So this is impossible.
2. ‘Can’t get something from nothing’, IE matter has always existed. Meaning the matter had no temporal start. So this is impossible too* — Devans99
4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+∞ (IE now) — Devans99
Eternalism is true
A. Assume only now exists (presentism)
B. So before the start of time there was nothing
C But creation ex nihilo / without time is impossible
D. So something 'other' than only now exists
E. The ‘other’ must be timeless (else we end up in a infinite regress of time1, time2, time3 etc...)
F. The ‘other’ must have created our time (at time=0)
G. So the ‘other’ ’sees’ time=0 and time=now simultaneously (its timeless)
H. Hence eternalism must hold — Devans99
Here your argument assumes a start of time in a scenario without a start of time — Echarmion
B doesn't seem to follow from A. — Echarmion
With infinite time, matter density would be infinite. — Devans99
Meaning the matter had no temporal start. So this is impossible too* — Devans99
If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ — Devans99
C But creation ex nihilo / without time is impossible — Devans99
F. The ‘other’ must have created our time (at time=0) — Devans99
No it wouldn't. We could have a universe with infinite time and two elementary particles and that's it, for example — Terrapin Station
What does "next to start" refer to? It's difficult to evaluate this part of the argument when I don't know what it's referring to. — Terrapin Station
Just by fiat, or what? — Terrapin Station
4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+∞ (IE now) — Devans99
If there is only now and then you take away that there is nothing left at all. Nothing to create/cause time to start. So that is an impossible something from nothing (no time even). — Devans99
But how did they come into being? Or they existed for ever? See below: — Devans99
The point in time following the start. It would qualify as the start if the start did not exist. — Devans99
Well creation with:
- No time
- No space
- No matter
Seems impossible? — Devans99
Emphasis mine. Your argument refers to a "start" that doesn't exist — Echarmion
But presentism doesn't assume the present started at some point. "Now" has no temporal extension, and hence neither a temporal start nor a temporal end — Echarmion
If the start doesn't exist there can't be a point in time following the start — Terrapin Station
The fact that the start does not exist means the rest of the object does not exist (so my argument goes). So time seems to behaves like space in this regard (IE if an object has no identifiable start point in space, it is not an object). — Devans99
Yes I was merely pointing out that 'a start of time' and 'only now exists' are incompatible. — Devans99
If that is your argument, then you should present it without referring to a start (except to exclude it). It's easy to demonstrate that an object with infinite extension cannot be perceived. But an object with no start need not be infinite (as the surface of a sphere is not bounded but finite). And eve — Echarmion
Then why does your argument concerning presentism even refer to a start of time? — Echarmion
B. So before the start of time there was nothing
That is, that time is always occurring at the same speed, or at the very least progressing at some speed. This would be a fallacy. The problem though is that your argument hinges on this — Roland
By this logic, time needn't have begun and it need not end. — Roland
* A more detailed proof by contradiction:
1. Assume a particle does not have a (temporal) start point
2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start)
3. So particle does not have a next to start (by Modus Ponens on [1] and [2]).
4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+∞ (IE now)
5. Implies particle does not have a (temporal) end
6. Implies particle never existed — Devans99
"time start+∞" in your point number 4 contradicts point number 1. You're identifying a start point when you've already said none existed — coolguy8472
Hi folks. It’s an argument in two parts. First I argue time has a start, then I argue eternalism (believe that past, present and future are all equally real) is true.
Time had a Start
If we assume time is infinite, then there are only two possible models of the origin of the universe:
X. ‘Can get something from nothing’, IE matter is created naturally. With infinite time, matter density would be infinite. So this is impossible.
Y. ‘Can’t get something from nothing’, IE matter has always existed. Meaning the matter had no temporal start. So this is impossible too*
So that exhausts the possibility space; time must have a start.
* A more detailed proof by contradiction:
1. Assume a particle does not have a (temporal) start point
2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start)
3. So particle does not have a next to start (by Modus Ponens on [1] and [2]).
4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+∞ (IE now)
5. Implies particle does not have a (temporal) end
6. Implies particle never existed
(So it works exactly the same way for time as space: if an object has no identifiable spacial start point, it does not exist).
Eternalism is true
A. Assume only now exists (presentism)
B. So before the start of time there was nothing
C But creation ex nihilo / without time is impossible
D. So something 'other' than only now exists
E. The ‘other’ must be timeless (else we end up in a infinite regress of time1, time2, time3 etc...)
F. The ‘other’ must have created our time (at time=0)
G. So the ‘other’ ’sees’ time=0 and time=now simultaneously (its timeless)
H. Hence eternalism must hold — Devans99
There would be a moment a million years ago, a billion years ago, or any other number of years ago. But not a moment "infinity" years ago. While at the same time having an infinite amount of time before now — coolguy8472
It sounds like you're projecting backward to a starting moment from "now" and then saying you cannot reach "now" from the starting moment because it never would have reached "now" from the starting moment. — coolguy8472
Yes, you have to come to the conclusion the age of some moments is greater than any number which is a contradiction. You cannot have past eternity without actual infinity. — Devans99
What I am doing is starting from the non-existent start point and adding infinity moments to it to get to a non-existent end point in the present. — Devans99
You can have no upper limit to the amount of time before now while at the same time having any number of age of any moment in history. So a million years ago exists, 10^434343 years ago exists, but "infinity" years ago does not exist because it's a malformed value. But any finite number of years ago exists. — coolguy8472
Infinity is a description of a set of numbers. Any finite number is a number. If you count from 1, you'll never get to large because "large" is not a number. Using "infinity" as a number like that to disprove some claim doesn't work for that reason. — coolguy8472
You can have no upper limit to the amount of time before now while at the same time having any number of age of any moment in history. So a million years ago exists, 10^434343 years ago exists, but "infinity" years ago does not exist because it's a malformed value. But any finite number of years ago exists — coolguy8472
If the starting point is non-existent in your scenario then it serves no purpose to use it within that hypothetical reality to arrive at a contradiction — coolguy8472
You are trying to make an actual infinity (past eternity) into a potential infinity. That's not possible, past eternity actually happened; implying whatever number we choose will be smaller than the number of moments elapsed; but there is no number with the quality it is bigger than all the others (there is no largest number X because X+1>X). Hence the nonsensical conclusion that the number of moments elapsed is not a number. — Devans99
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.