Doesn't the 'Infinite Regression Fallacy' Prove that Time Had a Beginning?

[RGCheek]

Well, as you probably know, our two main pillars of physics, General Relativity and quantum mechanics, are fundamentally incompatible with each other. That is why a unifying theory is being sought. In Relativity, time is continuous; in string theory (which is untested), time is still continuous; in the theory of loop quantum gravity (also untested), space is discrete; in quantum mechanics, we simply don’t have an answer.

So once again, these matters require further experimentation to resolve, not philosophical hand-waving to dismiss.

The energy released by the sun is finite, and so we know that there are smallest units of energy.

We have discovered smallest units for almost every dimension.

Time varies in one instance versus another, but we still do know that it is sequential in nature, a vector model of time, thus your original premise is shot full of holes.

As we know one cannot ‘count’ to infinity because there is no end point, we also know that arriving at the present following an infinite prior amount of time is similarly impossible.

 

[Oreoracle]

Time varies in one instance versus another, but we still do know that it is sequential in nature, a vector model of time, thus your original premise is shot full of holes.

As we know one cannot ‘count’ to infinity because there is no end point, we also know that arriving at the present following an infinite prior amount of time is similarly impossible.

Again, you confuse ordering and sequencing. It’s an understandable error the first time, but not half a dozen times.

You are right that time goes in one direction. That is what it means to have order. However, this is not the same as sequencing, which necessitates a beginning. The fact that time goes in one direction does not imply that it has a beginning any more than the fact that the integers can be ordered implies they have a first element.

And as I said a page ago, the “arriving from an infinite prior time” is a false dilemma. The beginning doesn’t exist in an eternal universe, therefore there is no infinite limit from which to arrive. You are making the error that Aquinas addressed (as provided by another poster) by effectively inventing an event that wouldn’t even exist and trying to measure its distance from the present.

 

[RGCheek]

Again, you confuse ordering and sequencing. It’s an understandable error the first time, but not half a dozen times.

You are right that time goes in one direction. That is what it means to have order. However, this is not the same as sequencing, which necessitates a beginning. The fact that time goes in one direction does not imply that it has a beginning any more than the fact that the integers can be ordered implies they have a first element.

Bah, you are engaging in a semantic contortionist maneuver trying to assert that A then B sequence is not inherent in the flow of time when it obviously is. Oder does not allow for causal events. The number one did not cause the number two, though they follow one another. In the real universe causal events ARE sequential and A causes B all the time.

Having a direction for time means that there are some things that happen before other things. Thus we have sequence, and that sequence cannot have an infinite regression.

And as I said a page ago, the “arriving from an infinite prior time” is a false dilemma. The beginning doesn’t exist in an eternal universe, therefore there is no infinite limit from which to arrive.

The universe is not eternal, that is impossible since the universe exists in the flow of time.

You are making the error that Aquinas addressed (as provided by another poster) by effectively inventing an event that wouldn’t even exist and trying to measure its distance from the present.

Lol, I did not invent the beginning of time; that is a FACT that you dance around. It is already proven physically, case closed.

But the argument is still there and is valid; it is impossible to arrive at the present after an infinite sequence of time units. Therefore time must have a start if we are to have arrived at the present.

You can keep dancing but I am going to constantly return to that basic truth and mail your shoes to it.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Bah, you are engaging in a semantic contortionist maneuver trying to assert that A then B sequence is not inherent in the flow of time when it obviously is. Oder does not allow for causal events. The number one did not cause the number two, though they follow one another. In the real universe causal events ARE sequential and A causes B all the time.

The universe is not eternal, that is impossible since the universe exists in the flow of time.

How do you know that?

If you open any modern physics textbook, you will not find language like “efficient cause” that was used by the medieval philosophers. We now know better than that, all you will find are differential equations.

Lol, I did not invent the beginning of time; that is a FACT that you dance around. It is already proven physically, case closed.

This is a false statement. I would love to see your “physical proof.”

