Ask A Buddhist

[Bakmoon]

No, as long as the cause is the prime mover.

Baring that, would it be possible?

 

[InJesusItrust]

Maybe a math analogy will show why an infinite regress can’t exist. Suppose we can correctly compute an event and we know what it is, say F(200); We also know that to compute F we have to know F(n-1), say F = 4F(n-1) + 3, In order for F(200) to be computable we have to have at least one k such that F(k) is known and smaller than 200. If we had no base case, F(200) is not an event that can be computed. That is because is there is no base case and it regressed forever, F(200) should not be computable, but we already know it is. The base case HAS to exist.

In the same sense causality HAS to have a first cause, otherwise no event would exist. Clearly events exist and they depend on prior events.

 

[Contarini]

We may be using these terms diferently. When I am using the term infinite regress here, I am talking about an eternal universe, such as a big bang preceded by a big crunch preceded by a big bang preceded by a big crunch ad infinitem, each caused by an event before it.

Are you arguing that such a scenario is not possible?

Aquinas would say that a temporally infinite regress is logically possible (though he thought it incompatible with Christian revelation). What he objected to, philosophically, was an infinite number of agents acting at the same time.

I think this often gets confused, both by folks trying to uphold traditional Christian metaphysics and those criticizing it (not accusing “iloveangels” of doing this).

 

[Bakmoon]

My theory is Mahayana, specifically Madhyamika. My practice is mostly Theravadin, with a little Soto Zen mixed in. I have tried some of the Tibetan forms, but visualisation never worked well for me so I went for the simpler meditations instead.

rossum

Cool! I’ve always felt the biggest diference between Madhyamika and Orthodox Theravadin doctrine is terminology and wording style. Soto zen is similar in method too!

 

[iloveangels]

Baring that, would it be possible?

Maybe, but then, there could be one anywhere, any time, any place if that could happen all of its own accord. But that’s not possible either.

You’re stuck between a rock and a hard place here. You can’t have absolutely nothing, and you can’t have all the permutations that could be. There is no explanation for anything at this point.

 

[Contarini]

Ok, as long as it’s not used in a temporal sense in any way.

I was responding to Bakmoon’s use of the term, which seemed to be responding to you. I wasn’t sure if you had used it or not. It’s a term that I generally try to avoid–if I catch myself in time–precisely for this reason.

Yes, and no. There are things God must logically be. He can’t be dictated to by a higher power or factor or rule in any way, or the infinite regress shows up again.

Right. I was speaking of positive attributes.

Edwin

 

[Bakmoon]

Maybe, but then, there could be one anywhere, any time, any place if that could happen all of its own accord. But that’s not possible either.

Can you demonstrate this?

 

[iloveangels]

I was responding to Bakmoon’s use of the term, which seemed to be responding to you. I wasn’t sure if you had used it or not. It’s a term that I generally try to avoid–if I catch myself in time–precisely for this reason.

Right. I was speaking of positive attributes.

Edwin

Ok. I understand.

 

[iloveangels]

Can you demonstrate this?

We went through this before. Let me find the post…It’s several places but the one that seems to have the most in one post is #150.

 

[iloveangels]

I am familiar with thought-experiments. But the idea behind a thought-experiment is to pose a situation that does not actually obtain, in order to explore a point-and then to return to the situation that does actually obtain (the world) in order to discuss it. On the other hand, you are proposing a situation that does not obtain, but expecting to accept what you get as reality just like that–extended to the world–when it does not obtain in the world (because at the very least the universe does have things). See the difference?

There are several very famous thought experiments in philosophy like the “brain in a vat” experiment. But no philosopher is going to claim that he really doesn’t have legs or fingers when he leaves the campus. It’s an experiment.

To make the argument you apparently want to make, you would have to say something like, “Imagine a universe with nothing, no God, nothing.” Nihilism. Nihilism pure and simple, even definitional, and that’s all you could say about that scenario. That’s it. Which does not obtain as soon as you come out of the thought experiment because the world has things–causes and phenomena that we’ve been talking about all along–and that clearly exist. There’s no real conclusion, and it’s not even a good experiment. It’s kind of a pointless exercise if you want to know the truth. That’s the reality of nihilism as a philosophical view, and philosophers are well-acquainted with that. It’s not a new discovery. It’s the null case, sort of like dividing by zero–it doesn’t get you anywhere.

You could posit a universe with no God, nothing at all in it, and an observer. Which would either be an assertion contrary to fact, or a contradiction. You can’t have something and not have something at the same time. Remember P + not P is a contradiction. So that doesn’t get you anywhere either.

Or you can propose a scenario that has no God and some things. Then, you get an infinite regress, and that’s what we’ve been talking about.

Here it is.

More on the infinite regress in #125 & #127.

