Thanks for the reply!

1. What exactly is an eternal being? He has no start in time (no birthday so does not exist). Ask him how he came about. He cannot tell you. So he can’t exist. Because eternal is impossible

ANSWER: It is non-sequitur that one without a birthday does not exist. Maybe he always existed. Maybe he is existence itself. If so, then it is non-sequitur and counter-intuitive that existence itself, has to have assigned to it, a period of non-existence prior to it. — BaldMenFighting

I don't think you can exist within time without a start, that would make you undefined. God(s), if they exist, exist outside of time and are finite in spacial extent.

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

ANSWER: Never heard this question before but l do like it, bravo!

Essentially, the Eternal being is beyond time, he is pure existence, no becoming, no deceasing. Actual infinity = everything present. Nothing remaining, hence no change, no death, no becoming (change = something new)

Within himself, he sets up a virtual machine and steps down, say, an eternal frequency, via a series of transformers (these are known as Intelligences, some call them archangels, l don't know if they exist or not but this is prominent in classical and mediaeval thought).

f = 1/t

if f = infinity, t = 0, time does not exist

as f is stepped down, we have various spheres where time, and thus reality (physicality relates to spatial dimensions, right? Which related to time) are felt differently

Btw it's absurd that you will meet eternity in the world. The world is within him, and that includes you. — BaldMenFighting

Im not sure I understand your argument, could you expand?

4. Assume time is eternal. If it can happen it will happen. An infinite number of times. No matter how unlikely it was in the first place! So all things happen an infinite number of times. So all things are equally likely. Reductio ad absurdum. Time is not eternal

ANSWER: It is non-sequitur that given infinite time, a thing will happen. Consider that an infinity of its not-happening would also happen, by the same token. So it's absurd to think this, and because it's non sequitur, l believe the absurdity is in the idea that anything can happen, rather than in infinity existing. — BaldMenFighting

This is a well known paradox with eternal time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology)

5. Relativity suggests the existence of multiple presents, whereas Presentism demands one present

ANSWER: I've no idea what presentism & relativity are but if that is what they are, then great!

However, please regard the answer to your point #2, there would be at least 2 presents - one that of the Infinite being, which is the eternal present, and then there's the present that we feel, in our fake virtual machine reality, staged within that infinite being. — BaldMenFighting

I do agree there is a real possibility we are in a virtual machine. Time must of been created; it can't of existed Eternally. How do you create something like time? Virtualisation is the only solution I can think of.

6. Time clearly passes. Time cannot have started passing infinity long ago because there is no way to get to today (IE -oo +1 = -oo)

ANSWER: I believe the reply to your point #2 explains this. You have actual infinity where time does not pass, and within that, some virtual machines operating virtual realities such as ours, where time flows. I guess t=00 in those realities would be observed as Big Bang type events, which are backed up by modern science by the way — BaldMenFighting

Actual Infinity is not allowed in the material world (discussed at length here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4073/do-you-believe-in-the-actually-infinite).

I believe base reality would be timeless but finite.

7. The universe follows rules that are described by mathematics. Negative infinity does not exist mathematically; there is no number X such that X< all other numbers because X-1<X. Hence the universe is not Eternal

ANSWER: I don't understand this, sorry, maybe explain deeper?
At least though, we can agree that the universe is not eternal. — BaldMenFighting

To model eternal time mathematically, we need -infinity to represent past eternal
-infinity is a quantity less than all other quantities
But -infinity - 1 < -infinity
So -infinity is not a quantity
So we can't represent eternal time mathematically

Similar to Pascal’s wager:

- if you are evil and god is evil you are punished
- if you are good and god is evil you are punished
- if you are evil and god is good you are punished
- if you are good and god is good you are rewarded

So the only sensible choice is to be good.

The argument applies to god too (he does not know if there is another more powerful god out there somewhere so he has to be good too).

I guess if you want to follow Pascal to the letter, you have to adopt the religion most likely to be the true faith. By popularity:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Christianity at 33% is the popular choice, but does that make it the most likely to be true? Could we be safer with a personal religion based on rationalism?

