I have a surplus of money. But I live in a culture that generally did not go out of their way to help me in my times of need. So with that in mind, I save my money for the next time I get in some kind of trouble that I would be in a position to dig myself out of whatever hole I find myself in. I don't help others because in my greatest times of need no one was there to help me. If we lived in a more altruistic society I think I would help others more, but we don't.

From a less bias point of view I should say. I'm thinking it's probably 50%. If we exist in a possible world where LNC is true then math would be valid and the calculation of the 50% would be accurate but if we already know that the LNC is true in that world then it would actually be 100%. If we exist in a possible world where LNC is not true then math would be invalid but since LNC is not true then it would be 0% probability that the LNC is true. So it would still be 50% from that perspective. I'm likely overthinking it by trying to bring in the likelihood of math being accurate into it.

I don't have a better proof for LNC either except that it's a necessary truth to prove or disprove anything including itself.

Presentism seem to preclude such higher dimensions - by saying 'only now exists' - it says to me that all things that exist, exist in the present. — Devans99

Maybe time is the same thing as motion. I'm not sure how you'd work that into presentism vs eternalism points. But the way it sounds like it would work that way is things that exist right now exist right now. Things that exist a few moments ago, still exist but they're slightly modified due to motion. So now exists, everything besides now exists to a certain extent but a lesser extent the further back in time you look.

When I suggest nothing coming from something, I'm implying that time is not infinite also. In order to conclude that nothing exists if now doesn't exist, you would need to prove nothing exists besides space and time which you obviously don't believe yourself. There may be higher dimensions beyond time and space.

The universe does not seem very finely tuned for life to me. Otherwise you'd think SETI would have discovered life somewhere else by now. Most life cannot survive outside of Earth's atmosphere without protection for more than a few seconds. Most of the observable universe is a vacuum. That's a lot of billions of light years of space that's not finely tuned for life.

The legal system goes easier on women. Women have that advantage.

↪coolguy8472
Having time start without a cause is a sort of creation ex nihilo but seems worse because time itself is absence too - could time start/be created whilst lacking both time and a cause? — Devans99

Sure for some reason we aren't aware of. Like a hidden undiscovered universal constant. Something came from nothing for the same reason Pi starts with 3, because that's just how it is. When nothing exists something must exist then "poof", now something exists. Seems easier to believe than religious texts.

What I mean is:

- creation without time and anything else is impossible
- creation without time but with something else is possible — Devans99

Why can't creation have been just sparked without a reason? It would be like an axiom. When you ask why, why, why, why, (assuming no infinite regress exists to this) eventually one would expect to arrive at an "is because it is" type answer. So maybe creation happened without time and anything else.

too broad. And "nothing" and "something" are not visual phenomenon. There are plenty of "something"'s out there that we can't see.

the first paragraph says we can't count that

I have been trying to find an example of two things that share no properties and have no similarities with each other, and are completely different from each other. Now, I am aware that there are trivial properties that any thing will have (properties such as self-identity, being a thing, etc.), and also, if three or more things exist, which is obviously the case, then any two things, no matter how different, will share the property of both not being some other third thing. (For example, my leg hair and the Andromeda galaxy both share the property of not being Abraham Lincoln). I don’t count those kinds of properties, as they are inevitably there, and they are so trivial thay many may not even consider them to be properties. I mean significant, noteworthy, non-trivial properties (for example: being blue, being a living organism, being large or small, being square-shaped, etc., etc.). — Troodon Roar

It probably has something to do with the bystander effect. By a group of people making the decision each person feels less responsible and then less guilty for doing cruel things.

It's a trivial difference to point out that one is the absence of the other in this scenario.

Trivial difference :)

↪coolguy8472
Space is the only other dimension so drawing analogies to time is tempting. So I'm thinking from the spacetime viewpoint. So thinking of an object as a solid brick in 4D space time, if there is no temporal start, it implies one side of the brick is missing. That's not a valid object IMO.

