People are actually voting that an infinite past is more "far-fetched" than something coming from nothing?

Jesus... — Xtrix

I was surprised by the results too. And the comments aren't reflecting these results.

The thing(s) making up the infinite past would have no reason or explanation for their existence (2) An infinite past is paradoxical. E.g. Planets that orbit the sun at different speeds would at every moment have made the same amount of orbits. Despite us actually observing the faster one adding more orbits than the other. (Same principle for whatever came before the sun and planets). — Down The Rabbit Hole

What if infinity in time is built up from infinite ùniverses following up each other in series, each with a beginning of time?

(1) The thing(s) making up the infinite past would have no reason or explanation for their existence (2) An infinite past is paradoxical. — Down The Rabbit Hole

1) You are assuming that some thing(s) "made up the past", an assumption which a) I don't understand as phrased -- what do you mean? -- and b) that may be unwarranted.

2) An infinite past is not anymore paradoxical than an infinite anything (space, set, whatever). Think of it mathematically. What is most paradoxical: a never-ending series of natural numbers from zero to, well, infinity, or a finite series of natural numbers stopping at some maximum value or another?

WTF happens if you take that maximum and add 1 to it?

Similarly, what happens one second after the end of time?

The human mind is not so much seeking the infinite as dreading it, I think. There is a vertigo of the infinite in us. But on the other hand, our mind -- mine in any case -- can not possibly square with the idea of a hard end to time and space. Our natural sense of time and space is open-ended.

What if infinity in time is built up from infinite ùniverses following up each other in series, each with a beginning of time? — Raymond

This infinite series of universes would still have no reason or explanation for its existence.

As this is an infinite series of events, it still runs into the paradoxes. I don't think it matters whether or not thing(s) are "timeless", a series of events must still have a beginning to avoid the paradoxes.

Regarding the infinite past, I heard a good riddle: if a clock has existed forever, what time would it show this moment?

This is a good one.

It would need to show some time, undoubtedly. But how do we know how it was set, if it was never set? Remember, it had no beginning, no manufacturing date. It has existed for ever. It shows some time, as it is a regular clock. What is the time it shows?

Yeeee-haaaw!

It would need to show some time, undoubtedly. But how do we know how it was set, if it was never set? Remember, it had no beginning, no manufacturing date. It has existed for ever. It shows some time, as it is a regular clock. What is the time it shows? — god must be atheist

It would show the time that astronomers make us believe. About 13.8 billion years and counting.

The clock in this universe and that of preceding ones and subsequent ones are all starting from zero (well, actually 10exp-43 seconds away from it).

You don't get the concept. But that's okay. Your answer is 13.8 billion years and counting. Noted. Fine. No arguments.

Maybe I should have spelled out that it's a clock with a regular clock-face, that is, twelve hours, no more, no less. It has an hour, a minute and possibly a second hand. And it has existed forever.

It’s necessarily impossible to say what time it would show, precisely because it’s an infinite clock. If you saw it and it read 12 o’clock then the explanation for that would be that it said 11 o’clock an hour ago and 10 o’clock the hour before that, and there would be nothing more to it.

This infinite series of universes would still have no reason or explanation for its existence. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Graham Oppy (philosopher of religion) makes the point that whatever world view you hold you always wind up with something brute at the foundation of it all. The 3 explanations you have are a necessary God, a necessary universe, or a universe that is a brute contingency. I don’t think any of those options are absurd; they just make it clear that whatever explanations you choose they terminate somewhere.

Maybe I should have spelled out that it's a clock with a regular clock-face, that is, twelve hours, no more, no less. It has an hour, a minute and possibly a second hand. And it has existed forever — god must be atheist

It can't have existed forever. Every time a new universe bangs into existence the clock in the previous one indicates it's very late. Say it makes one full turn in every universe. The a new clock, causally disconnected, springs into existence, in the universe behind the old one. This clock can make one full turn just like the one it follows up. The clock only exist for real in the small era before each inflation (each bang). Time was perfect then, a perfect periodic motion, without the direction of entropic time.

The 3 explanations you have are a necessary God, a necessary universe, or a universe that is a brute contingency. — AJJ

Actually, there is only one in the end. Gods.

I find it interesting how the two sentences are typographically identical yet visibly different. Was this perhaps your point, OP?

Concerning just the foundation of being I agree with Oppy that God isn’t any more illuminating as an explanation than asserting that there’s some necessary aspect of the universe.

