Occam's Razor does not apply to necessary being; i.e., God — aletheist

You could say though, if you regard God as a necessary being, that Occam might favour the simplest solution to 'what should be at the start?' which is nothing + God.

I must ask: how do we know this? Yeah, it applies to ordinary affairs, and it has an intuitive appeal. But I find it just a little bit iffy as a foundation/premise — macrosoft

The argument is a common sense one: First you define nothing as no dimensions, matter or energy. Then its pretty clear that nothing can come from it; hence something (dimensions, matter or energy) must of always existed.

If you think about the universe in the 4D space time way, it might look like a brick in space, spacial dimensions on the short side, time dimension on the long side. So time is built into it and it just exists timelessly, permanently...

I used Occam's razor in a hypothetical sort of way; the question of what we should expect; 'what should be?'; by way of reality, I answered with the simplest model possible: nothing.

The universe is very complex with all this mater/energy time/space; it needs a lot of explanation so 'something' is a less natural explanation to the question 'what should be?' hence a roundabout appeal to Occam's Razor.

Nothing is much more natural: We start with nothing and end with nothing and nothing needs explanation; we have a completely logically consistent description of a (very dull) system/universe with no unanswered questions.

With something we have this huge mystery as to why there is something and we have no way of explaining it (accept by a rather weak appeal to the Anthropic principle).

So 'nothing' would of been logically consistent; 'something' leaves us a logical puzzle.

I've never heard of a materialist God. — Michael Ossipoff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

God and Reason in harmony...

There's nothing wrong with saying that you don't share someone else's worldview. But to say that everyone must share your Science-Worship world view, or else they're wrong, that's presumptuous. — Michael Ossipoff

If you have in mind a materialist God, then science has a lot to say potentially about such a God. If you have in mind a non-materialist God, then by his works (the universe) shall we know him and science still has a role to play.

I think Hawking was probably wrong about God, but its an important question and I do care what intelligent people thing about it and scientists are as a rule intelligent people.

Plus they specialise in the way the world works; so their opinion carries weight. But intelligent people from other walks of life are perfectly capable of making up their own minds if God exists and have as valid opinions too .

Infinity is a process of something that takes forever. The word or an idea what you're looking for is limitlessness. Limitlessness can only be if there's no beginning and no end. The ultimate word is limitlessness and not infinity. — Limitless Science

If something has no beginning or end, it does not exist.

limitlessness = unbounded = undefined = does not exist

Actual infinity does not exist.

No, it doesn't imply any of those sizes. It refers to a size that is greater than any of those sizes, or any other specifiable size. — Michael Ossipoff

There is no such size:

1. Assume X is a size that is 'greater than any other size'
2. But X+1>X
3. So there is no size that is 'greater than any other size'

The east-west scale on a cylindrical map projection of the Earth, in standard equatorial-aspect (or of any line-pole projection in that aspect) increases without bound as the poles are approached. — Michael Ossipoff

This is an example of Potential Infinity rather than Actual infinity. The east-west scale remains finite at all times until it becomes undefined at the pole. I agree that Potential Infinity exists and is useful.

Your traveled-distance would merely increase without bound, while always having a finite value. — Michael Ossipoff

Potential Infinity rather than Actual infinity again.

The universe is not spacially infinite; its expanded from the point of the Big Bang starting 14 billion years ago; so it can only have a finite radius.

Then explain that to the PhD physicists and cosmologists who say that the universe might be infinite — Michael Ossipoff

They have over complicated matters. The link I gave you was written by the most sensible cosmologist out there; some of the others are just on cloud nine. Its really simple:

THINGS WITHOUT A START DON'T EXIST

So infinity does not have a start; it does not exist.

If the universe did not have a start, it would not exist. Same goes for time and matter/energy.

Cosmologists don't agree with you — Michael Ossipoff

Some Cosmologists do, for example:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/#.W8ONzy-ZPOQ

There have been articles reporting that, so far, the evidence seems to be piling up in favor of this universe being infinite — Michael Ossipoff

Just because the universe is very big, does not mean thats its infinite. Big we can deal with. Infinite is another matter; its a magical concept and it blows materialism completely out of the water. Its more a spiritual than scientific concept.

An Actual infinite universe is impossible; it implies the universe is at once 100x greater than everything else and at the same time 1000x, 10000x bigger etc...