Basically the infinite regress is about the need to have an explanation for the things that actually do occur. We don’t need a justification THAT they occur. They do. We’re not blind to that. What we need to explain is why some do and some don’t.

And without more than a huge set of causes trailing off into the distance with no real explanations for them but a previous cause which needs an explanation which has no real explanation but a previous cause…etc etc…

All of these things don’t cause themselves.

 

[iloveangels]

Maybe a math analogy will show why an infinite regress can’t exist. Suppose we can correctly compute an event and we know what it is, say F(200); We also know that to compute F we have to know F(n-1), say F = 4F(n-1) + 3, In order for F(200) to be computable we have to have at least one k such that F(k) is known and smaller than 200. If we had no base case, F(200) is not an event that can be computed. That is because is there is no base case and it regressed forever, F(200) should not be computable, but we already know it is. The base case HAS to exist.

In the same sense causality HAS to have a first cause, otherwise no event would exist. Clearly events exist and they depend on prior events.

Thank you, yes. There has to be a primary base case or there is no explanation at all.

And even in your example, the primary base case has special properties, starting with but not limited to the fact that one particular instance of the number k is known, even if all the others are not so that we can get the function.

In the case of God this is on a different scale, certainly, but this is a good example of the logic involved to illustrate what’s going on.

 

[Bakmoon]

Here it is.

More on the infinite regress in #125 & #127.

Basically the infinite regress is about the need to have an explanation for the things that actually do occur. We don’t need a justification THAT they occur. They do. We’re not blind to that. What we need to explain is why some do and some don’t.

And without more than a huge set of causes trailing off into the distance with no real explanations for them but a previous cause which needs an explanation which has no real explanation but a previous cause…etc etc…

All of these things don’t cause themselves.

But I’m not positing infinite regress as an explanation for why things are the way they are. I’m just proposing it as a physical model of the universe as an infinite string of events. Is this physically impossible?

And even if it were, the theist position fares no better because the ultimate description for why some things happen and others don’t is because God made the rules of the universe This is inadequate because it only explains how these rules came to be (namely by the will of God.) It says nothing in regards to why one particular set of rules were chosen over another.

Also, it posits the existence of God which is unexplained. In both of these ways, the reason why some things happen and others don’t is ultimately unexplained.

 

[iloveangels]

But I’m not positing infinite regress as an explanation for why things are the way they are. I’m just proposing it as a physical model of the universe as an infinite string of events. Is this physically impossible?

And even if it were, the theist position fares no better because the ultimate description for why some things happen and others don’t is because God made the rules of the universe This is inadequate because it only explains how these rules came to be (namely by the will of God.) It says nothing in regards to why one particular set of rules were chosen over another.

Also, it posits the existence of God which is unexplained. In both of these ways, the reason why some things happen and others don’t is ultimately unexplained.

The “infinite string of events” IS the infinite regress. And there are all kinds of problems with it.
a) how do you know it’s really infinite?
b) if it can be infinite (no explanation given), what else can be infinite?
c) if it can be brought into existence with no more explanation than that, what else could be brought into existence just as easily?

Your explanation isn’t an explanation. It’s only a partial observation that you see things happening. Big deal. We all do.

Your method would have NO way for rules to come into existence except by happenstance. Anything could be a rule. Anything. OR nothing. And yet, that’s not how things work, is it?
Not only that, your method only tells you WHAT is a rule. It says absolutely nothing about WHY it’s a rule.

Seriously, Bakmoon, if you can suggest that cows have horns because you think that’s an infinite property of cows because of some kind of infinite string of events that have no explanatory power, I have no idea why you find God incredible. You’re choking on a grape while swallowing an watermelon whole.

 

[InJesusItrust]

But I’m not positing infinite regress as an explanation for why things are the way they are. I’m just proposing it as a physical model of the universe as an infinite string of events. Is this physically impossible?

And even if it were, the theist position fares no better because the ultimate description for why some things happen and others don’t is because God made the rules of the universe This is inadequate because it only explains how these rules came to be (namely by the will of God.) It says nothing in regards to why one particular set of rules were chosen over another.

Also, it posits the existence of God which is unexplained. In both of these ways, the reason why some things happen and others don’t is ultimately unexplained.

An infinite regress is a logical impossibly, let alone a physical impossibility. I would think that reality is constrained by what is logically possible.

If Poe goes when Polly goes and Polly goes when Peter goes and Peter goes when Poe goes, they can only go if there is one who initially goes. An infinite regress is only possible if the universe had an initial state and if it had an initial state it is not an infinite regress anymore.

 

[Bakmoon]

The “infinite string of events” IS the infinite regress. And there are all kinds of problems with it.
a) how do you know it’s really infinite?
b) if it can be infinite (no explanation given), what else can be infinite?
c) if it can be brought into existence with no more explanation than that, what else could be brought into existence just as easily?

