I don't think the argument intended zero-dimensional "moments", or a particular quantification, as such.
It was given to me in a much less formal format; it's also possible my rendition remains a bit hokey. :) — jorndoe

But the argument assumes a particular quantification, a first, second, third moment of time, etc.. Without this quantification of time, there is no argument.

A similar principle acts as the grounds for Aquinas' cosmological argument which speaks of quantifiable things, actual individual entities. If individual things are generated and corrupted in time, then we can assume that there must be a first thing, as per your argument posted. That forms the basic definition of finite existence, individual, bounded objects. So if there are such finite things in existence, there must be a first. The definition of "existing things" is such that they are finite, and this denies the possibility of infinite regress.

Now we proceed, if there is a first thing, then the potential for that thing must be prior to the thing itself, from inductive reasoning. So the cosmological argument insists that there must be something actual which is prior to all these individual things, in order to actualize this initial potential. The potential for the first thing could not actualize itself, so it is necessary to assume an actual cause, which is prior to all actual things.

An odd argument I came across recently:

1. if the universe was temporally infinite, then there would be no 1st moment
2. if there was no 1st moment, then there was no 2nd moment
3. if there was no 2nd moment, then there was no 3rd moment
4. ... and so on and so forth ...
5. ... then there would be no now
6. since now exists, we started out wrong, i.e. the universe is not temporally infinite

EDIT: Post 17 or thereabouts below has an extended rendition of the argument

Sound argument? — jorndoe

It's not sound because if there is no beginning then it would be illogical to count moments. The only thing you could do is start with an arbitrary moment and count from that. There would still be moments.

There's some scary looking argumentifying going on here but we can simply dismiss the fundamental premise that infinite series are by definition continuous in both directions. We are are surrounded by what I like to call directional infinities; the natural numbers, the Mandelbrot set etc. These are indisputably infinite but only in one direction. Therefore there is no conceptual dissonance in a Universe that is both temporally infinite and has a temporal beginning.

References please.... — apokrisis

They don't provide references for classified information, however, there are quite a few mathematicians using variations on the excluded middle and fuzzy logic whose work has been classified. Paradoxical logics that use different variations on the excluded middle. These are jokes along the lines of the poetry I write which contain fuzzy logic and can become so complex they go over almost anyone's head or just sound silly. Universities are now routinely having contests to write them. Among other things, their fuzzy logic provides a more efficient, compact, and precise approach for things like air rebreathers and missile guidance systems and it can be illegal to export such technology.

I would post more here, but they just keep erasing my poetry.

I'd be interested in any objections to the objections, that hence finds this peculiar argument (deductively) sound.

I'd be interested in any objections to the objections, that hence finds this peculiar argument (deductively) sound. — jorndoe

When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout! — wuliheron

:D

Will Donna Summer (1977) do?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVM1nUmDHHc

As sexy as Donna is, yin-yang dynamics demand a somewhat more cartoonish universe. Doctor Doolittle's push-me-pull-you and Tom and Jerry running in circles are popular examples. Its analog logic along the lines of Yogi Berra's "90% of this game is half mental." Stephen Wright and Yoda are also good examples as are the Three Stooges and Gonzo the Muppet. The sexual humor I won't cover here but, suffice it to say cockroach humor like Groucho Marx's, "One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know" is popular and often traditional in Asia. Primitive tribes can tell jokes that would make a porn star blush and run the other way.

But mathematically it starts with an infinitesimal rather than a zero if we are talking about the other "end" of infinity.

They don't provide references for classified information — wuliheron

But you can provide a reference to support your clam about this being a fact? This is something you know because it has been reported somewhere credible you can now point too?

But you can provide a reference to support your clam about this being a fact? This is something you know because it has been reported somewhere credible you can now point too? — apokrisis

No, the government and even large corporations like Google censor the internet to prevent any such information from becoming widely known. Its not in any of their interests to allow such information to become widely known with Google and IBM's specialties including artificial intelligence and their reliance upon the government for some of their funding and information. Go ahead, try to look up classified information and you'll be lucky if you get someone claiming UFOs are real or information declassified concerning the second world war. Military intelligence is an oxymoron and they'll keep things classified for fifty years if they even suspect it might be important.

No, the government and even large corporations like Google censor the internet to prevent any such information from becoming widely known. — wuliheron

So how did you yourself become acquainted with this fact that you cite so often in your posts?