 

[inocente]

Having a direction for time means that there are some things that happen before other things. Thus we have sequence, and that sequence cannot have an infinite regression.

Time only has a direction due to entropy. The direction is given by the difference between what is probable and improbable.

For instance, it is probable that a dropped glass vase will break into shards, while it is exceedingly improbable that the shards will spontaneously come back together to reform the vase.

But while improbable, it could still happen, for nothing in the laws of nature forbid it. At the scale of the individual molecules, the same laws allow them to separate or to join, without regard for the direction of time.

So your argument about a direction to time doesn’t really work. Also, an infinite regress refers to “a sequence of reasoning or justification which can never come to an end”, not to a sequence in time having no beginning.

 

[RGCheek]

Time only has a direction due to entropy. The direction is given by the difference between what is probable and improbable.

For instance, it is probable that a dropped glass vase will break into shards, while it is exceedingly improbable that the shards will spontaneously come back together to reform the vase.

But while improbable, it could still happen, for nothing in the laws of nature forbid it. At the scale of the individual molecules, the same laws allow them to separate or to join, without regard for the direction of time.

Lol, then go ahead and drop all the glass objects you own and count on random events bringing them back together again.

As for me, I will avoid dropping them. Somehow I anticipate my behavior will result in fewer glass objects lost.

Thus meaningless semantic contortions waste time when considering decisions made in reality.

So your argument about a direction to time doesn’t really work. Also, an infinite regress refers to “a sequence of reasoning or justification which can never come to an end”, not to a sequence in time having no beginning.

lol, no, it does not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

 

[RGCheek]

How do you know that?

If you open any modern physics textbook, you will not find language like “efficient cause” that was used by the medieval philosophers. We now know better than that, all you will find are differential equations.

A thing cannot rest on an infinite regression of prior events. IT is the logical opposite of the proverbial ‘count to infinity’ which is also impossible.

This is a false statement. I would love to see your “physical proof.”

Ever hear of the Big Bang?

 

[Tom_Baum]

The ‘Infinite Regression Fallacy’ is that anything that appeals to an infinite regression is false. There cannot be an infinite regression because one cannot arrive at the present/current moment or item as it requires first traversing/counting/completing an infinite series to arrive at the current/present moment/object.

So applying it to the flow of time, doesn’t it prove that time itself, no matter how many contortions, convolutions, permutations or cyclic phases you want to envision, at some point in time, perhaps a VERY long time ago, time had to have a start?

And does that not then require an eternal object that exists outside of time to initiate the flow of time?

About the only thing that it proves is that someone came up with the “Infinite Regression Fallacy”.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

A thing cannot rest on an infinite regression of prior events. IT is the logical opposite of the proverbial ‘count to infinity’ which is also impossible.

Suppose that time maps to the real numbers and is therefore infinite. Name me two moments in time (i.e. numbers) that are infinitely separated.

Ever hear of the Big Bang?

Yes, but that’s not what we are talking about. You said

Lol, I did not invent the beginning of time; that is a FACT that you dance around. It is already proven physically, case closed.

So unless you wrongly think that it is a fact that the big bang represents the beginning of time, I’m not sure why you would bring it up.

 

[RGCheek]

About the only thing that it proves is that someone came up with the “Infinite Regression Fallacy”.

Lol, I don’t have the time to essplain it to you, but you do not do yourself any good to pose as a willfully ignorant person on this specific topic.

Do you?

 

[RGCheek]

Suppose that time maps to the real numbers and is therefore infinite. Name me two moments in time (i.e. numbers) that are infinitely separated.

It is absurd to make such a ridiculous mapping. The Real numbers are not a sequence of events, but merely an ordered set of quantities. You want to compare apples and oranges.

Lol, yes, the Big Bang began the flow of time as we know it.

[/QUOTE]

 

[inocente]

Lol, then go ahead and drop all the glass objects you own and count on random events bringing them back together again.

As for me, I will avoid dropping them. Somehow I anticipate my behavior will result in fewer glass objects lost.

