I'm suggesting it could be that you have one life and experience it multiple times. So each time you experience it, you never remember the previous time, so it feels like the first time. If you remembered the previous experience, it would not be the same life. — Devans99

Again, this simply doesn't make sense. You can't watch a film for the first time numerous times, can you? On your view you can. So much the worse for your view. It doesn't make sense.

You can live your life once, not numerous times. You can live numerous indistinguishable lives. But living numerous indistinguishable lives is not the same as living the same life again and again. Living the same life again and again would mean watching a film for the first time numerous times - which is obviously impossible.

Again, this simply doesn't make sense. You can't watch a film for the first time numerous times, can you? On your view you can. So much the worse for your view. It doesn't make sense. — Bartricks

Think about 4d spacetime. There is no past/present/future in 4d spacetime. All moments have the same status. So I introduced the moving spotlight idea (not mine) as a way to have eternalism and have a distinction between 'now' and past/present. We can distinguish now from past/present so the concept seems to be a requirement. The moving spotlight moves over Jan 2020 and then X billion years later, it moves over Jan 2020 again.

But living numerous indistinguishable lives is not the same as living the same life again and again. Living the same life again and again would mean watching a film for the first time numerous times - which is obviously impossible. — Bartricks

It is exactly you who is represented as a pixel on the circle of time and the spotlight comes around many times. So it would be exactly like watching a film for the first time repeatedly.

Think about 4d spacetime. There is no past/present/future in 4d spacetime. All moments have the same status. So I introduced the moving spotlight idea (not mine) as a way to have eternalism and have a distinction between 'now' and past/present. We can distinguish now from past/present so the concept seems to be a requirement. The moving spotlight moves over Jan 2020 and then X billion years later, it moves over Jan 2020 again. — Devans99

This doesn't address my point. Put all the fancy labels you like on things, and talk about spotlights to your heart's content, you're not addressing the point.

The point is this: on your view, 'now' is also 'future' and 'past'. So, this moment right now, is also future and also past. No good saying that it is just 'presently now', for it is also presently future, and presently past - on your view.

That's incoherent.

Again: on your view I will watch a film 'for the first time' numerous times - that doesn't make sense, does it?

The point is this: on your view, 'now' is also 'future' and 'past'. So, this moment right now, is also future and also past. No good saying that it is just 'presently now', for it is also presently future, and presently past - on your view. — Bartricks

Not really. Everything would be calibrated to the start/end of time - the Big Bang / Big Crunch. So a moment would have in its future all the moments unto the Big Crunch and in its past all the moments from the Big Bang.

Besides, I do not see the problem. The grandfather paradox is impossible - nothing can pass though the reset point of time at the Big Bang / Big Crunch.

All moments of time are alternatively future, present and past. So I do not see your point.

The proof is actually all intelligent beings must be benevolent:

1. You are an evil person. You meet a good person. You are punished
2. You are an evil person. You meet a evil person. You are punished
3. You are an good person. You meet a evil person. You are punished
4. You are an good person. You meet a good person. You are rewarded

This sounds good, but has no basis in reality if one is attempting to prove anything about God. Even if you are defining God as an unknown limited entity, which you do here. It is an example of the thinking of a human intellect. It can only be relevant on the assumption that God is made in our image. Which is clearly naive, because by definition God made our universe, of which we are a small part.

To illustrate, God may be a being who does not think in a linear, or binary way like we do, but might have a consciousness which is all knowing and understanding simultaneously, with no reasoning going on. God might have real understanding, while we as primitive minds can only ever assemble a one, or two dimensional conception of an artificial construct(our world). So have no real understanding of anything.

There is a system of thought which is known in mysticism which is analogous to what you are suggesting, but works whatever the unknown entity or God is that one is proposing to encounter. One offers oneself up to any being who is at least as benevolent as ones self. The offer is not made to any being who is less benevolent than oneself. Therefore any being with whom one encounters, through mutual consent, is safe to encounter whatever form they take, because no harm will come of you, because you yourself is sufficiently benevolent, that you would do no harm to any being you encounter, even if they are less benevolent than yourself. Such a system of contemplation is a pre-requisite to any communion with an unknown advanced entity, or God.

It is an example of the thinking of a human intellect. — Punshhh

Im not sure how you can claim that God can prove that X does not exist where X is some other god. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Something could exist in an alternative reality. Therefore even God is 'god-fearing'.

God cannot be omniscient unless he has a very strange nature. The clue is 'know thyself'.

God cannot be omniscient unless he has a very strange nature. The clue is 'know thyself'.

Perhaps I should ask you to define God, or which theological system you are referencing?

