I think this does not solve the problem, but makes it worse. As I see it, an infinite time can never end, precisely because if it ends it would have an end, i.e., it would not be infinite.
We're never going to reach the end of the beginning of the infinite time. It's just a concept, just like the sum of infinites or a Zenonian progression, that's why I said it is logically conceivable. To resolve that paradox, for example, you need to take into account that the size of the set of infinite present times is also infinite, it's just that today can't be the last moment, there are infinite present times. This makes more sense in the context of the tenseless theory of time, where there's no difference between the past, present and future. This issue is more complicated than it looks and the paradox you're raising is well known. Bear in mind that a finite time also creates counter-intuitive situations. For example, what was there before the beginning?
Thank you for your attention. I will take the video into consideration.
Sure, I'm glad you're interested in the topic. If you want to hear it from leading physicists and philosophers instead of me, then you should watch it.
Why do you say there are infinite present times? I am not a fan of Ockham's razor, but it seems much simpler to say that there is only one present time that does not end, than to say that there are infinite present times that end one after the other. Am I missing something?
It's interesting. As I see it, one could also say that there is only the present, and that it is eternal.
Yes, I am also aware of some of the obstacles that this brings. Some, like creationists, would argue that something of a different nature than the universe pre-existed. But it is a tricky issue.
I think most of these paradoxes can be solved if we change our perception of time. And if we stop seeing time as something linear. As you say, a tenseless time takes a step forward in this direction, I think.
Paradoxes, in general, teach us, I think, that we are considering things in an inadequate way, and that therefore, we must employ another path. These are not unsolvable problems, but just an indication that something needs to change in our approach.
Thanks and regards!
It used to be common to think like this in the past but now we know better.
Yes, it is philosophical, but it is also logical. Now, with the advent of physics, it's also scientific. There are models of the universe with and without a beginning. Both types are mathematically consistent and empirically adequate. We just don't know which model is the right one, if any. All of this is covered in the documentary.
Thank you.