US federal government has finally admitted they have classified a few jokes as "Vital to the National Defense — wuliheron

You've written that the government has finally admitted this. You quote some actual words. So where and when did this happen? Tell us the story of how you come to know about this unusual fact.

So how did you yourself become acquainted with this fact that you cite so often in your posts? — apokrisis

You've written that the government has finally admitted this. You quote some actual words. So where and when did this happen? Tell us the story of how you come to know about this unusual fact. — apokrisis

I've actually conversed with one mathematician whose work was widely publicized as classified by the government. He was soliciting papers of any kind, even from a brain damaged mentally deranged hippie dippy like me, concerning paradoxical logic jokes incorporating a specific variation on the excluded middle and he also expressed a keen interest in Taoism which he had begun to study. Physicists are also familiar with the idea and in the last few decades academia as well as governments have shown intense sudden interest in both the Tao Te Ching and I-Ching.

A ten year cross disciplinary study of the I-Ching concluded it was word perfect for introspective purposes making it ideal for AI and theoretical physics research. One of the few things you can learn online about fuzzy logic is that it is of intense interest in both fields. My own expertise is a mastery of the Tao Te Ching and, theoretically, a complete word perfect set of 430 poems extrapolated from the text can describe both how to build an AI and construct a theory of everything. Thus far, to the best of my knowledge people have only managed to write perhaps 150 or so that are word perfect and complete, but that's because nobody has the philosophy worked out yet and they don't comprehend the logical or mathematical foundations.

Within twenty years computers should be capable of exposing the mathematical foundations and writing the complete set, but that's just all the more reason to keep most of the basic information classified for now. Among other things, the book I'm writing attempts to describe primitive tribal Pragmatic Taoism in a demonstrable, self-consistent, and nontrivial manner making it the first ever that meets modern academic standards as a formal philosophy. Its a multifractal or fractal within a fractal of a Fractal Dragon within a broader Mandelbrot pattern which is what the current theories in physics suggest is required and, hopefully, will produce a systems logic capable of describing anything. Sort of a top down approach to philosophy where first you assemble all of the pieces for any elegant and humble simplicity and allow them to express their own foundations.

I've spoken to the CEO of Google and experts from every field I've mentioned who all expressed interest in my work. Hell, even Ram Das expressed interest in my work. Google's entire website is designed to encourage people to write fuzzy logic poetry and there are other popular websites like it now appearing online with some designed specifically to encourage people to tell jokes.

A ten year cross disciplinary study of the I-Ching concluded it was word perfect for introspective purposes making it ideal for AI and theoretical physics research. One of the few things you can learn online about fuzzy logic is that it is of intense interest in both fields. My own expertise is a mastery of the Tao Te Ching and, theoretically, a complete word perfect set of 430 poems extrapolated from the text can describe both how to build an AI and construct a theory of everything. Thus far, to the best of my knowledge people have only managed to write perhaps 150 or so that are word perfect and complete, but that's because nobody has the philosophy worked out yet and they don't comprehend the logical or mathematical foundations. — wuliheron

:-| Wuli, I admit that this isn't my field, but this really sounds to me like the ramblings of a person with mental illness. The Tao Te Ching theoretically contains instructions on how to build an AI and construct a TOE? Whaaa...

Wuli, I admit that this isn't my field, but this really sounds to me like the ramblings of a person with mental illness. The Tao Te Ching theoretically contains instructions on how to build and AI and construct a TOE? Whaaa... — Arkady

Its mathematical poetry where every word can be treated as a variable with no intrinsic meaning or value. Its not like the authors knew what they were writing, but the mathematics are there just the same. Its a minimalistic expression of a Fractal Dragon equation that would require some 4,430 poems to express in excruciating detail but, thankfully, only 430 are required for a good representation that can be used to formulate a theory in eight dimensions and a singularity. Sort of a mathematical compromise for how to describe an infinite number of dimensions.

That it sounds like mad ramblings comes as no surprise. Taoism is like quantum mechanics in that the minute you think you understand it you are wrong.

Ok, this doesn't sound any more sensible to me (it doesn't help that you claim to have shopped this idea around to the CEO of Google...), but, as I said, I'm out of my element here. Could you provide some links/references to what you're talking about?

EDIT: I see above that you claim that this information has been censored. Oh, my...

