But I would argue that it does not matter how much time you allow; if the objects do not have temporal starts, they do not exist. To see what I mean, try imagining a brick without any identifiable spacial start point. It would not exist. Works exactly the same for time as it does for space. As I've pointed out before (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being), infinite existence is impossible for beings so it should be impossible for anything else also. — Devans99
You are saying you can't perform mathematical operations on infinity? IE it's not a number. — Devans99
The point is that the rationals are larger than the naturals. For every natural, there is an infinity of rationals. That's a simple proof that bijection gives the wrong answers. — Devans99
Definition 1: |A| = |B|
Two sets A and B have the same cardinality if there exists a bijection from A to B, that is, a function from A to B that is both injective and surjective. Such sets are said to be equipotent, equipollent, or equinumerous. This relationship can also be denoted A ≈ B or A ~ B.
For example, the set E = {0, 2, 4, 6, ...} of non-negative even numbers has the same cardinality as the set N = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} of natural numbers, since the function f(n) = 2n is a bijection from N to E.
Since you seem so sure of your position, though, I'd like to ask you if you see any significant implications of it on the "human condition." If you are correct, as you seem certain you are...are there significant other truths that derive from it? — Frank Apisa
I think the very notion of eternalism is completely incoherent, so I wouldn't say that. :yum:I would not say I'm 100% sure of my position but there seems to be more evidence in favour of eternalism. — Devans99
No, it isn't — Terrapin Station
No, it isn't, because as I've explained to you time and again, stuff either exists always or there was a start to it, and there's no way around that, despite both being counterintuitive. — Terrapin Station
as I've explained to you time and again, stuff either exists always or there was a start to it, and there's no way around that, despite both being counterintuitive.Yes it is. It leads to an infinite regress which is impossible, so it's incoherent. At least Eternalism is logically possible. — Devans99
To exist you must first start existing. — Devans99
or there was a start to it' which leads to a start of time. Which rules out presentism. — Devans99
To exist you must first start existing. — Devans99
And if it is not too much trouble, I would love to read the P1 and P2 that brings you to the C of "Therefore, to exist you must first start existing." — Frank Apisa
otherwise you have an infinite regress which is impossible. — Devans99
One common way to use the term "impossible" is to refer to something that would amount to a logical contradiction--an instance of P & ~P. I presume you're not using the term that way, though. What sense are you using instead? — Terrapin Station
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*.
*(Infinity is a concept not a number, proof: Infinity, if a number, would be a number X which is greater than all other numbers. But X+1>X). — Devans99
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*.
*(Infinity is a concept not a number, proof: Infinity, if a number, would be a number X which is greater than all other numbers. But X+1>X).
It would be like me proving infinite integers smaller than 0 don't exist this way:
1) The total number of integers smaller than 0 is greater than any number.
2) Which is a contradiction; can't be a number greater than any number*. — coolguy8472
The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number. — Devans99
The only way for something to 'exist always' is for it to exist timelessly; otherwise you have an infinite regress which is impossible.
And if it is not too much trouble, I would love to read the P1 and P2 that brings you to the C of "Therefore, to exist you must first start existing." — Frank Apisa
Points 1-6 in the OP here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1 — Devans99
The error there would be that you're calling it a number in the first instance-- "The number of events." — Terrapin Station
↪Frank Apisa
I think a main consequence is that there is a timeless, prime mover who created time and the universe.
an hour ago
Reply
Options — Devans99
Suggests that you do not understand the concept of infinity. Infinity is not a number. — Terrapin Station
You are agreeing with me. — Devans99
↪Frank Apisa
I did not set out to prove the prime mover; I set out just by observing that presentism leads to an impossible infinite regress. So I just set out in unbiased sort of way using logic and arrived quite naturally at eternalism as a way out of that infinite regress. It leads to a timeless prime mover who is therefore beyond cause and effect and therefore does not in itself need to be caused. Its the only logical way out of the infinite regress at the start of time.
As far as Aquinas goes, his argument from design is still applicable today. The argument from first cause is still applicable if you believe in cause and effect. It is reenforced if you make God timeless and thus beyond cause and effect. — Devans99
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 — Devans99
.because they are, for the most part, devoid of logic. — Frank Apisa
If you agree infinity is not a number then you must also agree that properties of reality of a numeric nature (such as age of the universe) cannot take infinity as their value. — 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.