Also consider the universe is expanding. It cannot expand if it infinite because there would be nowhere to expand to. So the universe is not infinite.

It is disappointing to see such a decline in moral standards. There is a small subset of people who commit heinous crimes across all societies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Worst offenders are actually the Central American countries.

"It is not constructable mathematically.
— Devans99
Of course it is. — tim wood

Would you call this a construction of Actual Infinity?

lim 1/n
n->0

I would not. It never reaches actual infinity because n is always finite (no matter how small it gets)... How would you mathematically construct actual infinity?

Well, you need to define "something" and "nothing." — tim wood

Yes sorry:

- Nothing: no matter/energy or dimensions
- Something: at least some matter/energy and spacial dimensions

So with this definition, going from nothing to something is not feasible.

his would appear as an inconsistency in Aristotle's principles — Metaphysician Undercover

Good point, time is so mysterious and ethereal; wonder if he somehow thought an infinity of time was different to infinity of other kinds. I see all instances of Actual Infinity as fictitious; time and space still have to obey common sense.

God is said to be eternal — Metaphysician Undercover

So it says in the Bible to; but it does not say which kind of eternity and theologians have differed on the answer. It looks like timeless eternal is the answer; that just leaves the question of what timeless existence/beings could be like. Photons are timeless yet they change position and wavelength. They move at the speed of light; maybe everything in the timeless realm moves at the speed of light.

"Outside Time", being the sense of "eternal" which is generally associated with God, does not equate with "infinite" — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed. God (if there is one) is finite. I don't think that takes anything away from God; infinite is simply not possible and even an omnipotent God cannot perform the impossible.

...or a 4-dimensional sphere, or an infinite universe. — Michael Ossipoff

A 4D sphere is certainly possible, but not an infinite universe; infinite things do not have a start so cannot exist.

I was thinking of trying to get an article published on Infinity. I thought I'd post it here first. Any thoughts?

Infinite Confusion

Infinity has been a source of fascination and confusion for 1000’s of years. Here is a brief review of the history of infinity and try (hopefully) to clear up some of the confusion it causes in maths and the sciences.

Some History

The earliest reference we have to infinity is from the Greek philosopher Anaximander who used the word ‘Apeiron’ to refer to limitless, unbounded or indefinite.

The great Greek philosopher Aristotle subsequently made an important distinction between two kinds of infinity. ‘Potential Infinity’ he described as a iterative process that can potentially be carried out for ever never actually is. Examples are counting or walking. ‘Actual Infinity’ is then defined as the results of carrying out the iterative process for ever. Aristotle felt that Potential Infinities were OK but Actual Infinities were not allowable.

Still with the Greeks, Zeno of Elea (born c. 490 BCE) is famous for his paradoxes of motion. An example paradox is the story of a foot race between Achilles and a tortoise. The tortoise asks for a 50 meter head start and is confident of victory; in order for Achilles to catch the tortoise, he first covers the 50 meters. By that time, the tortoise has moved ahead another 5 meters. By the time Achilles has moved another 5 meters, the tortoise has moved ahead again and so on; with the conclusion that Achilles will never catch the tortoise because he must perform an Actually Infinite number of steps to do so.

The simplest solution to Zeno’s paradoxes is to assume space comes in discrete fixed-size chunks (rather than continuous space) so that Achilles then only has to cover a finite number of steps to catch the tortoise.

Whilst it is not mentioned in the Bible, christian theologians have traditionally attributed infinity to God, stressing the unbounded nature of God’s power. To deny God anything was seen as belittling God.

Georg Cantor, the german mathematician responsible for much of modern set theory, was a devout Lutheran and believed his work on infinite sets was communicated to him directly by God.

Infinity in maths

Infinity is by its very nature unbounded and therefore not well defined. Infinity lacks a start or end; what other object lacks starts and ends? These ill-defined and unnatural characteristics of infinity make it prone to causing paradoxes (as we’ve seen with Zeno).

First thing to note that infinity is not any sort of normal number or quantity:

There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X+1 > X.