Ok, this doesn't sound any more sensible to me (it doesn't help that you claim to have shopped this idea around to the CEO of Google...), but, as I said, I'm out of my element here. Could you provide some links/references to what you're talking about? — Arkady

I didn't shop the idea around, except for the mathematician whose work interested me, all the rest came looking for me the minute I let it be known I was writing a book on the subject. I've even had dozens of people online actively helping me research all the necessary metaphors for what I'm writing over a nine month period. Metaphors are not what most people think they are, but cutting edge Intuitionistic mathematics that the next computer revolution will leverage the same way the current one has calculus and Boolean logic.

You are welcome to look up AI research, fuzzy logic, Intuitionistic mathematics, metaphoric logic, etc. Its all analog logic which every popular computer and software today is moving towards adopting. IBM has been working on putting an AI in a coffee can sized device that draws about a 100 watts and has an intelligence somewhere between that of a cat and a human. You just can't do that with calculus and boolean logic, but require a much more analog approach. Ideally, something along the lines of the human brain which resembles a distributed gain amplifier incorporating Bayesian probabilities vanishing into indeterminacy. The NSA made it clear to the entire semiconducting industry they either move in this direction or peta scale computing will remain a fantasy. Efficiency is the new mantra or the parts get too hot when you just jamb them all together meaning intelligence is itself is a question of efficiency and creativity.

A modern version of this argument is used to show the Big Bang could never have happened. If eternal Time exists (in big-T Newtonian dimensional fashion), then there would have had to have been an infinite amount of time elapsing before - suddenly, in a bright flash - our Universe got created. So therefore never enough time could pass to arrive at that point.

A better answer is that the Big Bang was the start of time, as well as space. So we can't think of the pre-Bang as a temporal dimension - except in some far simpler metaphysical sense yet to be articulated scientifically. — apokrisis

Right. I guess contemporary cosmology will have it that temporality is an aspect of the universe. So, where causation (among others) is temporal, causation is also an aspect of the universe.

Anyway, it seems to me the principle of sufficient reason is hiding somewhere. That is, if the universe has a definite age, then a sufficient reason is sought for this particular age. If the universe does not have a definite age, then it would have to be infinite or "edge-free".

I've come across a few logical/deductive arguments that the universe cannot be temporally infinite, and others that it must be. :) At closer inspection it seems none of them hold, though.

This is one of the things that tends to bother me about theology and philosophical cosmology: I don't see how we're supposed to be able to know something like this. How on earth (literally) are we to know where the universe came from, or what the nature of the First Cause is (if there is one)?

While other metaphysical debates feel closer to home, so to speak, philosophical cosmology is quite the opposite. I can see how the problem of universals, for example, would be close to home (we encounter similarity every moment of our lives), but what remains to be shown is that the causality that seems to be apparent on the billiards table is identical to that billions of years ago.

It doesn't matter if we're Humeans are Aristotelians or Kantians or whatever: all we have access to is the causality that is apparent right now. This is why the more comfortable debates, like the problem of universals, are perfectly acceptable, since we are talking about something that is immediately perceived. But the origins of the cosmos is not apparent, and this especially becomes problematic when we start to consider more anti-realist conceptions of reality, like transcendental idealism or its realist offshoot, speculative realism. Did everything that happened billions of years before consciousness emerged actually happen? This is what Meillassoux claims to be the correlationist dilemma, and also the correlationist's responsibility to tell the scientists that they are studying something that never actually happened.

And so philosophical cosmological debates become suspect because they tend to implement a metaphysical framework of the here-and-now for the then-and-there, when there doesn't seem to be any real justification for the claim that the metaphysical structure of the here-and-now has been and always will be the same. It may be the case that the metaphysical structure of reality evolves, and that is all we can know: that is evolves, and what was the case before is lost.

Instead of armchair theorizing, the only method capable of producing anything of substance in this debate would be actual, pure empirical observations.

basic common sense should be enough to indicate the eternal, infinite nature of ultimate reality

A few points worth considering.

1. I did a very brief study of the etymology of "infinity" and discovered the root word is "finis" which means end; unremarkably, "infinite" means endless. This, I reckon is crucial to solving the puzzle of whether the past is finite/infinite because, all said and done, we're looking for a beginning. Is it there? Is it not there? The catch is, our concept of infinity (endless) isn't designed for any consideration of beginningless.

