RE: Why the universe is most likely not infinite – Part 5: Popular argument against infinity

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.

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?

This makes more sense in the context of the tenseless theory of time, where there's no difference between the past, present and future.

It's interesting. As I see it, one could also say that there is only the present, and that it is eternal.

Bear in mind that a finite time also creates counter-intuitive situations. For example, what was there before the beginning?

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!