Thus meaningless semantic contortions waste time when considering decisions made in reality.

Lol isn’t a rational argument, it’s just uncharitable sarcasm. Please read the stickies.

A choice between physics textbooks and someone on the internet who answers everyone with “lol” isn’t a difficult choice, is it?

 

[lmelahn]

Looking at the answers given, I think they may be missing a key distinction made by Aristotle and Scholastic philosophers (who were the ones most fond of reducing fallacies to infinite regresses).

Scholastic philosophy (in particular St. Thomas Aquinas) makes a careful distinction between what they call per se causes and per accidens causes.

I think the distinction is valid. I will illustrate with examples. A “cause” in Scholastic parlance is anything on which something depends, either for its very existence, or else for coming to be the way it is now.

Strictly speaking, or “per se,” cause and effect are always simultaneous. Let’s suppose a batter is in the process of swinging his bat at a fast ball. Right now, his bat is in contact with the baseball; therefore, right now, the batter is the per se cause of the change in velocity of the baseball, because that change depends (right now) on the action of the bat (which depends in turn on the batter).

Now lets fast-forward to a few moments later, when the baseball is flying high towards left field. At this point, the batter is no longer the per se cause of the baseball’s flight: he is merely what Aquinas would call the per accidens cause. The batter now has no influence on the trajectory of the ball: it no longer depends on him. In fact, the batter immediately begins to run toward first base, and yet the ball is completely unperturbed.

Now, returning to the problem of infinite regresses: in reality they are only impossible in a line of simultaneous per se causes. At the moment of the crack of the bat, something must be the ultimate origin of the change in velocity in the baseball. A baseball does not do random about-faces in mid-air; something must be there to apply force to it.

From a philosophical point of view, anyway, there is actually nothing that prevents an infinite regress of per accidens causes. For example, there is nothing (philosophically speaking) that prevents an infinite succession of living creatures. Why not? Because each living being depends on its parents (or parent) only per accidens: at the moment of its generation, it depended on them per se, but it does so longer.

(St. Thomas Aquinas says as much in his short treatise De principiis naturae (On the Principles of Nature), famously disagreeing with St. Bonaventure. I think Aquinas is right on this point, thanks to his distinction between per se and per accidens causes.)

Applied to the original question regarding time, in my opinion you cannot prove that time has a beginning by attempting to reduce it to an infinite regress.

 

[RGCheek]

Lol isn’t a rational argument, it’s just uncharitable sarcasm. Please read the stickies.

I didn’t mean to offend you with my lol; it is just I find some of these responses humorous and I am trying to not come across as angry or annoyed.

A choice between physics textbooks and someone on the internet who answers everyone with “lol” isn’t a difficult choice, is it?

Wow, do you ever try to actually analyze the facts instead of comparing authoritative references?

I do not claim to be an authority, so don’t just take my word for anything, I encourage you to take everything I say with skepticism and to THINK FOR YOURSELF.

That is why I explain the things I say and provide reason and fact to support them instead of merely running to some textbook.

 

[RGCheek]

Looking at the answers given, I think they may be missing a key distinction made by Aristotle and Scholastic philosophers (who were the ones most fond of reducing fallacies to infinite regresses).

Scholastic philosophy (in particular St. Thomas Aquinas) makes a careful distinction between what they call per se causes and per accidens causes.

I think the distinction is valid. I will illustrate with examples. A “cause” in Scholastic parlance is anything on which something depends, either for its very existence, or else for coming to be the way it is now.

Strictly speaking, or “per se,” cause and effect are always simultaneous. Let’s suppose a batter is in the process of swinging his bat at a fast ball. Right now, his bat is in contact with the baseball; therefore, right now, the batter is the per se cause of the change in velocity of the baseball, because that change depends (right now) on the action of the bat (which depends in turn on the batter).

