I'm not sure how you're concluding that "the vault never contains an infinite number of coins" unless you mean "There is no positive integer n such that after n deposits, the vault contains an infinite number of coins". Which is perfectly true--if you put n coins into an empty vault, the vault contains no more than n coins--but if that's your only conclusion, I don't see what it has to do with the infinitude of the past. Yes, after adding n events to the past, the past contains n more events; how does that suffice to show that the past is finite?

Well, fine. You're saying that if we walk a step at a time down the path, it's impossible that we could have walked an infinite distance. What's the argument? Your task is to show (without assuming that there was ever aI agree. Again, this is the difference between the idea of "could there be an infinite number of coins?" and "have we added an infinite number of coins to the vault?" We aren't talking about whether not the universe is capable of containing an infinitely long straight line, but rather, is it possible, given that you are at some point P, to have crossed an infinite amount of that straight line.firststep, or that the universe is past-finite) that if someone walks one step at a time, the number of steps they've taken must be finite.

I honestly don't know what any of this means. Imagine you're on the real number line, and you've got a bunch of coins, each one labeled with a distinct real number between 0 and 1 (inclusive). Each of these are tokens of "events", let's say. You travel along the real number line in a special car that moves at a speed of 1 unit / second, starting at a = -1 and finishing at a = 1; when the car crosses the value t, it automatically deposits coin t into your bank account.I think it is important to remember that we are at a definite "now," a distinct coin in the analogy. And we must remember that for ~F to be true, then the output of S must be infinite. IE the value in the vault, the distance crossed or the time passed is infinite in amount. But there is not distinct point where S produces an infinite output. It is only in the realm of the "infinite coin" that this becomes true, but the "infinite coin" is not a distinct object, just as infinity isn't a distinct number. And as such we can't be at that distinct point, now. We can't be the infinite moment added to the set that is the past (which oddly is also the next moment and all the past moments as well). Thus if we are at a distinct nowandS is the process through which time is passed, then ~F cannot be true.

So after you arrive at b, you've deposited all the coins into the account, and you've done so one at a time (never two or more coins at the same time). What's the flaw? Where's the contradiction?

"Crackpot" doesn't mean untrained, amateur, or unpublished.I don't recall vouching for anything. Rather, I noted that the persons publishing them were not untrained amateurs (as alluded to) and that at least two of them were published or presented in a professional setting.

They weren't dismissed by virtue of being untrained, amateur, or unpublished. They were dismissed by virtue of doing physics poorly.Neither of the above guarantees accuracy, but it does indicate that a better response is required to dismiss them than what has been offered.

## Bookmarks