I'm trying to formulate an argument from a different angle:

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must have permanent existence (else there would be nothing)
3. That something in itself has no cause
4. To have no cause; something must be beyond cause and effect; IE beyond time.
5. So time must have a start and eternalism holds — Devans99

What's wrong with time having a beginning but was not caused by anything beyond time or otherwise? It would be time began when time began. There's would be no such thing as "began" without time afterall.

↪coolguy8472 What is the trivial property you have in mind, simply the word 'thing'?
My argument is that any concept that we think is also a contrast, an edge. A line implies that which it emerges out of, the background. Something is only something because it has an edge, a contrast, a boundary. It also emerges out of something else. The word 'nothing' would be incoherent if it didn't also imply a contrast, edge, boundary. Nothing can only be nothing because it emerges from something prior to it. It is a negation of a prior something. 'Nothing' intrinsically depends for its very meaning on 'something'. Its like darkness and light. Each means what it does only by comparison to its other. — Joshs

from the original post: "Now, I am aware that there are trivial properties that any thing will have (properties such as self-identity, being a thing, etc.), "

calling them "things" as something they have in common doesn't count per the OP (that falls under "trivial property")

↪coolguy8472 But for it to be one object, the temporal start must be connected to the temporal end (else it is two separate objects).

I think you have to think about the topology of objects in space and then transfer that thinking to time. In space, saying something has no identifiable start point is equivalent to saying it does not exist - if it has no start point, it has no length (end-start) or breadth so it can't exist. It is exactly the same thing when you come to consider time.

For me, things without starts are in an infinite regress and thus are impossible. If you think about a moment, it defines the following moment. So infinite time forms an infinite regress. But there is no overall starting moment, so none of the moments in the infinite regress can ultimately be fully defined. Each moment makes sense by its own, but overall infinite time cannot be because the whole think is undefined.

If you think about the set of negative integers:

{ ..., -4, -3, -2, -1 }

The ... means the set is partially defined. Strictly speaking that means undefined. Anything without a start is undefined. — Devans99

I don't know about the topology angle. You'd have to link me to something like why things without starting points don't exist, or exist as 2 objects, etc.. Is there a reason why you're preferring to evaluate the nature of time under those constraints?

You cannot use Santa's non existence to prove you don't exist. — Devans99

Correct, that's why you can't use the non-existence of a start point of an eternal universe to prove now doesn't exist either.

It is a fact that the start is always connected to the end so it is always valid to traverse from start to end proving non-existence. — Devans99

That hasn't been proven. If there exists a scenario where a start does not exist then that would be false.
Saying something is true because it's a fact is still question begging.

Your argument shows that Santa does not exist. That does not show my argument is invalid. — Devans99

it actually shows that santa clause does exist with a proof by contradiction. I used the same form of argument you used to show what it doesn't work.

Just because time still exists, does not mean that the object existed at that time. We know the object has no temporal start point so the object will not exist at the next point in time (even though that point of time exists). — Devans99

Within your argument you're using the absense of existence of a start point to spread that non-existence to infinity to "now". That's the same concept as me using santa's non-existence at the north pole to spread his non-existence to where I'm at now to prove I don't exist therefore santa must exist by contradiction.

I am not; it is a fact that the start is connected to the end. So if the start does not exist, the end does not exist. All that is required is to know that the start is missing. — Devans99

Within your proof you we assume a start point does not exist but then invoking the existence of it anyway when doing "start+infinity". If we assume an eternal universe in our premise then we are assuming the start does not exist.

