This is not similar to that paradox. An analogy would be to say there is infinite space between two objects.
Which *is* (one of) zeno's paradox.
So no matter how far they move they will never touch. But the idea of infinite space is illogical so the analogy is worthless. It assumes the impossible.
Again I don't think you appreciate the situation.
Again, I think I do. I think you're not understanding the problem with your reasoning.
If there is infinite time in the past then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. But if there is infinite time before yesterday then it never could have occurred because for it to occur infinite time must pass first.
No.
Yes, if there is infinite time in the past, then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. This does NOT, however, mean that yesterday could never have occur; and here we again fall into the paradox I mentioned: The reason the paradox doesn't work is NOT because (as you say), the concept of infinite space is absurd; but because there is a finite "smallest" space. Space could still be infinite, but the space between any two objects would not be; there is a lower limit; a point where you can no longer divide space in two. The existence of this lower limit does NOT imply the existence of an upper limit. The same principle applies to time, like I tried explaining. You CAN have infinite time in both directions and still have yesterday, because the 'lower limit' in the case of time is NOT in the past, but rather in how we describe individual chunks of time.
Regardless of how long the timeline is, yesterday will still happen because while time itself may be infinite, our perception of the timeline is relative and the time between any two relative points on the timeline is NOT infinite.
We can't assume there is anything beyond this universe, even if it is possible. We can only know things if there is evidence for them. If evidence for time before the big bang is beyond us then we can not assume it exists.
I don't think you understand what it means to assume something. It does not mean saying "this is true"; it means "let's say this is true, what then?"
We have no evidence of space or time existing before the big bang.
We have mathematical models suggesting that it did; that constitutes evidence. Not sufficient evidence to arrive at even a fraction of certainty as to what happened; but it most certainly is evidence.
And if time is something that can be distorted in some way, it can be different to two different people, then it must be something real. You can't perceive the distortions of unreal things.
Tell that to a schizophrenic.
If we can't find evidence we can't assume anything exists beyond this universe. What people who propose something like the multiverse are doing is looking for evidence within this universe of universes beyond it. They know they need evidence or the hypothesis goes nowhere.
We *must* make these kind of assumptions in order to advance our understanding and investigate.
He's talking about good old space. The space that is out there. What is meant by space in a vacuum is good old space that is out there and can be bent by gravity minus all the energy that normally travels through space. So you remove all the external energy and all the matter and space still has energy. Space is something. It is an entity.
...Sigh.
Yes. That's what I said. He's talking about an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT thing than I am. He is not talking about space in the true sense; which is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction.
You can fill up said space with stuff, but that doesn't mean space (the three dimensional extent in which objects/events have position) itself is "stuff"; space is an abstract concept.