??? What does this mean
Because they claim that things started from one point at the beginning of time. Time, therefore, exists at one point only and has to change. That is a form of presentism.
Just because they assign the beginning to an event of finite count doesn’t mean it needs to be a presentist theory. Like this just isn’t true.
1 Like
Let C be the time period of each cycle and n be the number of cycles in the past. n * C is the total time in the past. In a beginningless universe, n is unbound. So we are dealing with the same problem: you cannot obtain an unbound number, n.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Do you understand what I said?
What I meant is I just don’t see how a finite beginning theory has to be presentist.
What do you mean you cannot obtain and unbound number n? What is the justification for this?
I already mentioned this. According to such a theory, the universe has a definite beginning at the beginning of time. So there is this sharp point that everything starts from, including time. This is the very definition of presentism: time exists at one point, read it as the beginning of the universe, and has to change.
You are conflating the existence of a beginning of time with presentism. A person who believes in a finite beginning could still hold an eternalist view, for example.
1 Like
By obtain, I mean get, acquire. Sorry, I should have written unbounded.
My question still applies. What do you mean you can’t acquire and unbounded number? What is your justification for this?
Because you can add any unbounded number to an unbounded number and you still get an unbounded number.
why does this mean you can’t acquire an unbound number?
We can only obtain finite things, since they have definite value. You collect something finite, and you are done. That is not something you can do with indefinite things; for example, when something is infinite, because you can always add infinity to what you obtain, and you get infinity, so the job is never done!
The universe more likely than not has an unbounded topology similar to a Klein bottle (also re: Hartle-Hawking’s “No Boundary Proposal” in physics & Spinoza’s “infinite” (i.e. without exteriority) “substance” in metaphysics). Biblical “In the beginning …” seems no less a figurative framing than “Once upon a time …” that is not indicative of anything beyond the Bronze Age narrative itself and therefore a factually false premise that invalidates the “first cause” argument.
Eternal cycles are a form of biggeningless theory of time.
I literally don’t get your point here. Why is it not possible for time to go back infinitely? You haven’t justified this.
I am afraid that I cannot help you further, as you cannot explain what you don’t understand in what I wrote.
Because you cannot obtain infinity.
What does this have to do with the case of time. I don’t collect time and put it in a bottle. This is not justification for why time can’t be infinite.
1 Like
You have to wait until that time passes.