The concept of infinite regress

[Pachomius]

The way I see the concept of infinite regress, it is an invalid concept.

This board is about "The forum for the discussion and debate of general philosophy & epistemology," so let us all lovers of philosophy and in particular epistemology get together to share our thoughts on what is an infinite regress and whether it is an invalid concept.

Here is my take on what is an infinite regress, and pardon me if it is usually connected with the existence of God creator of the universe.

It is in that subject that infinite regress is eventually if not sooner brought up.

Dear posters here, we will work on infinite regress without bringing in our attachment to God creator of the universe, or our non-attachment to God creator of the universe.

If you think that I am veering into that direction, just tell me, and I will stop, okay?

Now, here is why I say that an infinite regress is an invalid concept, because it is impossible for us to do anything with it.

Here is why:

From my stock knowledge, infinite regress means something depends on another thing to come to existence, and this other thing depends on still another thing to come to existence, and so on and on and on without any end, in the series of one thing depending on another thing to come to existence, and then this depending on another thing anterior to it to come to existence.

How can such a concept be useful for any purpose at all, or how can you use it for any purpose at all.

I can't imagine how it can be used by me, but I am just one human, there are at present according to my stock knowledge some seven billion persons on earth.

So, there are certainly other humans who can use the concept of an infinite regress for their purpose(s), then we can they and me discuss how they can use it and how I can’t use it.

In this way I will learn something new, how to use the concept of infinite regress, and for what purpose(s).

 

[Gottservant]

Not everything that is constructed, is legitimate, by virtue of being constructed (selah)

Great post.

 

[True Scotsman]

The way I see the concept of infinite regress, it is an invalid concept.

This board is about "The forum for the discussion and debate of general philosophy & epistemology," so let us all lovers of philosophy and in particular epistemology get together to share our thoughts on what is an infinite regress and whether it is an invalid concept.

Here is my take on what is an infinite regress, and pardon me if it is usually connected with the existence of God creator of the universe.

It is in that subject that infinite regress is eventually if not sooner brought up.

Dear posters here, we will work on infinite regress without bringing in our attachment to God creator of the universe, or our non-attachment to God creator of the universe.

If you think that I am veering into that direction, just tell me, and I will stop, okay?

Now, here is why I say that an infinite regress is an invalid concept, because it is impossible for us to do anything with it.

Here is why:

From my stock knowledge, infinite regress means something depends on another thing to come to existence, and this other thing depends on still another thing to come to existence, and so on and on and on without any end, in the series of one thing depending on another thing to come to existence, and then this depending on another thing anterior to it to come to existence.

How can such a concept be useful for any purpose at all, or how can you use it for any purpose at all.

I can't imagine how it can be used by me, but I am just one human, there are at present according to my stock knowledge some seven billion persons on earth.

So, there are certainly other humans who can use the concept of an infinite regress for their purpose(s), then we can they and me discuss how they can use it and how I can’t use it.

In this way I will learn something new, how to use the concept of infinite regress, and for what purpose(s).

I think you're right. It is an invalid concept because nothing infinite can exist in reality. It is used to point out a logical problem with asking for a cause of the universe as a whole. Eternal however is not the same thing as an infinite regress. It simply means exists for all of time. Something can be finite and eternal because there is no time before it existed and no time after.

I believe that certain entities such as matter and energy are eternal and uncaused. They simply are, always have been and always will be.

 

[Freodin]

I disagree.

Infinite regress is a completely valid concept.

The common argument against it would be that "there cannot be an infinite regress, because you would never reach the current point."
That is logically unsound, for several reasons.

But the argument that the concept is invalid because it does not have a purpost... that is a weird one.

A concept does not have to have a purpose to be valid. It just has to be consistent.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Infinite regress is a completely valid concept.

The common argument against it would be that "there cannot be an infinite regress, because you would never reach the current point."
That is logically unsound, for several reasons.

Which reasons? I can't seem to get around the conclusion of that argument.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tinker Grey]

Which reasons? I can't seem to get around the conclusion of that argument.


eudaimonia,

Mark

My reason as I ponder this is that there is nothing actually traversing the infinite time in the regression. That time is infinite, if it were, does not mean that I cannot exist now. I came into existence X number of years ago and will cease to exist Y years from now. That infinite time came before and will follow is immaterial. I didn't traverse the time. Nor did anything traverse the time to get to me. It would be wrong, I think, to say even that the universe traversed the time. The universe contains time, is in part time.

An analogy I use is infinite space, as humans once thought the universe was. The fact, as it were, that the universe has infinite space doesn't mean I can't be on earth. I didn't have to traverse an infinite distance to get here. I simply am here. Same with time. I simply am here.

Pardon my random thoughts. First time I've tried to put this topic to "paper".

 

[Resha Caner]

In this way I will learn something new, how to use the concept of infinite regress, and for what purpose(s).

Are you familiar with Zeno's Paradoxes?

 

[Freodin]

Which reasons? I can't seem to get around the conclusion of that argument.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Two main reasons:

1. From the perspective of any specific object within that infinite regression, their point of view is the current point.

2. One might argue that to progress through an infinite regression, you would need to have an infinite amount of time. But if it is an infinite regression, then there is an infinite amount of time.

So I can see no problems with that concept, at least not based on the common objection.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The way I see the concept of infinite regress, it is an invalid concept.

Now, here is why I say that an infinite regress is an invalid concept, because it is impossible for us to do anything with it.

Huh? How does validity have anything to with whether we can "do anything with it"?

What would you like to "do with it"? I don't quite understand what you mean by "doing something with infinite regress".