I also don't understand point 9. Eternalism sounds more depressing — JupiterJess

Eternalism is positive in that we and all of our moments have some form of permanent existence. Whether we actually get to experience stuff again is another question (but one can hope). With Presentism, the past has gone for ever...

I never understood how consciousness is accounted for by eternalism — JupiterJess

You have a distinct consciousness for each moment in time. No shared experiences between the different consciousness’s.

Eternalism has problems but less problems than Presentism I feel. Presentism is simple and natural, but there are too many paradoxes with it...

There are infinitely many possible initial energy levels. — Relativist

But energy comes in quanta so there must be finitely many initial energy levels?

So given infinite time but not space, everything should repeat endlessly?

That is not the length of the set, what are you talking about? You don't divide to determine the number of members in a set, you count them (counting as understood in math, not finger counting). — MindForged

Yes you do divide:

- the number line between 0 and 1 has length 1
- to find out how many things fit on the line
- divide line length by the thing length
- a number has length 0
- so the number of number between 0 and 1 is 1/0=UNDEFINED
- if you let number have non-zero length then there is a finate number of numbers in the interval but a potential infinity as number length tends to zero

I can’t believe you; we’ve been talking about this for ages and you have learned nothing. You are still not even using the proper language to discuss this is (actual/potential infinity).

You need to realise that you were told the wrong things about infinity at school and free your mind of Cantor’s muddled dogma.

I do not see how this follows from the premises. First, what does "permanent" mean in this context? Second, time is a measure. For it to actually exist requires a measuring operation, which requires a measuring agent. So, you seem to be proving too much. Third, you have made no argument that precludes change from going on forever. — Dfpolis

Time is real, permanent and finite: our universe and our time are embedded in base reality so each of our moments past, present or future maps to a point in base reality. We inherit the permanence quality of base reality.

Time exists independently of any measuring operation. The speed of light (speed =distance/time) speed limit is a fundamental law of the universe and it means time is part of the fabric of the universe.

I believe time has an end because I’m an eternalist and a finitist. The non-existence of the actually infinite is discussed here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4073/do-you-believe-in-the-actually-infinite

Yes, but that does not mean that the cause must exist in time. — Dfpolis

I did not say it should exist in time. The full argument goes:

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
4. So base reality must be timeless (to avoid the infinities) and permanent
5. Time was created and exists within this permanent, timeless, base reality
6. So time must be real, permanent and finite


Presentism implies that things have been around for ever: IE only now exists and now has always existed IE now has existed for an eternity.

Eternalism is defined here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

That is true only if there are a finite number of possible worlds. — Relativist

I think a finate universe but infinite time is sufficient for ‘if it can happen it has happened an infinite number of times’

Positive and negative infinity are not numbers but process limits. — Dfpolis

Exactly. Limits tend to but never reach actual infinity. Actual Infinity should be undefined in mathematics.

As far as I know, there is no generally accepted view that the universe has been around forever — Dfpolis

1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So base reality must have always existed

Your arguments do not seem to address this view. The seem to be aimed against the idea of infinite time, which few if any hold in the era of big bang cosmology. — Dfpolis

Presentism implies that things have been around for ever - for an eternity (hence many of my arguments)

Eternalism by contrast usually posits a definite start of time.

Even if time is emergent from change, my 9 arguments against Presentism still hold; time emerges with the characteristics required by Presentism or Eternalism (the second I would argue).

Is there a god? It’s a boolean question so a gambling man would initially answer 50% yes 50% no and proceed to alter the odds in light of the evidence.

I don’t get people who are black and white yes or no on this question. How can anyone be certain about a question like this?

That God might be omnipotent has long been understood as deeply problematic; I'd like to see how you-all resolved it — tim wood

They said the laws of physics are omnipotent.

Makes sense; we all do what we are told by the laws of physics so they are god-like in a sense.

Exactly we are the broken eggs that make the omelette of utopia

What kind of 'presentism' are we talking about here? — yazata

The existence of only the present means time did not have a start, which means that things have been around eternally. Hence some of my arguments.

I define nothing as no matter, energy or dimensions. Complete nothing. Not a quantum fluctuation in sight.