To reinforce that infinity is not a quantity, it also behaves unlike any normal quantity under the operation of the basic mathematical operators. Adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing infinity all yield infinity as the result:

1 + oo = oo implies:
1 = 0

In Calculus, the limit concept is used to describe an expression approaching, but never actually achieving the value. The limit concept is used with infinity for example, it is common to write:

lim 1/n = oo
n->0

Its important to realise that the limit never actually evaluates to infinity; it is always a finite number that approaches but never reaches infinity. So strictly speaking, its more accurate to write:

lim 1/n ~ oo
n->0

Geometrically, infinity is a source of confusion. How many points can you get on a line segment of length 1? The traditional answer is an actually infinite number of points. This does not hold up too well under closer examination. A mathematical point is defined to have length zero. So the number of points in the interval is:

(segment length) / (point length)
= 1 / 0
= Undefined

Something with length 0 can’t exist so it seems the mathematical definition of a point is contradictory. Using a redefinition of ‘point’ to have a non-zero length, we can see there are always a finite number of points in a segment. As the point size decreases; the number of points tends to but never actually reaches Actual Infinity. So the number of points on a line segment is an example of Potential Infinity.

Also geometrically, actual infinity is not constructible. For example, it is impossible to construct a line segment with the property that it is longer than all other line segments.

In set theory, the actually infinite is defined to exist by way of the ‘Axiom of Infinity’. So set theory does not prove actual infinity exists it merely assumes that it does. An axiom is meant to be a self-evident truth. Its questionable whether the existence of a set with an actually infinite number of members is a self evident truth. It has to be remembered here that set theory was devised in the late 1800 in a still heavily religious society. Cantor and company regarded it as self evident that God was infinite and required mathematics to reflect this.

Infinity In Science

Science is a two-pronged subject; the theoretical and empirical. As has been mentioned, theoretically, actual infinity is on somewhat shaky ground. Traditionally, science treats actual infinity as indicative of a error in calculation. For example the infinity/singularity at the heart of the Big Bang is regarded as indicative that the theory of Relativity has broken down.

Empirically, things look no better. There are no examples of actual infinity in the material world that we know of.

There are some unknowns such as how far space goes on or how far time goes back; but these are not evidence for the Actually Infinite, merely just a lack of evidence either way.

Continuous space and/or time are sometimes used as an example of the actually infinite, but modern science is trending in the direction of the discrete. Matter is discrete. The Bekenstein bound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound) expresses a limit on the information content of a region of space and strongly suggests discreteness of space.

Another way of thinking about it is to consider a 1cm cubed volume of ‘continuous’ space; it will be graduated with infinite precision as that is the definition of continuous; the positions of particles within it will be know with infinite precision; which equates to infinite information in a finite volume. Also then consider a 1 light year cubed volume of ‘continuous’ space; it will also be graduated with an identical infinite precision (as that is the definition of continuous). This suggests the information content of the two volumes are both infinite and similar. Seems nonsensical; hence discrete space. A simpler argument applies for discrete time.

There is some uncertainty in science over whether the universe is finite or infinite in time and space. There is a simple argument against an infinite universe; if it does not have a start, it can’t exist. So this argument implies the universe has a start in time (and time itself has a start).

The word ‘Eternal’ is often uses with infinite time and has two meanings:

Eternal Outside Time - existing for ever outside of time
Eternal In Time - existing for ever within time

The first meaning of eternal does not require actual infinity and is compatible with Einstein’s 4D space-time view of the world. The second meaning does require actual infinity and leads to paradoxes, for example:

- Say you meet an Eternal (in time) being in your Eternal (in time) universe
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?

The problem here is ‘Eternal In Time’ - it has no start so it is undefined/cannot exist; hence the paradox.

The measure problem from Cosmology is another paradox due to an infinite universe:

- Assume time extends back for ever.
- If it can happen it has happened.
- An infinite number of times.
- No matter how unlikely it was in the first place!
- So all things have happened an infinite number of times.
- So all things are equally likely.
- Reductio ad absurdum.

Another argument against an ‘Eternal In Time’ universe is the 2nd law of thermodynamics: If the universe has been around for ever then it should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now. But the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

Closing Remarks

In an article this length, I cannot begin to iterate all the paradoxes of infinity…

Hilbert’s amazing hotel that is completely full with infinite guests; an infinity of new guess arrive and by magic they are all accommodated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel)

Cantor's Paradox: ‘The set of all sets is its own power set. Therefore, the cardinal number of the set of all sets must be bigger than itself.’ The set of all sets is an ACTUAL INFINITY so not a completely described set. You cannot soundly reason with it. Leads to the paradox.