Here is why:

From my stock knowledge, infinite regress means something depends on another thing to come to existence, and this other thing depends on still another thing to come to existence, and so on and on and on without any end, in the series of one thing depending on another thing to come to existence, and then this depending on another thing anterior to it to come to existence.

How can such a concept be useful for any purpose at all, or how can you use it for any purpose at all.

People use it as an argument for/against God's existence or for/against a First Cause.



I believe an infinite regress can exist and it happened at the Big Bang. But it is not an infinite regress through an eternal time, but rather an infinite regress through a finite time similar to Xeno's Paradox. We can keep looking back towards the start of the Big Bang getting closer and closer to t=0, but we can never reach it as there is always some cause beyond it between us and t=0 even if we are within a trillionth of a second of t=0.

Its similar to trying to get matter to absolute zero. So far, we can't do it even though we've gotten within a few picokelvins. This may very well be another case of infinite regress within a finite range.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What's the difference between an infinite regression and a god that has "always existed"?

 

[Chany]

What's the difference between an infinite regression and a god that has "always existed"?

The point of the argument is to try to indicate that there has to be something that always just existed. Otherwise, there would be an infinite number of causes in the past. Since there is infinite between points, we would never reach our current state.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yeah, but do God's previous actions cause his next options? If so, isn't there an infinite regress of previous actions?

 

[Chany]

Yeah, but do God's previous actions cause his next options? If so, isn't there an infinite regress of previous actions?

That's actually a criticism addressed by the medieval Jewish Spanish philosopher Mamoinides. He says that time is an accident of an accident. Translation: time doesn't start until something starts to shift.

It's really weird to explain. It is why many philosophers make God unchanging in thought.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's actually a criticism addressed by the medieval Jewish Spanish philosopher Mamoinides. He says that time is an accident of an accident. Translation: time doesn't start until something starts to shift.

It's really weird to explain. It is why many philosophers make God unchanging in thought.

Which makes him inactive and static.

 

[Chany]

Which makes him inactive and static.

The way to look at it is a coiled string. The spring is always ready to go, but time doesn't start until the spring actually starts moving.

Obviously, I'm just talking about it in a more general sense. The causal chain problem isn't solved by simply inserting an uncaused cause at the start of the chain, for the reason you stated above. We really don't understand things enough yet, most likely because our common sense view of time is incorrect to apply to everything, especially the beginning of the universe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The point of the argument is to try to indicate that there has to be something that always just existed. Otherwise, there would be an infinite number of causes in the past. Since there is infinite between points, we would never reach our current state.

Why would an infinite number of "between points" keep us from the present?

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's actually a criticism addressed by the medieval Jewish Spanish philosopher Mamoinides. He says that time is an accident of an accident. Translation: time doesn't start until something starts to shift.

It's really weird to explain. It is why many philosophers make God unchanging in thought.

I don't see how god being "unchanging in thought" fixes the problem. If someone says "god always existed" how can that be anything but an infinite regression?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The way I see the concept of infinite regress, it is an invalid concept.

This board is about "The forum for the discussion and debate of general philosophy & epistemology," so let us all lovers of philosophy and in particular epistemology get together to share our thoughts on what is an infinite regress and whether it is an invalid concept.

Here is my take on what is an infinite regress, and pardon me if it is usually connected with the existence of God creator of the universe.

It is in that subject that infinite regress is eventually if not sooner brought up.

Dear posters here, we will work on infinite regress without bringing in our attachment to God creator of the universe, or our non-attachment to God creator of the universe.

If you think that I am veering into that direction, just tell me, and I will stop, okay?

Now, here is why I say that an infinite regress is an invalid concept, because it is impossible for us to do anything with it.

Here is why:

From my stock knowledge, infinite regress means something depends on another thing to come to existence, and this other thing depends on still another thing to come to existence, and so on and on and on without any end, in the series of one thing depending on another thing to come to existence, and then this depending on another thing anterior to it to come to existence.

How can such a concept be useful for any purpose at all, or how can you use it for any purpose at all.

I can't imagine how it can be used by me, but I am just one human, there are at present according to my stock knowledge some seven billion persons on earth.

So, there are certainly other humans who can use the concept of an infinite regress for their purpose(s), then we can they and me discuss how they can use it and how I can’t use it.

In this way I will learn something new, how to use the concept of infinite regress, and for what purpose(s).

I don't necessarily agree it's an invalid concept. Mathematics includes infinite sets and has logical ways of dealing with it. I'm not a mathematician (not even close, lol), but since it can deal with infinities, I guess it could also deal with an infinite amount of sequential events.

However, there's a difference between a concept and reality.

In reality, infinite regress of causes does not exist. For the simple reason that time doesn't stretch infinitly into the past. Time started when the universe started. There is no "before" the universe - however hard that is to wrap our minds around. It is what it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point of the argument is to try to indicate that there has to be something that always just existed. Otherwise, there would be an infinite number of causes in the past. Since there is infinite between points, we would never reach our current state.

Here's my problem with this quote... the word "always".
Our vocabulary, our language, was developed to deal with macroscopic object moving at sub-lightspeeds. The word "always" means "for all of time". Time is finite into the past.

What has "always" existed is that which has existed "for all of time". Examples of this are the space-time continuum (= the universe) and energy.

Causality furthermore requires time to exist. Causality is a phenomena that applies in the universe. It's a part of physics as it applies in the universe. No universe = no time = no causality.

Causes happen before effects.
So if time isn't infinite in the past, an infinite amount of causes is ruled out right out of the gate.

 

[Chany]

Why would an infinite number of "between points" keep us from the present?

Try counting from negative infinity to zero.