Sub-optimal existence and the problem of evil are transitory problems; they will go away as we evolve further. We are still a very immature society by evolutionary standards. Imagine what we will be like in a million or billion years time.

So God is playing the long game. Unfortunately for us we are at a very early stage of evolution so we are experiencing ‘can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs’.

We are animals evolving into gods. All part of God’s plan.

I think, that we do not observe time itself, we only observe change — ChatteringMonkey

But time is fundamental to the universe - the speed of light (speed=distance/time) speed limit is a fundamental law that governs everything in the universe. The law applies whether change or no so time is fundamental to the fabric of the universe.

Well I would class FTL travel as potentially naturalistic; it’s certainly not a magical proposition.

‘Something from nothing’ is however magical so I’d rule it out. Returning to the argument:

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
4. So base reality must be timeless (to avoid the infinities) and permanent
5. Time was created and exists within this permanent, timeless, base reality
6. So time must be real, permanent and finite

Do you buy the argument as far as 2 now or do you still have objections?

A computing array is obviously bounded by memory limitations as you found out when your program hung.

The naturals {1,2,3,...} are unbounded on the right as denoted by the ...

The reals between 0 and 1 {.1, .01, .001, ... } are unbounded ‘below’.

Both are an example of potential not actual infinity in that it is an iterative process that generates an infinity of numbers.

The number of reals between 0 and 1 is undefined: a number has ‘length’ 0 and 1/0 = undefined. If you let number have length>0 you get a finite number of reals between 0 and 1. So there is no way to realise actual infinity...

You just count them — MindForged

But you’d never finish counting the reals between 0 and 1 so you can’t completely define the set.

And no way is the set bounded in terms of precision; that stretches to infinity so it’s unbounded.

But my main point you ignore - numbers have size zero so they do not exist - so talking about how many you can get on a number line between 0 and 1 is nonsense.

The set of reals between 0 and 1 is provably infinite, and clearly bounded — MindForged

The Reals between 0 and 1 are unbounded in terms of precision. Imagine writing out all such reals to 1 decimal place (0.1, 0.2, etc...), then to 2 decimal places, then 3 etc... This is an example of potential infinity.

When you’re working out how many things compose another you take the overall length and divide by length of the constituent parts. So to work out how many points there are in the interval 0,1 you divide 1 by point size.

The problem with the number line example is that numbers have no length. They are labels that have no length. They don’t exist. So the number of numbers between 0 and 1 is 1 / 0 = undefined which is what you’d expect.

But how can you know that Naturalism holds before the Beginning? — SteveKlinko

Science (or natural philosophy as it used to be called) is based on naturalistic explanations. Science, for example, excludes god and magic as valid explanation for natural phenomena.

If the early universe does not follow naturalistic rules then we have little hope of ever understanding it.

Rather than giving up, why not assume the universe behaves in a naturalistic ways and proceed to argue from there?

Care to tell us how old that something is? — tim wood

I’m not sure it makes sense to talk about how old the something (base reality) is in the context of this argument. Remember the rest of the argument says base reality is timeless and permanent and contains time.

What is this Naturalism? How do you know Naturalism holds before the beginning. — SteveKlinko

Naturalism is the exclusion of magic from our consideration of the physical sciences.

I assert that ‘something from nothing’ is a magical proposition so we can exclude from our investigations of the origin of things.

Something can't come from nothing" is an unproven Belief when it comes to the beginning of everything. — SteveKlinko

I’m basing my argument on common sense and naturalism - not referencing any particular rule of physics.

- if you define nothing as no matter, energy, space or dimensions
- then it’s pretty clear ‘can’t get something from nothing’ holds
- so it follows something has existed always

The premise that we start with is that Before The Beginning there was Absolute Nothing. There was no Energy, and there was no Matter, and there was no Space. — SteveKlinko

I don’t think you can start with that premise:

- Something can’t come from nothing
- So something must have always existed
- So the state of ‘Nothingness’ is impossible
- If something is permanent it must be timeless (proof: assume base reality existed eternally - the total number of particle collisions would be infinite - reductio ad absurdum)
- So base reality must be timeless (to avoid the infinities)
- Time was was created inside this base reality

A finite universe is more likely than an infinite universe:

- We have empirical evidence for the finite
- We have no empirical evidence for the infinite

Give me an example of the actually infinite in nature.