Your explanation isn’t an explanation. It’s only a partial observation that you see things happening. Big deal. We all do.

Your method would have NO way for rules to come into existence except by happenstance. Anything could be a rule. Anything. OR nothing. And yet, that’s not how things work, is it?
Not only that, your method only tells you WHAT is a rule. It says absolutely nothing about WHY it’s a rule.

Seriously, Bakmoon, if you can suggest that cows have horns because you think that’s an infinite property of cows because of some kind of infinite string of events that have no explanatory power, I have no idea why you find God incredible. You’re choking on a grape while swallowing an watermelon whole.

I just said I’m not using the model as a means of explaining the way things are, only as a model of the universe as a whole. And I just demonstrated that the theistic model ultimately has the same explanatory value anyways. Could you respond to what I wrote rather than what you thought I wrote?

 

[iloveangels]

I just said I’m not using the model as a means of explaining the way things are, only as a model of the universe as a whole. And I just demonstrated that the theistic model ultimately has the same explanatory value anyways. Could you respond to what I wrote rather than what you thought I wrote?

I responded to your first question directly. You asked,

I’m just proposing it as a physical model of the universe as an infinite string of events. Is this physically impossible?

The answer is no, unless you are willing to say that anything at all could happen and you can have no explanations whatsoever for anything that happens. You can only relate that things do happen, to the degree that you’ve experienced them, not why. That method has no explanatory power because it always depends on a more remote cause for explanation which depends on a more remote cause, that depends on a more remote cause, etc etc etc. ad infinitum.

And even if it were, the theist position fares no better because the ultimate description for why some things happen and others don’t is because God made the rules of the universe This is inadequate because it only explains how these rules came to be (namely by the will of God.) It says nothing in regards to why one particular set of rules were chosen over another.

The theist position doesn’t have to deal with the infinite regress, at least. That’s a huge benefit. As such, it has explanatory power as to what things can exist and what can’t, even if you don’t like the explanations that it offers.

Also, it posits the existence of God which is unexplained. In both of these ways, the reason why some things happen and others don’t is ultimately unexplained.

Your system has no explanatory power whatsoever either about what things exist or what things don’t exist. None.

Remember that we agree that N is not the case. If N is not the case, what is?
HINT: It’s not a taxonomy of stuff stretching into the past that brought itself into existence and can’t explain anything because it always depends on other instances of the unexplained stuff that it’s made of. That’s an infinite regress right there.

PS. The argument you’re making is just as bad on the level of the universe as a whole, as it is in concrete instances. Neither level works because the logic doesn’t work.

 

[Bakmoon]

I responded to your first question directly. You asked,

The answer is no, unless you are willing to say that anything at all could happen and you can have no explanations whatsoever for anything that happens. You can only relate that things do happen, to the degree that you’ve experienced them, not why. That method has no explanatory power because it always depends on a more remote cause for explanation which depends on a more remote cause, that depends on a more remote cause, etc etc etc. ad infinitum.

The theist position doesn’t have to deal with the infinite regress, at least. That’s a huge benefit. As such, it has explanatory power as to what things can exist and what can’t, even if you don’t like the explanations that it offers.

Your system has no explanatory power whatsoever either about what things exist or what things don’t exist. None.

Remember that we agree that N is not the case. If N is not the case, what is? HINT: It’s not a taxonomy of stuff stretching into the past that brought itself into existence and can’t explain anything.

1. Can you prove that in a hypothetical universe that is without a prime mover and is an infinitely long series of events would by necessity mean that anything could happen in this universe? All you have done so far is assert that an infinite regress is unable to explain why some things happen and others don’t, but this isn’t the same thing.
2. Why is it a benefit? And no it doesn’t explain what can and cannot exist. If the prime mover decides what can and cannot occur, this still does not tell us what can and cannot occur and why the prime mover has decided to set up the rules the way he has. The rules on what can and cannot happen are still ultimately unexplained, and therefore the explanatory power of the theists model is the same as that of the infinite regress.
3. You are engaging in circular reasoning here again. You are saying that it is not an infinite regress, but that is the whole issue that is being discussed, why an infinite regress is physically impossible.

 

[iloveangels]

1. Can you prove that in a hypothetical universe without a prime mover and is an infinitely long series of events would by necessity mean that anything could happen in this universe? All you have done so far is assert that an infinite regress is unable to explain why some things happen and others don’t, but this isn’t the same thing.
2. Why is it a benefit? And no it doesn’t explain what can and cannot exist. If the prime mover decides what can and cannot occur, this still does not tell us what can and cannot occur and why the prime mover has decided to set up the rules the way he has. The rules on what can and cannot happen are still ultimately unexplained, and therefore the explanatory power of the theists model is the same as that of the infinite regress.
3. You are engaging in circular reasoning here again. You are saying that it is not an infinite regress, but that is the whole issue that is being discussed, why an infinite regress is physically impossible.