I am saying that our kind of thinking is not up to the job of saying what Gods nature is or isn't. Let me illustrate how God can be both omniscient and limited at the same time. At the end of my last post I mentioned communion. God might be in eternal communion with a near endless number of other Gods, who as a collective are essentially omniscient. So God is not "god fearing", or lacking of any knowledge of all the other Gods out there. On the contrary God might be in eternal communion with all other real beings (remember, I am suggesting that we as we know ourselves are not real, but constructs).

Perhaps I should ask you to define God, or which theological system you are referencing? — Punshhh

I am mainly deist in belief. So science and God combined. I think of God as some sort of benevolent, timeless architect of the universe.

God might be in eternal communion with a near endless number of other Gods, wh oas a collective are essentially omniscient — Punshhh

The communion might be unaware of another communion of greater gods in another reality. So I still feel my argument about benevolence applies.

On the contrary God might be in eternal communion with all other real beings (remember, I am suggesting that we as we know ourselves are not real, but constructs). — Punshhh

But how could he ever proof to himself that he is in contact with every possible being?

But how could he ever proof to himself that he is in contact with every possible being?

Well I don't think we can answer that, or even if it is a valid question. I don't see why it is important, he might be in contact with all the beings in a discreet eternal space. This does not negate other possible discreet eternities.

Anyway another point I was going to make in reference to your argument, was that for real beings there might not be any such thing as a non benevolent being, that might only occur in artificially constructed realities.

All point [3] says is 'If there is no nth moment there is no nth+1 moment'. In the case of time ending, then there is an nth moment, so argument [3] does not apply to that scenario. — Devans99

You're right my bad

So the spotlight would have had to start somewhere, no doubt at the Big Bang — Devans99

If time is circular then why would the spotlight have started at the big bang? It could have started at any point.

If time is circular, events must be deterministic, because if they're not they wouldn't repeat given the same conditions, so time wouldn't be circular

So if time is circular (which implies its events are deterministic) the spotlight could have started anywhere and still gone through the same cycle

I disagree — Devans99

Sure, which is not proof.

moments are arranged sequently so they must be representable by the real number line or the naturals — Devans99

Maybe?

That is about 5 proofs I've given that time has a start — Devans99

I've just addressed a couple of them — Leibnizian sufficient reason and your mathematical induction (and similar) — neither of which work. No use in repeating them I s'pose. I can show you again why they don't work. Here's the latter again:

1. suppose no definite earliest time, no 1^st moment (premise towards reductio ad absurdum)
2. then there's no 2^nd moment, obviously, since it would be the next number following the 1^st
3. if there's no n^th moment, then there's no n+1^th moment (n ∈ N)
4. thus
4.1. there can be no such moments at all, contra 1 :fire: (n)
4.2. there can be no such numbering of such moments (y)

Vs 0 proofs you have given that time has no start — Devans99

I'm not aware of any such proof. As mentioned somewhere, it's not a mere logical matter.

if you remove a previous moment, all subsequent moments become undefined — Devans99

I take "become undefined" to mean more or less "cannot exist". In the abstract, supposing a (definite) 1^st moment = "removing all previous moments", which then, by this ↑ supposition of yours, implies that "all subsequent moments become undefined".

I think of God as some sort of benevolent, timeless architect of the universe — Devans99

Example square circle: "atemporal" mind.

It's more or less the opposite, if you will.

Where body (for example) is object-like and spatial (left to right, top to bottom, front to back, inertial/movable), mind is process-like and temporal (comes and goes, interruptable, experiences, un/consciousness, anesthetic, dementia).

Barring special pleading, "atemporal" thinking sentience is nonsense.

If time is circular then why would the spotlight have started at the big bang? It could have started at any point. — khaled

It depends on how exactly time works:

- If time is fully future real all the time, then the spotlight of time could start anywhere as you say. But fully future real is sort of a tough sell

- So instead I was thinking of a hybrid model between future real and the growing block model of time: The Big Bang is the moment of initial creation. On the first iteration (first circle of time), the future is real but null (so like growing block). Then future is built up - the Big Bang happens, our earth results and later there is a Big Crunch. On the second and subsequent iterations, the future is real and non-null (and repeats exactly as before).

If time is circular, events must be deterministic, because if they're not they wouldn't repeat given the same conditions, so time wouldn't be circular — khaled

I'm not sure that determinism is a requirement: each event happens once (is determined once) but it experienced multiple times.

A couple of more proofs that time has a start:

Actual infinity is impossible (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7379/infinite-bananas/p1) and past infinite time is an example of actual infinity. So time must have a start.

And...