But now imagine the Square growing to Infinite size. The sides would all move out to infinity. No matter how far you went in the universe you would never encounter a side of the Square. — SteveKlinko

A good point. Both the process of growing something to oo and shrinking something to 1/oo are destroying information, which is not meant to happen in the physical world.

How about this approach:

- An Actual Set is a collection of distinct, listed objects like {1,2,3}
- A Potential Set is the description of a potentially collectable set of objects.

So maths can still talk about the ‘potential’ set of real numbers...

It’s the set concept that is flawed. Maths uses a polymorphic definition of the word ‘set’:

- a collection of distinct objects like {1,2,3}
OR
- the selection criteria to populate a set like ‘the natural numbers’

So no wonder set theory is confusing with such an anomaly at its core.

The two different types of ‘set’ have different properties. One does not have a cardinality or a complete list of elements for example.

Making up magic numbers for the missing property (cardinality) is not the correct approach. Rather set theory should recognise these sets are two very different objects with different properties.

So a fully defined set has a cardinaity
But the selection criteria for a set does not.

Revelation 1:8

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty”

Surely an early example of a metaphysical argument for an timeless god...

finite universe is impossible, because it'd have borders with nothingness, which is the logical definition of crazy — SnoringKitten

That’s not crazy; just think about spacetime; where it is not, time does not exist so there is absolute nothingness (in contrast to everyday empty space which has vacuum energy and a time coordinate).

Now, have Achilles stop to catalogue the infinite subdivisions - forget Planck - that would be attaining to actual infinity. I believe in an actual infinity btw! — SnoringKitten

The ‘infinite’ points on a line segment is not an example of the actually infinite. If you use a sensible definition of a point (length >0), then there are always a finite number of points on a line segment and it is an example of potential not actual infinity.

But even if we were to try to use the definition you suggest, it would be incorrect to say that infinite sets are not well-defined. In mathematics the words 'well-defined' have a very specific meaning, and they only apply to functions, not properties (aka relations) — andrewk

Ok let’s use the language ‘fully defined’. A set is only fully defined once we have listed all its members. Clearly infinite sets are not fully defined yet maths tries to treat them in the same way as a finite set (which is fully defined).

The trouble is that it is that axiom that gives us the tool of Proof by Mathematical Induction. — andrewk

We just need an axiom to the effect that ‘the natural numbers exist but not as a completed set’ and Induction still holds.

If "actually infinite" were proven to be impossible by way of contradiction, or some other logical proof, — Metaphysician Undercover

- there is a quantity X such that X > all other quantities
- But X+1>X
- Reductio ad absurdum, the actually infinite is not a quantity

I think the mathematicians have the definition of Point wrong:

“That is, a point is defined only by some properties, called axioms, that it must satisfy. In particular, the geometric points do not have any length, area, volume or any other dimensional attribute’

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

If a point has no length it does not exist so the definition is contradictory.

A point must has length > 0 else it does not exist. With this revised definition of a point we can see that the number of points on any line segment is always a finite number rather than Actual Infinity.

But the information is inside the universe, in the objects inside the universe, no? So it should follow the laws of physics. — litewave

They could leave a copy of your information in this universe so that nothing is disrupted and move your original information to the new universe.

The movement of information should be consistent with known laws of physics though... — litewave

Well the laws of physics might be different outside the machine, but what would be more relevant is the laws of the computer(s) hosting our virtual universe.

Moving data between universes maybe possible depending on the architecture of the computer(s). Imagine two virtual universes running on the same computer. Memory could be moved by adjusting a pointer and relocating someone into another universe. Once you in another universe your information could be transformed somehow into a new you.

There are various arguments to say Time was created by an entity or entities. If time was created, how? I can only think that you could go about creating a dimension virtually... can’t think of any other way. So whilst ‘The Matrix’ type scenarios are unlikely, I don’t think they can be discounted completely?