Yeah I'm sure we are going in circles. Looked at this OP argument again:

1. Assume a particle does not have a (temporal) start point
2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start)
3. So particle does not have a next to start (by Modus Ponens on [1] and [2]).
4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+∞ (IE now)
5. Implies particle does not have a (temporal) end
6. Implies particle never existed

Here's a proof that Santa Clause exists in the north pole using this same argument form:

1. Assume Santa Clause does not exist at the North Pole
2. If Santa Clause does not exist at the north pole then there does not exist a place next to Santa Clause at the North Pole
3. So Santa Clause does not have a place next to Santa Clause at the north pole
4. And so on for next to place, next to Santa Clause at the North Pole, all the way where to I exist right now
5. Implies that I don't exist
6. implies I never existed

Therefore Santa Clause exists at the north pole.

The argument form used in your proof has at least 2 ways to correct the argument that can be pointed out similarly in the Santa Clause argument. Either from referencing a non-existent location (Santa Clause at the north pole) against a real location (my location). Or from assuming the place "next to" the North Pole doesn't exist because Santa Clause doesn't exist there.

Using these same types of corrections arguments your proof, either this premise can be disproven:

2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start)

The point of time where any would-be starting point may not exist but that particular point of time still exists except does not have the property of being a "starting point". Any point in time next to this point of time also exists. So we could say the point of time "next to start" does exist except the point it's next to does not have the property of being the "starting point". Like the North Pole and the place next to the North Pole still exists regardless of whether or not Santa Clause exists there.

or this point could be disproven

4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+∞ (IE now)

Referencing our universe from a non-existent point of time or a point of time in parallel universe. It's invalid because for the same reason why I cannot compute the distance between myself and Santa Clause if Santa Clause does not exist.

5. The being has always experienced events. No matter how far we go back in time, the being experienced events. So it must have experienced some events greater than any number of years ago. Which is a contradiction (can’t be a number and greater than any number at the same time). — Devans99

When following your reasoning people may agree with "So it must have experienced some events greater than any number of years ago." because they think you're saying this "So it must have experienced some events greater than any number [you select] of years ago.". Which is just a restatement of "No matter how far we go back in time, the being experienced events." There's a double meaning there. Granting this: "So it must have experienced some events greater than any number [you select] of years ago." is not implying the existence of a number greater than all numbers.

I could say if the universe does not have an age; it is not a universe. Having no age implies the universe has no temporal start implies none of it exists. — Devans99

Having an age of 0 and an infinite age are 2 different things in case you're conflating them with the phrase "no age". Universes that have a beginning need a temporal start but that does not mean that universe that don't have a beginning need a temporal start.

You have lost me. An eternal universe would not have a cause makes sense.But apart from that I not sure what you mean? — Devans99

Say you have the statement "If it's a raven then it's black". This statement is not disproven with a white dove. It would need to be disproved by finding a raven that's some color other than black.

Similarly if you have the statement "if something begins to exist then it needs a cause". This statement is not disproven when you show the universe had no cause. We can take the contrapositive and say "if it does not need a cause" then "it does not need a beginning"

The age of the universe is a numeric property; it takes a single numeric value. Actual infinity has no fixed value. Having a fixed value is the defining characteristic of a number. So Actual infinity is not a number. So it cannot be used for the age of the universe, size of the universe or any other real life numeric property. — Devans99

Pretty close to agreement. It's more like "if age of the universe is finite then it has a numeric property". By proving the age of the universe does not have a value in an eternal universe does not contradict that statement because it's a conditional.

Actual infinity has its own mathematical rules like:

∞+1=∞

Which make no logical sense. An object that when you change it, it does not change? There is no such object so the actual infinity concept flies in the face of our everyday experience and logic. — Devans99

not in conventional math. At best we could say as x approaches infinity x+1=(no limit) or infinity as a symbolic value to mean no upper bound.

It does not matter if it's called 'start' or 'beginning', objects must have one in order to exist. — Devans99

Maybe this is where you're tripped up on the whole thing: https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Conditional Within logic "if A then B" is considered true when A is false. A="anything that begins to exist" and B="needs a cause". Proving the universe did not have a cause in an eternal universe does not make the statement false. It makes A false but not "if A then B" false.