1. OK.
   You observe A happening, which is supposedly explained by remote B, which is supposedly explained by remote C, and so on to infinity.
   You observe A* happening which is supposedly explained by remote B*, which is supposedly explained by remote C*, and so on to infinity.
   You observe A** happening which is supposedly explained by remote B**, which is supposedly explained by remote C**, and so on to infinity.
   Each of these things A (with an increasing number of stars) is a new and novel animal, event or being.

How do you know if you have all the events at A**********? Maybe there is an A**********+1. You have no way of accounting for that. And of course, there’s always the possibility of one more you haven’t seen yet. You’re going to infinity across the system as well as from front to back through time in the system, you should realize here.

Not only that, but your chain of letters is infinitely long so you never really end up hearing the explanation at an infinite number of ZZZZZZZZZZ*s or whatever, which would ultimately explain everything if only there wasn’t one after ZZZZZZZZZZZZ or whatever. Yes, all the previous ones depend on it, and you will never know. So, there is NO EXPLANATION, even after all of THAT.

And still A (star infinity +1) could show up and be a ravaging monster and you wouldnt have any right to be surprised. Your system does not account for that.

1. If there is a prime mover and he creates things, you at least have an explanation why some things are in existence and some are not. That’s rather basic. Not only that, but the things that are in existence follow a logical pattern and you can know the explanation straight up. God created it because he wanted it. You may not find that very satisfying but it beats no explanation whatsoever for whatever happens which is what your view has. And it offers the advantage that not everything can occur…which turns out to be almost unimaginably important. The universe actually turns out to be an orderly place and people can know things. This is huge for the deistic religions and gives them great advantages because it turns out in the physical world to be demonstrably TRUE. Imagine that.
2. Your third point makes no sense to me. You have an infinite regress and a very aggressive one at that. Did you see the definitions on the U of California website?

 

[Kam_Fanaian]

Hi there

What is your understanding of the following passage from Buddhist Scripture?

“The Buddha continued again:’ I am not the first Buddha to come upon earth; nor shall I be the last. In due time, another Buddha will arise in this world, a Holy One, a Supremely Enlightened One, endowed with wisdom, in conduct auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a master of devas and men. He will reveal to you the same Eternal Truths which I have taught you. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now proclaim.”

Thank you my friend, your time here is appreciated and your time in answering my question is even more so

Kam

 

[Bakmoon]

1. OK.
   You observe A happening, which is supposedly explained by remote B, which is supposedly explained by remote C, and so on to infinity.
   You observe A* happening which is supposedly explained by remote B*, which is supposedly explained by remote C*, and so on to infinity.
   You observe A* happening which is supposedly explained by remote B*, which is supposedly explained by remote C*, and so on to infinity.
   Each of these things A (with stars) is a new and novel animal, event or being.

How do you know if you have all the events at A**********? Maybe there is an A**********+1. You have no way of accounting for that. And of course, there’s always the possibility of one more you haven’t seen yet. You’re going to infinity across the system as well as back and forth across the system, you should realize here.

Not only that, but your chain of letters is infinitely long so you never really end up hearing the explanation at A(infinity) which explains everything. Yes, all teh previous ones depend on it, and you will never know. There is NO EXPLANATION, even after all of THAT.

And still A (star infinity +1) could show up and be a ravaging monster and you wouldnt have any right to be surprised. Your system does not account for that.

1. If there is a prime mover and he creates things, you at least have an explanation why some things are in existence and some are not. That’s rather basic. Not only that, but the things that are in existence follow a logical pattern and you can know the explanation straight up. God created it because he wanted it. You may not find that very satisfying but it beats no explanation whatsoever for whatever happens which is what your view has. The universe actually turns out to be an orderly place and people can know things. This is huge for the deistic religions and gives them great advantages because it’s true.
2. Your third point makes no sense to me. You have an infinite regress and a very aggressive one at that. Did you see the definitions on the U of California website?

1. You haven’t addressed the issue at all. Read my statement again carefully. :

“Can you prove that in a hypothetical universe that is without a prime mover and is an infinitely long series of events** would by necessity mean that anything could happen in this universe? All you have done so far is assert that an infinite regress is unable to explain why some things happen and others don’t**, but this isn’t the same thing.”

1. “God created it because he wanted it. You may not find that very satisfying but it beats no explanation whatsoever”

This is still ultimately unable to explain anything until you can answer why God wanted A,B, and C, rather than not wanting them. It is ultimately no explanation at all.

1. Allow me to rephrase. You are begging the question. You are saying that N is not the case, and that neither is an infinite regress. But the whole issue being debated is whether or not an infinite regress is impossible or not.