1. Assume time had no start
2. Assume a particle had a collision 5 minutes ago, label that 1
3. Assume the particle had a collision 10 minutes ago, label that 2
4. Assume the particle had a collision 20 minutes ago, label that 3
5. And so on, collision numbers getting higher as we go back in time
6. How many collisions has the particle had?
7. It cannot be actually infinite collisions as it is impossible to count to actual infinity
8. So it must have had every number of collisions
9. So the particle has counted every possible number in the past
10. But [9] is impossible, if you count 100 numbers, you are 0% of the way to counting all numbers. If you count a billion numbers, you are 0% of the way there. n/∞=0% so it is not possible that the particle counted all numbers
11. So the particle must have a finite number of collisions in the past
12. So time has a start.

Barring special pleading, "atemporal" thinking sentience is nonsense. — jorndoe

The almost certain existence of a start of time mandates that something atemporal and intelligent exists. You have to remember that as humans we are only familiar with a small fraction of possible states of existence - God maybe something completely different to what we are experienced with.

I have no idea what "future real" or "growing block" mean

The almost certain existence of a start of time mandates that something atemporal and intelligent exists. You have to remember that as humans we are only familiar with a small fraction of possible states of existence - God maybe something completely different to what we are experienced with. — Devans99

As shown, we already know some things about mind (versus whatever else), and these are inherently contrary to "atemporal".
Special pleading.
So, we're talking something inert and lifeless, perhaps like Platonia.
By the way, this also violates Leibnizian sufficient reason, but maybe we've tossed that in the bin already?

I am using a revised version of the PSR: 'everything in time has a cause'.

You think everything has existed forever I think. That is impossible. Imagine an eternal counting alien. He has been counting forever. What number is he on now?

You think everything has existed forever I think — Devans99

Mind reading fallacy? (I'm entirely irrelevant.)

Mind reading fallacy? (I'm entirely irrelevant.) — jorndoe

Could the counting eternal alien be on a finite number? No, then he would not be eternal.
Could the counting eternal alien be on a infinite number? No, impossible to count to infinity.
So by elimination of all possible numbers, he must be on UNDEFINED.

He never started counting (a past forever has no start).

The general rule is 'in order to be X, one has to start X', eg:

- In order to be counting, one has to start counting
- In order to be moving, one has to start moving
- In order to be orbiting, one has to start orbiting
- In order to be existing, one has to start existing

Nothing can exist forever in time. Can't get something from nothing, so something must have always existed. Hence time must have a start and something timeless must exist.

1. Assume time has no start
2. Then there is no first moment
3. If there is no nth moment there is no nth+1 moment
4. But we have moments (contradiction)
5. So time must have a start — Devans99

Your argument assumes that time consists of distinct and individual moments. But we experience time as continuous. These two have not been shown to be compatible, so to proceed with your argument you need to demonstrate the real, distinct, individual moments that time consists of, to support your premise. This is the matter which aletheist has brought up.

If we remove any a moment or time interval if you prefer, then all subsequent moments or time intervals become undefined. Time with no start means no initial moment/interval, so the basic argument therefore still holds.

If we remove any moment or time interval if you prefer, then all subsequent moments or time intervals become undefined. — Devans99

Since all real moments are indefinite, it is logically impossible to distinguish one from another, let alone "remove" one. We can arbitrarily designate instants to mark off intervals of time with fixed and finite duration, but we cannot "remove" those, either. It straightforwardly begs the question to treat time as if it were isomorphic to the natural numbers, which are discrete and have a first member, thus ruling out the possibility that time is truly continuous and does not have a definite beginning.

As for the thread title, Charles Sanders Peirce has an interesting take.

It may be assumed that there are two instants called the limits of all time, the one being Α, the commencement of all time and the other being Ω, the completion of all time. Whether there really are such instants or not we have no obvious means of knowing; nor is it easy to see what "really" in that question means. But it seems to me that if time is to be conceived as forming a collective whole, there either must be such limits or it must return into itself. This is an interesting question. — Peirce, NEM 3:1075, c. 1905

Real time as a whole either has first and last instants or indeed "must return into itself," but we cannot determine which is the case solely by means of a strictly mathematical "proof."

You may, for example, say that all evolution began at this instant, which you may call the infinite past, and comes to a close at that other instant, which you may call the infinite future. But all this is quite extrinsic to time itself. Let it be, if you please, that evolutionary time, our section of time, is contained between those limits. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that time itself, unless it be discontinuous, as we have every reason to suppose it is not, stretches on beyond those limits, infinite though they be, returns into itself, and begins again. — Peirce, RLT 264, 1898

Mathematical time, conceived as truly continuous, necessarily "returns into itself, and begins again."
Actual time, in which all events occur, might correspond to only a portion of that hypothetical representation, between initial and final instants. We "reckon" actual time by arbitrarily assigning dates in accordance with the fixed and finite intervals between recurring events, such as the earth's rotation around its axis (one day) and revolution around the sun (one year).