Yeah I get it. The contradiction you tried to point out doesn't work. I suppose the best way to describe the reality of an eternal universe is that it would exist with an actual infinite age but any attempts to quantify it would fall within potential infinity. Within your proof you try to disprove it by appealing to the actual infinity which doesn't work within real number math.

If there is no "start", then there is no "start"+1, etc... then say you'd never reach "now" therefore it's not possible. But there is no "start" because there is no beginning. Also would it not be possible for a universe to be created with infinite age by a god?

matter can exist forever. It's just that you're trying to extract an age from something that would be of infinite age. Infinity is not a number.

be solved?

As of now an outside observer using fMRI can only see that certain areas of the brain light up, but it is impossible to tell what is going on at the cellular level. Let's suppose that you had access to all this data, could you then predict exactly what they are thinking?

My guess is that the answer is no, and that having this information is not sufficient to solve the mind-body problem. After all, you would still never be able to know the exact moment when an electrical signal turned into a thought, or how that happened. What implications does this then have, does it mean the mind-body problem can never be solved? — curiousnewbie

Seeing the micro level wouldn't be sufficient. You'd need to be able to comprehend what's going on a larger scale too.

I'm playing devil's advocate with the idea of disproven an eternal universe. Other possibilities that I've speculated about that are easier to buy for me personally are:

1) time began at a moment such as the big bang and nothing caused it because it was the beginning nothing comes before the "beginning". And we're here because here, it's just how things are.

2) the speed of time slows to 0 as you approach the beginning of the big bang. From an internal point of view the universe had a beginning and from an external point of view the universe was eternal.

Look at it this way, say our eternal universe has a clock (its just a thought experiment). What time would it read? — Devans99

In a universe without a beginning, that scenario shouldn't be possible. A clock that begins from the beginning of that universe could not exist if a starting point of that universe does not exist.

Nothing and Something

I made a simple prayer once. That I would fall asleep then when I woke up and looked at my digital clock would read 12:34:56. Didn't work. Must have been asking for too much.

Using that same logic when someone prays and the prayer is not answered, would that then be proof that god does not exist?

↪coolguy8472
In your version:

1. Says that the number of events (in an infinite regress) is a number
2a. Says that infinity is not a number

So that means that the number of events must be a finite number... which means an infinite regress is not infinite.

Another way to look at it is that an infinite regress has no start. So therefore it has no 'next to' start element and so on until the end of the series... its all nothing. — Devans99

Using your same logic there's no such thing as "next to" elements to anything either. No matter how close next is to start, (start + next) / 2 is closer than that next is. Given infinite moments of time, is not traversing an infinite series a reality in either event?

Yea as I said its my best guess. This source may help https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2017/08/gut-truth

Hearsay evidence can increase the reliability of the witness, and thereby increase the likelihood of the claim being true. But it's not about the substance of the claim, that's what "hearsay" means. — Echarmion

I'm talking about in probability theory, not about practical persuasion in a court of law. If you were to:
1) grab the population of people who ever claimed to have won the lottery and have an eyewitness to back them up who actually won the lottery
2) divide it by the total number of people who claimed to have won the lottery and have an eyewitness to back them up
3) grab the population of people who claimed to have ever won the lottery and have 10 eyewitnesses to back them up who actually won the lottery
4) divided it by the total number of people who claimed to have won the lottery and have 10 eyewitness to back them up
5) compare these ratios
6) I think you would have a slightly higher ratio of people who claim more eyewitness testimony also have a slightly higher percentage of being correct in their claim

You still haven't explained how this is supposed to work. Just claiming to have witnesses is just another claim. — Echarmion

Because the entities making the claim are people. They're not 8-balls. People make observations and can accurately report those observations. While there's still the possibility of error and deception involved if you analyzed the psychology or statistics of it all I think you would find the claims that claim to have more evidence are more likely to be true than not.

