Similarly, the argument goes, it is as if God or Nature had less to do, to make the world as it is today out of nothing, than to make the lower-entropy world as it is supposed to have been some thirteen billion years ago out of nothing. Therefore, it is more probable that it happened like that. In a straight competition for probability between Russell’s outlandish hypothesis and common sense, Russell wins. I leave this for the reader to ponder.
Does this apply when the age of the Universe had the potential to be infinite? Anything less than that is infinitely less entropy, so it doesn't truly make a difference. Plus, if it could've been any time at all, that makes it continuous, and we know that taking a single value has a probability of 0, so it cannot be continuous.