Posit an universe infinite in time but finite in space plus some historians. Then there is not enough room in the universe to write down the whole history of the universe!

A paradox is caused by an error in the underlying reasoning; the assumption that Actual Infinity is possible is the cause of these paradoxes in every case.

One finial thought; how exactly is Actual Infinity and the materialistic world view comparable?

Finite regards…

You are simply claiming "I assert that there should be nothing as opposed to something; therefore, this must be true." — LD Saunders

You are still not getting it:

- I am not asserting that there should be nothing rather than something
- I am asserting that its strange that there is something rather than nothing

Something always existing is supported by the very fact that we exist now, and out of nothing, nothing comes, so, if anything Occam's Razor is against you. — LD Saunders

Your not following the argument; the fact that we exist now, neither adds or distracts from the strangeness that there should be something rather than nothing.

Like I stated, you'd fail. No, it is not the simplest position to say nothing should exist. That's simply an assertion you made without any support whatsoever. — LD Saunders

I did have support from Occam's Razor: nothing is the simpler model; there are less moving parts; everything is explained for because there is nothing to explain.

Our universe contains massive complexity; can you not see how strange that should be? All this matter, energy, space-time and the physical rules that govern it. Why is it here? It so far removed from the simple solution of nothing.

So it could be God. In that something impossible has happened and there is something rather than nothing. What can you do but attribute the magic to some sort of Magician; IE God?

I've seen a few odd things in my time that make me think of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

If we are really all living in a Simulation, that could explain some of the reports of the super-natural; it could be just the 'super-users' messing around in our lives.

s contradictory, to say that something has a start and end and also that it is permanent. If it's circular there is no start or end. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not if you are thinking 4D space-time; you have to imagine the universe as a static object in 4D space-time. What is the shape/topology of that object? The start was the big bang; the end is the big crunch. The start and end could coincide to form a circle. All the matter brought back together neatly to the start point. Nature abhors macro-discontinuity so it seems quite likely that the space-time dimensions are joined somehow as I've described.

You're using a different definition of "eternal" again. We were talking about "eternal" in the sense of outside of time. This is clear from you assumption of a "timeless" base reality. So your argument here for a difference is just equivocation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry, to clarify my language:
- Eternal outside of time. I don't object to this. It can be finite (as in a 4D space time object/block).
- Eternal inside of time. I object to; requires Actual Infinity

we have a problem with your stated claim that time co-exists with this eternal existence. Unless you allow for a dualist separation, or some such thing, you have the contradictory properties of "timeless", and also "time", referring to one and the same reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

What I mean is time exists inside the timeless base reality. So time is a finite 'thing' existing within a timeless, permanent, finite base reality.

An all-powerful god has restrictions regarding travel speed??? — Ryan B

I don't think God (if he exists) is Omnipotent or Omniscient. Both are irrational demands upon a deity; no-one can make 1+2=2 or know all the digits of pi. The shear size of the universe dictates that we will not have heard from any materialistic/non-magical God yet.

Back to Pascal's wager, my point was:

- if you have a non-zero percentage for the chance of God's existence
- then you are well advised to pay heed to the wager

The right attitude, pending further clarification, is Pyrrhonic scepticism — tim wood

Mathematically you are wrong; if there is a non-zero chance that God exists, then investing in Pascal's wager is in our interests.

...before you apply any such logical tools, you need to know what it is you're applying them to, yes? If so, tell us what (who) God is. — tim wood

I define God as the creator of the universe and try to establish his existence and attributes from that premise. This is a different approach to assigning certain qualities (eg 3Os) to God and then trying to rationalise his existence.

You’re changing the terms of your argument on the fly. You originally said, “Whether God exists or not is a boolean question. With no evidence either way, its correct to assign a 50%/50% outcome.”

So, by your own logic, you cannot adjust the rate up or down without evidence, which keeps you stuck at agnosticism.

