An infinite past.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
1. In order for the present moment ..., temporal existence would have to pass through an infinite number of prior events
2. i.e., in order for the present moment to occur, the event immediately prior to it would have to occur, and the event before that, ..., ad infinitum),
3. Making and beginning-less since this would make the observation of present events an impossibility.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
How does statement '3' follow from '2' ???

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Aren't you leaving out something?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
no. I've just numbered the statements in your argument for clarity and stopped
at the problem. I don't see how "3" follows from "2". Can you make it clearer
please?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
P1: "...In a beginning-less universe, temporal existence would have to pass through an infinite number of prior events (i.e., in order for the present moment to occur, the event immediately prior to it would have to occur, and the event before that, and the event before that, ad infinitum), making it impossible for any event to occur."

P2: "But, obvio ...[text shortened]... es P1 and P2. The statement in parenthesis (which you made "2" ) is a reiteration of P1.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
P1: "...In a beginning-less universe, temporal existence would have to pass through an infinite number of prior events (i.e., in order for the present moment to occur, the event immediately prior to it would have to occur, and the event before that, and the event before that, ad infinitum), making it impossible for any event to occur."

Originally posted by epiphinehas
But the half-way points in Zeno's paradox aren't actual. You can't just say, "well, what if they are actual..." and expect your critique to suddenly hold more water. It's like saying, what if unicorns existed. Well, yeah, if unicorns existed, I'd have to admit they are comparable to horses. But, given unicorns don't exist, it's an irrelevant point.

I think to be a more accurate analogy, suppose I claim that I arrived at the current point in time by first going through yesterday, and half the day before that, and a quarter of a day before that, in an infinite sequence. If epiphinehas is to be believed, then I could not possibly be here, even if time is finite.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
At least you are trying to be logical now.
However P1 contains at least two premises (so if you argue "reductio ad
absurdum" that would mean either one or both were wrong) [b]and a conclusion
making it impossible for any event to occur.

Can you please have another bash at it?
Thanks. 🙂[/b]

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'll do my best.

P1: In a beginning-less universe, for any event to occur an infinite number of sequential prior events must occur.

P2: In a beginning-less universe, for any event an infinite series of prior events would take an infinite length of time to traverse.

P3: It is impossible to arrive at the end of infinity.

P4: Events occur.

C: Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'll do my best.

P1: In a beginning-less universe, for any event to occur an infinite number of sequential prior events must occur.

P2: In a beginning-less universe, for any event an infinite series of prior events would take an infinite length of time to traverse.

P3: It is impossible to arrive at the end of infinity.

P4: Events occur.

C: Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end." -- Stephen Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please explain/justify P3.
Explain how it doesn't rule out the existence of the integer 0, given that there are an infinite number of negative integers ie explain where you used some property of time in your argument that does not apply to integers.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b] "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end." -- Stephen Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html[/b]

The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't see the relevance of integers here (perhaps you can explain that). The proposition seems obvious otherwise. Were it possible to arrive at the end of infinity, it would not be infinity, by definition.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
That is why I said something to the effect of
"Do you think time is slowing down as you approach 2 seconds?"

Your way of looking at it is correct if you think time is dependant upon n.