The infinite regress occurs only with infinite time; if there is a start of time there is no infinite regress. If time is circular, there is no infinite regress. It's only the 'time goes back forever' model that is a problem. — Devans99
The point here is that when it comes to all issues concerning time, the most likely answer may be the we have no idea what we're talking about. — Jake
So not actually presentism but presentism without a start. — Terrapin Station
The point here is that when it comes to all issues concerning time, the most likely answer may be the we have no idea what we're talking about. — Jake
I don't think presentism and a start of time are compatible. What would come before and cause the start of time? There is nothing to do that, so it seems an impossible combination. — Devans99
And as I believe the evidence points to a start of time — Devans99
Re causing it, apparently you buy the old "something can't come from nothing" bumper sticker slogan, but that slogan is actually unsupportable — Terrapin Station
What evidence? — Terrapin Station
But something coming from nothing, including no time? Sounds unbelievable to me. — Devans99
There is a strong argument for a start of time here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1 — Devans99
Hence "precipitated by the counterintuitiveness of it," but the world isn't actually required to conform to what's intuitive to us. — Terrapin Station
I had a laundry list of objections to that in that thread.
Re the other two things, constructing things with mathematical conventions doesn't actually work as evidence. — Terrapin Station
But the world appears to follow logical (if not intuitive) rules; hence all the progress in science has been possible. I see no reason why the start of time should disobey basic logic... what you call 'counterintuitiveness' is actually contrary to logic IMO (and the world is logical). — Devans99
What is mathematical about an expanding universe needing a start point? It makes perfect sense just as a logical argument. And we know from experiments that time slows in the presence of gravity; so time starting at the Big Bang (=maximum gravity) is not unbelievable, — Devans99
Why couldn't we simply focus on what we're referring to in "practical," observable, experiential, phenomenal terms? What would be the motivation to posit time being anything different than that? — Terrapin Station
The point is that insofar as we're focusing on what we're referring to in practical, observable, experiential, phenomenal terms, it doesn't follow that (the most likely answer may be that) we have no idea what we're talking about. — Terrapin Station
I have no idea what you'd think logic is if you think this has anything to do with logic. At any rate, logic, ontologically, is a way of thinking about relations. — Terrapin Station
For example, the big bang involving "maximum gravity" is really about us playing with mathematics. It's a consequence of our mathematical constructions — Terrapin Station
Did you know that time runs at different speeds in different circumstances? Do most forum members know that? Do most citizens know that?
If you answered no to any of these questions, there's your proof that we don't know what we're talking about. — Jake
https://www.coursehero.com/file/17475102/Chapter16/Kant had argued that metaphysics is impossible, that it is impossible for the human mind to achieve theoretical knowledge about all of reality. Hegel on the other hand, set forth the general proposition that "what is rational is real and what is real is rational" and from this concluded that everything that is, is knowable. Since there can be nothing unknowable, the idealists were confident that they could know the inner secrets of absolute reality.
Did you know you were a Hegelian? — unenlightened
Presentism (believe that only now exists) is the opposite view of eternalism (belief that past, present and future are real). — Devans99
Presentism (believe that only now exists) is the opposite view of eternalism (belief that past, present and future are real).
Presentism posits 'only now always existed' so all forms of it require an infinite regress, which is not only undesirable, its actually impossible:
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number*.
Eternalism does not require an infinite regress; we have a prime mover who is beyond time (and thus beyond cause and effect) who creates time and the universe. It’s the simplest logical model. — Devans99
But even an anti-realist must have an opinion on whether sensory input data from the past/future actually exists in the same sense as 'nows' sensory input data? — Devans99
Thats many people's gut instinct on time, 'only now exists'. My point is time is unintuitive and you actually have to work through the logic to see that 'only now exists' is not viable. For example, your gut instinct on time would not have told you that it runs slower in the presence of gravity, but it does. Not intuitive.
'Only now exists' leads to 'only now always existed' which leads to an infinite regress; IE its can't happen; more than only now must exist. — Devans99
Or think of it this way. Each event in an infinite regress has a predecessor so each event makes sense on its own, but the series as a whole has no start so the series as a whole can't exist logically. — Devans99
The definition of the first transfinite number is the cardinality of the set of natural numbers. No way is that a number. It's a conception of a mad man.
I should point out that there is only one kind of infinity; by definition it is the largest thing, so it's not possible to have two of the largest things; one of them would not be infinity. If you want to take a look at what sort of nonsense the opposite assumption produces, then bijection is the term to google. You will find that the procedure produces plainly laughable results such as the set of natural numbers being the same size as the set of rational numbers (the 2nd is clearly infinitely larger than the first).
What are we to make of the rules for working with transfinite cardinals:
∞+1=∞.
If you buy the first point about a single type of infinity, then the above expression immediately leads to 1=0. Even if you don't, there is something deeply wrong with it. In english, it's saying that 'there exists something, that when you change it, it does not change'. What sort of object behaves like that? No objects behalf like that, so does it deserve to be enshrined at the heart of a supposedly logical discipline (maths)? — Devans99
The "time runs slower in the presence of gravity" is an unusual statement. — Frank Apisa
Do you not concede that there are imponderable that MAY make what you see as cut-and-dry "logic" that dictates as invalid? — Frank Apisa
If we assume an eternal universe we are assuming that there exists an unlimited amount of time before now. I don't see a logical contradiction in the idea of "no start to a series" when we grant an unlimited amount of time before now — coolguy8472
Infinity means without limit that doesn't exist as a value in conventional math. It's not part of a set of natural numbers therefore not appropriate to treat it as a number in conventional math like "∞+1=∞". — coolguy8472
Every whole number maps to every fraction like this: — coolguy8472
Please cite. It's clocks that run at different rates - "clock" understood very broadly. I'd like to view the proof that time runs at different rates. — tim wood
"Do you not concede that there are imponderable that MAY make what you see as cut-and-dry "logic" that dictates as invalid? — Frank Apisa
There are probably questions we can't answer (maybe 'why is there something rather than nothing?). But where we are presented with a logical absurdity (presentism), we can draw appropriate conclusions; that is just part of the scientific method. — 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.