Observation leads us to suppose that changing things tend toward a state in the immeasurably distant future different from the state of things in the immeasurably distant past ... It is an important, though extrinsic, property of time that no such reckoning brings us round to the same time again. — Peirce, NEM 2:249-250, 1895

Peirce's own cosmology is not "elliptical" (or "circular"), but "hyperbolic," positing that the states corresponding to the initial and final instants are different from each other as ideal limits, rather than actual events--complete chaos in the infinite past, and complete regularity in the infinite future.

But at any assignable date in the past, however early, there was already some tendency toward uniformity; and at any assignable date in the future there will be some slight aberrancy from law. — Peirce, CP 1.409, c. 1888

If we remove any a moment or time interval if you prefer, then all subsequent moments or time intervals become undefined. Time with no start means no initial moment/interval, so the basic argument therefore still holds. — Devans99

How would you suggest removing a moment from time?

We can arbitrarily designate instants to mark off intervals of time with fixed and finite duration, but we cannot "remove" those, either. — aletheist

We cannot even mark off intervals of time by designating instants, because as special relativity indicates such designations would differ depending on your frame of reference. So to use Einstein's example; what you might call "the instant" that the lightning strikes the embankment is different depending on whether you are on the train or whether you are standing on the platform. But it really doesn't make any sense to talk about instants in time with the premise of special relativity.

How would you suggest removing a moment from time? — Metaphysician Undercover

Since all real moments are indefinite, it is logically impossible to distinguish one from another, let alone "remove" one. — aletheist

We can't, but we know that an infinite past essentially comes with a moment removed at the start so such a construction is therefore impossible.

Infinite past time is like a something from nothing - there is no initial state, so no subsequent states - the existence of the present would therefore be like a magic trick.

We cannot even mark off intervals of time by designating instants, because as special relativity indicates such designations would differ depending on your frame of reference. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time may run at different rates for different people, but I feel each individual experiences it linearly so it is best represented by a linear series of moments. In SR/GR spacetime has a specific shape to it, so definitely has a temporal starting point (eg the spacetime of the Big Bang and aftermath are visualised as a 3d cone).

... we know that an infinite past essentially comes with a moment removed at the start so such a construction is therefore impossible. — Devans99

This is exactly backwards. An infinite past entails that there has never been a moment that was not preceded by another moment, consistent with the continuity of time that we directly perceive in the present. A definite beginning of time entails that there was one moment in the past that was not preceded by another moment, making it a discontinuity.

Infinite past time is like a something from nothing - there is no initial state, so no subsequent states - the existence of the present would therefore be like a magic trick. — Devans99

Again, this is exactly backwards. Infinite past time entails that there was never nothing, instead always something--namely, time itself. A definite beginning of time entails that something came from nothing, or that something outside of time created it. As I said before, a strictly mathematical "proof" is insufficient to determine which hypothesis--infinite past time or a definite beginning of time--is correct.

What you are missing is that the past defines the future and an infinite past can never be a fully defined past because it has no initial starting state (so it must by induction be null and void all the way through).

There are about 6 other ways to prove time has a start. I gave a couple here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/369717

What you are missing is that the past defines the future and an infinite past can never be a fully defined past because it has no initial starting state (so it must by induction be null and void all the way through). — Devans99

This straightforwardly begs the question by presupposing that being "fully defined" (whatever that means) requires an "initial starting state." Grasping at straws, really.

There are about 6 other ways to prove time has a start. I gave a couple here: — Devans99

Again, it is impossible to "prove" that time has a start with only mathematics and logic.

Again, it is impossible to "prove" that time has a start with only mathematics and logic. — aletheist

Well I disagree; time is a logical, sequential phenomenon so induction works just fine to prove it has a start. Time with the way one moment defines the next is a example of an infinite causal regress, all of which are impossible as they have no first element.

We can also use physics too: perpetual motion is impossible, therefore time has a start.

Time with the way one moment defines the next is a example of an infinite causal regress, all of which are impossible as they have no first element. — Devans99

Begging the question (again).

We can also use physics too: perpetual motion is impossible, therefore time has a start. — Devans99

Non sequitur.

Begging the question (again). — aletheist

Are you claiming the future defines the past?

Non sequitur. — aletheist

If you had thought it through, you would appreciate that the impossibility of perpetual motion implies a start of motion.