2. On a timeline, with the arrow of time, if you're facing towards the future (normal), there's no problem with an infinite future but the moment you look behind you, you encounter the infinite past problem.

Imagine now that you're a time traveler to the past i.e. you're now facing in a direction opposite to the (normal) arrow of time, the world's past is your future and suddenly, an infinite past is not an issue because it's your future and the future is/can be infinite.

The nub of the issue is this: time elapsed can't be infinite or has to be finite but time yet to elapse can be infinite. Beginningless (not infinity) vs. Endless (infinity).

We need a brand new concept for beginninglessness.

Some Eastern thinkers suggest that time had no beginning, but I am not sure if that is possible logically. It seems like trying to draw a circle but without beginning it somewhere. The idea of eternal recurrence may have some bearing, but it still seems that there must be some kind of start. But, it could be that there is no end, but even this is hard to know with any certainty.

Some Eastern thinkers suggest that time had no beginning, but I am not sure if that is possible logically. It seems like trying to draw a circle but without beginning it somewhere. The idea of eternal recurrence may have some bearing, but it still seems that there must be some kind of start. But, it could be that there is no end, but even this is hard to know with any certainty — Jack Cummins

Begin-ninglessness isn't something that our current understanding of infinity (based on end-lessness) can handle/tackle. A begin-ning is baked into the idea of infinity as end-lessness.

First of all an infinite universe implies that everything that is possible is actual, even contradictory things. — Wosret

An infinite universe does not have to contain everything. You can have an infinity of even numbers 2, 4, 6,... but that infinity does not contain any odd number.

1. if the universe was temporally infinite, then there would be no 1st moment
2. if there was no 1st moment, then there was no 2nd moment
3. if there was no 2nd moment, then there was no 3rd moment
4. ... and so on and so forth ...
5. ... then there would be no now
6. since now exists, we started out wrong, i.e. the universe is not temporally infinite — jorndoe

Infinity is not endless counting 1, 2, 3,...
It is a set. The set of all numbers simultaneously in one set. Eternity is all time.

1. if the universe was temporally infinite, then there would be no 1st moment
2. if there was no 1st moment, then there was no 2nd moment
3. if there was no 2nd moment, then there was no 3rd moment
4. ... and so on and so forth ...
5. ... then there would be no now
6. since now exists, we started out wrong, i.e. the universe is not temporally infinite — jorndoe

I think 5 is a non sequitur.

Let’s say we are trying to figure out if time A (the Big Bang, for example) was the first moment or not.

If the universe is temporally infinite towards the past, then time A could not be labeled as the first moment, but there would still be a time A. Likewise, the very next instant (time B) could not be labeled as the second moment, but there would still be a time B.

I think the argument should be rephrased, in order to avoid confusion, as follows:

1.If the universe was temporally infinite towards the past, then no moment of time could be labeled as the first moment of time.

2. If no moment of time could be labeled as the first one, then no moment of time could be labeled as the second one.

3. If no moment of time could be labeled as the second one, then no moment of time could be labeled as the third one.

4. ... and so on and so forth...

5. Therefore, the “now” can’t be labeled as the nth moment of time, no matter what you substitute for n.

Labels in a universe with an infinite past work the other way around: you can only label each moment as last (the “now”), second to last, etc, always in reference to the last moment rather than the first one, since by definition a universe with an infinite past has no first moment.

Or maybe I made a mistake somewhere.

Time is continuous in that it is infinitely divisible. This is so because time measures motion which is measured by distance. A point of time has no length but separates chunks of time.. All motion travels infinite time in one respect but the argument of the OP is that there is too much time in (past) eternity for it to have reach the Big Bang. However I think it's obvious eternal time has enough time to reach now or any past point by the mere fact that it is eternal. The wheel of time is the supreme ruler of the world

There is no first motion in an eternal universe and so no second but every point in it is in bounded by eternity and the whole system is eternal

If there is no first moment then that doesn't imply there is no second. Each second moment needs a predecessor. Which can be a first moment. But as a moment needs a predecessor, there can't be a first moment. So the universe has to be infinite. We call the first moment first because we can't see its preceding moment. I can see a rabbit making droppings. Apparently out of nothing. Coming to realize the drops emerge from the rabbit's interns seems like a revelation. Same for every first moment.

One exciting possibility is that time is unreal or, to rephrase, time is an illusion. An infinite past doesn't make sense and nor does a finite past. Ergo, time is...a mirage.