Concerning just the foundation of being I agree with Oppy that God isn’t any more illuminating as an explanation than asserting that there’s some necessary aspect of the universe — AJJ

I don't agree. I think I have a model for a cyclic model. No beginning no ending. Now what? How can it exist, even if infinite in time and (4D) space? Where does it come from? Aren't gods the only answer possible?

To say something is necessary (it can’t not exist) is an explanation - it’s the same one that gets applied to God.

What seems more far-fetched (1) something from literally nothing (2) an infinite past? — Down The Rabbit Hole

"Seems" is a weasel word for perception. Which is dependent on several factors that are ultimately irrelevant to higher understanding. A homeless man high on PCP who runs into freeway traffic thought that avenue "seemed good" at the time.

You feel the need to quantify "nothing" as in no thing with "literally" perhaps for our benefit sure, as if we are unable to grasp the concept. Perhaps you are projecting your inabilities and shortcomings on us? Granted, it is a mind bending concept for most so moving on.

Obviously the "something" was not actually from nothing but rather your idea of nothing. Common human trait, cognitive bias, aka being told you're wrong or in short "no". Makes you question your life choices and simultaneously your sacrifices made. This is a biological survival mechanism, nothing more.

An "infinite past" is again prodding at the idea that your own judgements and beliefs may be incorrect. You will be biologically disinclined to consider this possibility.

In short, it varies depending on person to person. Basic psychology.

The explanations are different. A new physical mechanism behind the known ones cannot be reduced further at some point. The gods don't become them gap ones but, well, actual gods. Not to protect my theory from further parsing, but at some point you just don't wanna go deeper because hard rock has been hit.

1) You are assuming that some thing(s) "made up the past", an assumption which a) I don't understand as phrased -- what do you mean? -- and b) that may be unwarranted.

2) An infinite past is not anymore paradoxical than an infinite anything (space, set, whatever). Think of it mathematically. What is most paradoxical: a never-ending series of natural numbers from zero to, well, infinity, or a finite series of natural numbers stopping at some maximum value or another?

WTF happens if you take that maximum and add 1 to it?

Similarly, what happens one second after the end of time?

The human mind is not so much seeking the infinite as dreading it, I think. There is a vertigo of the infinite in us. But on the other hand, our mind -- mine in any case -- can not possibly square with the idea of a hard end to time and space. Our natural sense of time and space is open-ended. — Olivier5

If there is not literal nothingness, there is some thing(s). As @PoeticUniverse has said in other threads, the thing(s) making up the infinite past would most likely have been in motion for infinity, in order for anything to have developed - otherwise we have development from infinite stillness, which is not much better than something from literally nothing.

Yes, I don't know of a solution for actual infinities. A never ending future is reasonable though - it keeps going, never actually reaching infinity.

at some point you just don't wanna go deeper because hard rock has been hit. — Raymond

This is basically what I’m getting at, except that at some point you just can’t go any further, and if you did you’d be going forever. For what it’s worth I’m not an atheist either.

It could be though that you have hit rock bottom and that bottom is just, well, the bottom. However hard you bang, it won't crack.

Yeah, that’s what happens when something is referred to as necessary. It can’t not exist and the explanation stops there; if you give any further explanation then the thing is no longer necessary, but contingent upon the explanation being given. “It’s necessary” or “it’s a brute contingency” is the rock bottom.

Unless no further physical explanations are possible. What if a model is obviously true? You assume a reality never to be in reach.

I’m not sure where we’re disagreeing now. I don’t particularly think that there’s a reality we can’t “reach”.

I have the impression you call the hard rock a contingency. Doesn't this imply a gap, somehow? Why calling the rock a contingency then? Or do I get you wrong?

I called the hard rock either necessity (something that can’t not exist) or a brute contingency (something that might not have existed but it does and there’s no further explanation). They might not seem like satisfying explanations, but in neither case is there a gap.

They might not seem like satisfying explanations, but in neither case is there a gap. — AJJ

I see. But why, if no gap, are they not satisfying explanations then? If you think you know how it works, isn't that satisfying? Apart from the fact that you can't explain where that of what you think to know the workings of came from?

I don’t mind those explanations; I was just preempting others’ feelings towards them.

Well one of them is somewhat observable the other one is not

What could those feelings be? Feelings of contingency?