But then, in your latest response, you state that there is evidence for god’s existence after all but no evidence for his non-existence, a convenient position to hold if you tend toward theism. — Ryan B

No, for any boolean proposition, you start at 50%/50% and then alter the odds in light of the evidence. For example:

Was there a creator God? Start with 50% and then examine the evidence for:

The Big Bang makes it 50% likely there was a creator:
50% + 50% x 50% = 75% chance of creator

Fine tuning makes it 50% likely there was a creator:
75% + 25% x 50% = 87.5% chance of a creator

The Prime mover argument makes it 25% likely there was a creator:

87.5% + 12.5% x 50% = 93.75% chance of a creator.

There is no evidence against a creator (you have given none).

I would ask, what evidence is there that fairies do not exist? If anything, it’s the fact that fairies have never been seen or reliably documented, which is the SAME evidence against the existence of god. — Ryan B

We know fairies don't exist on earth because we've never seen one. But we would not expect to see god - the universe is too large and too young for God to have had time to visit us:

1x10^24 estimated stars in observable universe
5.1 x10^12 days since start of universe

God must visit 195,694,716,242 star systems a day for God to have visited all star systems in the observable universe by today. Talk about a hectic schedule

So you cannot expect evidence for God in the form of a personal appearance.

The Big Bang is not evidence for god any more than it is evidence for fairies — Ryan B

Its a huge suspicious explosion. Was it natural? Thats a 50%/50% call. So you can't dismiss it out of hand if you are doing a probability analysis.

Also, the prime mover argument has so many flaws that it hardly counts as evidence for god’s existence, either. I wrote about the first cause argument here — Ryan B

Your argument against seems to be pinned on the fact the universe did not have a beginning - I argue that eternal is impossible so the universe must have a beginning here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4158/nine-nails-in-the-coffin-of-presentism/p1

Welcome any comments...

Then what piece(s) of evidence would ever get you to adjust the probability in favor of god’s nonexistence? — Ryan B

Well some form of proof of God's non-existence or at least a strong argument against his existence, can you give one?

I noticed you skipped the fine-tuning argument in your reply - which seems pretty strong evidence for God - any reason why?

If there is no evidence for or against the existence of X, then there is a 50 percent chance that X exists. — Ryan B

Thats correct, that is the starting point for your probability analysis. You then proceed to alter 50% up/down by admitting evidence for and against the proposition

There is no evidence for or against the existence of fairies, therefore there is a 50 percent chance that fairies exist. — Ryan B

You have empirical evidence that fairies do not exist on planet earth which you have implicitly used to deduce its very unlikely that fairies exist. Imagine asking the same question if you did not even know what a fairy was - then you'd start at 50%/50%.

In the case of God; you have not got empirical evidence of his non-existence; just empirical evidence that he's not been near planet earth. Which is not surprising considering the size of the universe. There is no evidence against the existence of God.

On the other hand, there does appear to be evidence for God's existence: the big bang, the fine tuning argument, the prime mover argument.

So my point is its impossible to dismiss the existence of God outright; therefore Pascal's wager is still applicable.

Should we give up on happiness and seek truth? — TheMadFool

I think the truth and happiness can coincide; depends what you believe the 'truth' is I suppose. I've spent years thinking about the 'truth' and I think it has made me happier rather than sad.

What aspect of the 'truth' do you find incompatible with happiness?

don't know if infinity has practical applications but surely it is interesting to realize we can analyze it in an understandable way through set theory or whatever else it is. — TheMadFool

Potential infinity has many practical applications, actual infinity has none.

All theories that use actual infinity are wrong IMO.

It's not that there is a universal speed limit which I doubt, it is that there is something (light) which has the same speed in every frame of reference. I think that it is quite plausible that there is a universal speed limit, but we do not know enough about the universe to be able to determine it. — Metaphysician Undercover

One implies the other.

Yes, and if you've read my earlier posts I've dismissed a lot of modern mathematics as well as contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with you but I've looked at Special Relativity; it seems sound enough and its accepted by nearly all scientists and philosophers. So whilst science and maths need a thorough review, we must not 'throw the baby out with the bath water'?

Can you imagine a point in time when there was a future with no past? — Metaphysician Undercover

The start of time. Time is finite and permanent. Has a start and end. Its possible the start and end are joined to form a circle.

