Presentism and Infinite Chain of Past Events

[GrandizerII]

No, its the not same because using the analogy of counting from infinity to an integer (or tracing the line from infinity to an integer) no longer applies to my view. It seems more like youre simply against actual infinities existing, regardless of whether all its contents eternally or already exists.

I do affirm that it is impossible to have an infinite number of anything by successive addition (including causes). However, you are positing an eternal universe AND block time and saying you think this makes the most sense because of 'philosophy'. But here's the thing: isn't positing a 'brute fact' anything but philosophy? When you say you reason from 'philosophy', I think what you really mean is that you want to avoid  a beginning or a first cause and here is the intellectual price I am willing to pay.

There is no successive addition happening in a "block" static frozen reality. Your concept of causality is not the same as how I look at it metaphysically. You are looking at it based on what you observe, but causality (like any change) is an illusion under the view I hold to.

I dont want existence to not have a beginning, its just very important to let logic guide my way of thinking.

---

As for quantum "randomness", this is an unfortunate belief that arises from interpretations like the Copenhagen interpretation. The Many-Worlds interpretation is a logical interpretation of the quantum happenings and does not assume or imply that things are truly random. You just happen to experience one set of possibilities in this world, while in another world, a different set of possibilities are being experienced by "you". Randomness is an illusion under the MWI.

How is it determined which state the you in this universe experiences?

Good question. I dont know. But MWI rules out true randomness, as its deterministic interpretation.

I do affirm that it is impossible to have an infinite number of anything by successive addition (including causes). However, you are positing an eternal universe AND block time and saying you think this makes the most sense because of 'philosophy'. But here's the thing: isn't positing a 'brute fact' anything but philosophy? When you say you reason from 'philosophy', I think what you really mean is that you want to avoid  a beginning or a first cause and here is the intellectual price I am willing to pay.

Some of this stuff is so fanciful, you might as well believe in a deity.

This is God of the gaps thinking. That said, I have no problem with a deity thats logical so long as there us evidence or indicator of its existence.