I'm also applying the principle that something is not true because it cannot be proven false. It's an argument from ignorant fallacy to assume that. When I construct theories I allow for the possibility of being wrong for some reason I don't understand currently. Maybe reason is an illusion.

But there is an actual physical property of the system, the age of the universe, which takes a numeric value. It must have some value. That value has to be greater than any number. Contradiction.

I think that reality is logical so it would not include illogical concepts like infinity. — Devans99

But when you try to form a logical argument of an eternal universe you're assuming the age of the universe is an infinite value or without a value right away. Finite values and infinite values are opposite concepts. It does not need to have some finite value within a logical argument where it is assumed the value is infinite. An infinite regress is not something that is logically justified but not seeing a contradiction either. It would be one of those "is because it is" facts of life if it turned out to be true.

Yeah at best we can say that it's so obvious that A is A that there's no conceivable reason why it wouldn't be. But I don't see why there couldn't exist some inconceivable reason why it's not.

I think that numbers matter here. 10 witnesses make for a stronger case than just 1 or no witness at all. Multiple accounts that agree in content make it objective because it is unlikely that so many people are wrong about something. One person alone could be mistaken, hallucinating, deluded, etc.

However it seems that the value of witnesses is relative. 10 witnesses may be better than one/no witness but a 100 witnesses is better than just 10 witnesses. I think the number of witnesses should fit the nature of the claim. More out-of-the-ordinary the claim the more witnesses required. — TheMadFool

The motivations for lying play a factor. Someone probably wouldn't have a reason to convince me that they won the lottery unless it was a scam of some kind. It reminds me of this:



All things being equal though I do think that more eyewitnesses make the claim slightly more likely. Unfortunately this is why people exaggerate or make stuff up to deceive others. For that reason I'd also say the more unlikely the claim and the more incentive to the lie, the less of an improvement the odds become when claiming more evidence within the claim.

↪coolguy8472
I think actually I have made an error with my proof that an infinite regress is impossible - sorry. Amended version below:

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.
3. But can be a number greater than every other number
4. But there is no greatest number (If X is greatest, what about X+1)
5. So is not a number (from 3 and 4)
6. Contradicts [1] which says it is a number — 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.
2a. Therefore infinity is not a number

See? You're attempting to find a contradiction then picking and choosing what is false in the premise when you find the contradiction. In reality what you've done is assume an infinite number of events then try to impose a finite number of events to get it to contradict itself.

By definition, a hearsay witness has no information on the actual event in question. Hearing a claim does not make that claim more or less likely (unless the claim is about being overheard). — Echarmion

I would say instead "has no certain information on the actual event in question" it has possible information of the actual event in question. Because the claim on its own cannot scientifically verified need not imply that it follows that the likelihood of the hearsay being true is unchanged.

Mathematically speaking they call such things “impossible” not “improbable” - like jumping to the moon. It is also impossible for sand to be randomly blown around and construct a sculpture of my face. Entropy doesn’t allow this. — I like sushi

Statistically speaking yes. Impossible is 0. Improbable is near 0.

Hearsay only provides evidence of the overheard (or otherwise recorded) statement being made. It's not evidence for the content of the claim. — Echarmion

Why can't evidence of the overheard also be considered evidence of the content of the claim?

Some people? What do you think? What are your reasons? Isn't this why you opened a discussion on a philosophy forum? — SophistiCat

I was interested in what others had to say, not myself. I don't find it convincing. Others do. Often times when there's stark contrasts on both sides then the truth comes out I find out that there was some truth on both sides. So I figure the likelihood on average is alittle higher when someone makes a claim with more sources to back it up versus otherwise.

Look up what "hearsay" means. "Double hearsay" would be something like "My cousin heard from her hairdresser that X won the lottery." Your case is completely different. — SophistiCat

Someone says that someone else will say that they have a winning ticket. That's called double hearsay.