How is "eternal existence" different from your assumption of a permanent base reality? — Metaphysician Undercover

The difference is:

- Eternal existence implies everything has existed for ever within time. Implies time has no start. Implies Actual Infinity. Implies all the paradoxes I listed in the other OP.
- Permanent existence outside of time does not require Actual Infinity.

don't think an axiom is right or wrong. By definition it is accepted as true. If course we can reject it but that doesn't invalidate the theorems that derive from the axiom. — TheMadFool

We use maths to reason about the material world. Infinity is impossible in the material world. Maths should not reflect whats impossible. We have theories in cosmology based on an infinite universe and those theories are wrong because the axiom of infinity is wrong.

By the way I still don't understand the difference between actual and potential infinity — TheMadFool

Potentially infinite is like this list:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...

It potentially goes on for ever... but in reality there is not enough paper to write it down in full.

Actually infinite you have to imagine the list going on for ever written down somewhere; the whole thing; every possible natural number.

Whether God exists or not is a boolean question. With no evidence either way, its correct to assign a 50%/50% outcome. A rational mind should not be so dismissive of the possibilities... Pascal's wager is still applicable.

I don't think that it's reasonable to believe the speed of light to be constant. — Metaphysician Undercover

A universal speed limit makes sense for any universe; if you allow objects to be accelerated upto an infinite velocity (as in Newtonian mechanics), then you get bizarre paradoxes like objects suddenly disappearing from the universe.

If you doubt the speed of light is constant you are also dismissing much of modern science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Measurement

I see a logical flaw here. You have a base reality which is permanent and timeless. You have a time which is created, comes into existence, within this permanent, timeless base reality. But then you conclude that time is permanent. That is contrary to your premise, that time is created. — Metaphysician Undercover

Think about a timeless base reality; there is no such thing as transitory information here; there is no time; all information is permanent.

How would time be created/made real in such a base reality? Each moment in our time must have been mapped to a co-ordinate in timeless, permanent, base reality. Hence past, present, and future are equally real.

I agree with you on this matter. Now look at what happens if we separate space from time, and postulate a discrete space with a continuous time. The particle has an infinite number of possible locations because the time between t1 and t2 is infinitely divisible. However, the discrete space limits these possibilities to a finite number. So within the immaterial realm, which is represented conceptually as the realm of time passing, there are infinite possibilities, the information is infinite. But in actuality, the possibilities (and therefore information) are limited by the true nature of space. — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is if you assume time is immaterial, you get eternal existence then you get all the paradoxes listed in this OP:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4158/nine-nails-in-the-coffin-of-presentism/p1

Can you explain the last bit? "elements can always be added, but never infinitely many"? — TheMadFool

Best way to think of Potential Infinity is a temporal, iterative process. Examples are counting, or walking. Both can potentially go on for ever but never actually do go on for ever.

Actual Infinity is then the result of carrying on that iterative process for ever. So for example, writing out ALL of the natural numbers on a piece of paper would be Actual Infinity (impossible).

On the maths side:

- Potential infinity is closest to the limit concept. IE limits increase towards but never actually attain infinity
- Actual infinity is the concept used in set theory/Cantor's work. Its defined to exist by an axiom. The axiom basically says the set of natural numbers exists as a completed set. They don't prove anything. The axiom is provably wrong so set theory is flawed IMO.

Actually I don't buy 4D space-time — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you buy special relativity? He only has two axioms and both sound very reasonable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity

And there is a huge volume of experimental evidence to back it up?

And it makes sense from first principles:

1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So base reality must have always existed
3. If base reality is permanent it must be timeless (to avoid actual infinity)
4. Time was created and exists within this permanent, timeless, base reality
5. So time must be real, permanent and finite

And you haven't really explained what you mean by "information density" so I'm sort of lost here. — Metaphysician Undercover

The amount of information you can get into a volume of space-time by regarding the spacial co-ordinates of particles as information:

- So in discrete space-time, I could represent a particle's position with (0.35, 0.60, 0.90, 0.20); terminating decimals / rational numbers - a finite amount of information.

- But in continuous space-time, the particle's position is represented by (0.353534..., 0.604836..., 0.903742..., 0.736363...); non-terminating real numbers - an infinite amount of information.

An infinite amount of information in a finite volume of space-time is nonsense and leads to paradoxes...

