hinduwoman

I am really curious about this.

Practically speaking infinite regress in any argument stalls it, because there can be no end and therefore resolution.

But theoretically speaking, is there any reason why infinite regression of a cause should not be infinite?

Liquidrage

My personal opinion is that it would be impossible much like an infinite amount of "time" before now would be.

Of course my view is that time and cause are the same thing but much like the Sun being a fiery ball in the center of our solar system, it's not important right now.

joedad

hinduwoman,

Here's a decent article that gives an idea of the scales of distance already being discussed, and this article is already three years old. The article is more scientific than philosophical.

<a href="http://www.ldolphin.org/qfoam.html" target="_blank">quantum foam</a>

I don't see why infinite regression is necessarily impossible, though I must admit that at first it seemed as nonsensical to me as the idea of an eternal cosmos. Deconditioning is hard.

As far as I know, there isn't evidence to the contrary for either an eternal cosmos or an infinite regress. But I'm sure no scientist, and there's plenty of evidence for that.

joe

tronvillain

I see no reason that an infinite causal regress is necessarily impossible. As far as I can recall, every argument that I have seen that attempts to show that it is has failed.

Liquidrage

Yes, but any arguement to show how it would work or lead to the universe we see around us would fail too.

The Big Bang model is evidence to the "contrary for either an eternal cosmos or an infinite regress".

One can say that infinite regression is possible in thought or in theory just by invoking the word infinite. But trying to use that to describe the universe we see cannot be done without destroying much of what we consider fact in cosmology.

Note that even in a self replicating universe such as those present by Hawking or Linde you would still have a first cause.

EON_1

The concept of infinite regress is, of course, fundamentally important for cosmological arguments imputing to God the role of the "first cause." There are those like William Lane Craig who propose that infinity is a theoretical entity that cannot be applied in reality to regressive notions of time. An essential part of Craig's version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that an infinite chain of causation cannot exist because it is impossible to traverse an infinite series. That is, we could never reach "now" because there would have to be an infinite number of "before" points we'd have to traverse in order to arrive at "now." If you accept this reasoning, an actual infinite is impossible.

The whole of Craig's argument fails for a host of other reasons (see for example: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/kalam.html)," target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/kalam.html),</a> but I have yet to find a refutation of his argument for a finite universe. I tried for a while to equate his conceptualization with the Zeno's arrow paradox, but have since come to realize that there isn't a sufficient correlation between the two to do so. It seems to me that an infinite regress is, a priori, impossible, though logically it leads to no other conclusion than the universe did have a beginning.

A discussion of the issues raised by Craig can be found at <a href="http://www.uttyler.edu/meidenmuller/scholarship/kalam.htm" target="_blank">http://www.uttyler.edu/meidenmuller/scholarship/kalam.htm</a> .

Clutch

EON,
Try <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000284" target="_blank">here</a>.

EON_1

CLUTCH:

Thanks for the link (I wish I had read it before I posted, but oh well).

I don't want to belabor the points made in that forum, so I'll only respond to what I took to be your main assertion, namely that:

"What characterizes a past series of infinite length (of the cardinality of the natural numbers) is that it contains no element more than finitely removed from the present. And "contains no element" means contains no element. From every point in the series it's a finite length to the present. So such a past simply contains no point from which the traversing of an infinite series is required."

Part of the problem I have may have to do with the fact that I'm conceiving of time as a line (for the purposes of this discussion anyway), but I think that your argument only works unidirectionally along that line (towards the regress). Craig's point is not that we can't go backwards to a given point in time from the present, but that there would be an infinite number of moments (however that term would be quantified) that would have to occur before any present could occur. This conception of an actual infinity therefore leads us to the absurd result that no moment in time could ever actually occur due to the need to (progressively) traverse an infinitude of moments to achieve any consecutive moment.

This gets even more absurd when you consider that in order to traverse anything, there must be some starting point. To measure any distance, even a temporal one, you must have an origin from which you can differentiate the destination. In your example, the origin is the present, and we progress to some destination to the left on the timeline. In order to move to the right on the timeline, you have to choose some arbitrary starting point from which to measure your progression.

As much as I hate to say it, I think Craig's argument still holds (which means I'd be very receptive to being proven wrong
).

Regards,
EON

Clutch

EON, I'm receptive to showing that that's wrong, so we should be on the same page here!

But seriously. Thanks for your constructive comments. I don't have anything to add beyond what I have added (yet again) on that thread. The thing is just to let the consequences of the definition of a countable infinity sink in. This is not easy for anyone, since infinity is such a counter-intuitive notion by everyday standards. But it's all you need.

No point in the past is more than finitely removed from the present. That is, there is no point in the past such that getting from there to here requires completing an infinitude. That's by the definition of a countable infinity. If there's no such point... whence the claim that, on this model, an infinitude of events would have to be completed? The claim is just false.

But taking this on board is certainly no easier than digesting the idea that there are as many even numbers as numbers.

rainbow walking

Hi Hinduwoman,
Whether one is positing a god or a series of natural events INFINITY cannot be avoided. It is implied until specifically identified. If a god is postulated as the first cause one must consider that the god must have pre-existed that which it first caused and the same holds true no matter what hypothetical explanation is proferred for the existence of this universe. I have found that there are two PRIMARY corrallary axioms that are absolutely essential to any ontological argument: Existence and Time. These two, no matter how or in what language you attempt to justify the actuality of this universe, are necessarily implied if not specified.

Therefore from this point, having understood that infinity is inescapable, (and not irresolute) to our actual position within the loop, the only two terms that can be absolutely certain to have been infinitely involved is Time and Existence. Beyond that the arguments flourish as infinitely as the existence of time itself.

All attempts to assign a first cause , a necessary non-contingency, a cosmological theory, etc. and so on, are attempts to REDUCE infinity to our current level of comprehension.

Once you grasp that, it isn't hard to pick through most any argument and see where infinity breaks free from the attempt and the argument flounders from that point onward. Whether you call it infinite regress, eternity or infinity, it's all the same perpetual peering pastward for an explanation.

This universe is infinite. It's sequential event horizon is infinite, the only two components of it that are constant are Conflict and Change. Once one begins to comprehend this they can isolate these factors in any given situation and reduce infinity to prediction with fairly accurate results.

Now, if you're not confused enough already just ask me for further details and I'll be sure that you never seek a resolution to this dilemma again.