This is why Aristotle concluded that there is a categorical difference between being and becoming, which cannot be reconciled: the two are in compatible. If change is represented as two distinct states of being (the ball on the roof, and the ball on the porch for example), then to account for the change between these two states we need to introduce a third state which is neither the one nor the other. Now we have an intermediate state, and we need to account for the change between the first and the intermediate, as well as the intermediate and the other, so we introduce two more states. This would result in an infinite regress of states. There appears to be an infinite number of states between any two states, if change is represented as different states. So he proposed that "becoming" (active change) is categorically different from "being" (states of existence), and activity cannot be represented by states. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is only an infinite regress of states if space-time is continuous.

What is the meaning of actual infinity?

Do you mean physically manifest? If so, space may be infinite. — TheMadFool

I'm using Aristotle's definition:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

I think space is finite:

- The universe is expanding; if infinite then there is nowhere to expand to
- Actual infinity does not occur mathematically and maths reflects the real world
- Actual infinity does not occur in nature
- Empty space has vacuum/dark energy associated with it so empty space is not empty. We want to avoid the total energy content of the universe being infinite.

Ok, gfo ahead and give us a rational, coherent explanation why nothing, as opposed to something, would be the default position? — LD Saunders

I guess its Occam's Razor; the simplest solution is nothing. Then nothing needs explaining.

The fact there is something is quite shocking. Almost a point to the Theists I think; its enough to make you consider a supernatural explanation I mean.

No one can answer the question "why is there anything at all. — LD Saunders

The Anthropic principle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Give a highly unsatisfactory pseudo-answer: There is something because there must be for us to be here.

It seems very unnatural to me that there is anything at all. A state of nothingness is what you would expect by default.

how can they tell that the universe is expanding if they haven't even seen the edge of the universe yet? — Limitless Science

Red shift of distance galaxies increases the further they are away from us:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

If you want to debate time, I'd suggest this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4158/nine-nails-in-the-coffin-of-presentism

Yeah, time without a clock (watch) doesn't exist — Limitless Science

There is a fundamental law of the universe that is defined in terms of time, the speed of light (speed = distance / time). Time is not some human invention; every particle in the universe is bound by time.

But could my post help you in anyway? — Limitless Science

Well its an interesting post but I believe time has a start and end so it does not chime with the direction of my thoughts. For time to have no beginning or end, you need the concept of actual infinity to exist:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

It does not exist in the material world or maths. So I have concluded time has a start and end.

So you're just restating Zeno's paradox — Metaphysician Undercover

Its similar, but I was highlighting not an infinite number of steps; instead infinite information density. There is a limit already established on information density:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

If you buy 4D space-time, then information is not transitory, it has permanent residence in a region of space-time, so I would expect information density to apply over a time period as well as a volume of space.

Say we have a system composed of 1 particle that travels 1 meter in 1 second. If space is continuous, how many different states does the system go through? IE If the particle is travelling along the X-axis, the states are just the different positions it occupies x=0 x=0.1 etc...

The answer is infinite states and log(number states) = information.

It is the exact same kind of infinity you get for a system of 1000 particles traveling 1 mile in a 1 day. Do you see the paradox?

If you could have a finite period of time, it would be impossible to have an infinite number of states in that time because it would require time to change from one state to the nex — Metaphysician Undercover

It is possible because of the nature of continuous: to move from point 0 to point 1, you first have to travel through point 0.1, then 0.01, then 0.001, then 0.0001 and so on to infinity. Each distinct point represents a different state with different distinct time and space co-ordinates.

I don't believe that you can model a continuum in this way, because you are assigning ends to it. What principle allows you to put a beginning and an end to a continuum? — Metaphysician Undercover

Any given finite distance we can represent by the reals between 0 and 1. For instance the distance of 2 miles maps like this:
0 mile -> 0.0
1 mile -> 0.5
2 miles -> 1.0

This is contradiction. You are saying that the continuum is made up of discrete units, "1 second", "1 year". To say that is to deny that it is a continuum — Metaphysician Undercover

I mean that we can use arbitrary units to sub-divide the continuum (but it is not actually made of discrete units).

Right, if you could model time as discrete units you would not run into these problems. The problem though, is that we experience time as continuous, and we've found no natural divisions to form the basis for the finite N, the number of discrete units per second. I don't think the Planck unit provides us with this. — Metaphysician Undercover

A movie seems continuous but most are a discrete 60 frames a second.