Now lets fast-forward to a few moments later, when the baseball is flying high towards left field. At this point, the batter is no longer the per se cause of the baseball’s flight: he is merely what Aquinas would call the per accidens cause. The batter now has no influence on the trajectory of the ball: it no longer depends on him. In fact, the batter immediately begins to run toward first base, and yet the ball is completely unperturbed.

Now, returning to the problem of infinite regresses: in reality they are only impossible in a line of simultaneous per se causes. At the moment of the crack of the bat, something must be the ultimate origin of the change in velocity in the baseball. A baseball does not do random about-faces in mid-air; something must be there to apply force to it.

From a philosophical point of view, anyway, there is actually nothing that prevents an infinite regress of per accidens causes. For example, there is nothing (philosophically speaking) that prevents an infinite succession of living creatures. Why not? Because each living being depends on its parents (or parent) only per accidens: at the moment of its generation, it depended on them per se, but it does so longer.

(St. Thomas Aquinas says as much in his short treatise De principiis naturae (On the Principles of Nature), famously disagreeing with St. Bonaventure. I think Aquinas is right on this point, thanks to his distinction between per se and per accidens causes.)

Applied to the original question regarding time, in my opinion you cannot prove that time has a beginning by attempting to reduce it to an infinite regress.

In some philosophical hypothetical realm, perhaps all per accidens can exist without per se causes. Perhaps in some magical way God is sustaining each moment autonomously in time simultaneously without our ability to detect or fathom it.

But here in the REAL world, we know that per accidens is preceded by per se cause.

And thus your observation, while hypothetically valid, leaves cold comfort for the person who wants to understand the real world we live in.

We KNOW that each moment in time is predicated by previous moments in time. If a time keeping device was somehow stopped at second 10, then we know that seconds 11, 12, 13…etc will not occur without restarting the clock.

So in our real world sequential flow of time, there can be no infinite regression no more than we can count forward to an infinite limit and reach it.

 

[inocente]

Looking at the answers given, I think they may be missing a key distinction made by Aristotle and Scholastic philosophers (who were the ones most fond of reducing fallacies to infinite regresses).

Scholastic philosophy (in particular St. Thomas Aquinas) makes a careful distinction between what they call per se causes and per accidens causes.

I think the distinction is valid. I will illustrate with examples. A “cause” in Scholastic parlance is anything on which something depends, either for its very existence, or else for coming to be the way it is now.

Strictly speaking, or “per se,” cause and effect are always simultaneous. Let’s suppose a batter is in the process of swinging his bat at a fast ball. Right now, his bat is in contact with the baseball; therefore, right now, the batter is the per se cause of the change in velocity of the baseball, because that change depends (right now) on the action of the bat (which depends in turn on the batter).

Now lets fast-forward to a few moments later, when the baseball is flying high towards left field. At this point, the batter is no longer the per se cause of the baseball’s flight: he is merely what Aquinas would call the per accidens cause. The batter now has no influence on the trajectory of the ball: it no longer depends on him. In fact, the batter immediately begins to run toward first base, and yet the ball is completely unperturbed.

Now, returning to the problem of infinite regresses: in reality they are only impossible in a line of simultaneous per se causes. At the moment of the crack of the bat, something must be the ultimate origin of the change in velocity in the baseball. A baseball does not do random about-faces in mid-air; something must be there to apply force to it.

From a philosophical point of view, anyway, there is actually nothing that prevents an infinite regress of per accidens causes. For example, there is nothing (philosophically speaking) that prevents an infinite succession of living creatures. Why not? Because each living being depends on its parents (or parent) only per accidens: at the moment of its generation, it depended on them per se, but it does so longer.

(St. Thomas Aquinas says as much in his short treatise De principiis naturae (On the Principles of Nature), famously disagreeing with St. Bonaventure. I think Aquinas is right on this point, thanks to his distinction between per se and per accidens causes.)

Applied to the original question regarding time, in my opinion you cannot prove that time has a beginning by attempting to reduce it to an infinite regress.

An excellent analysis. In general it seems to me that the scholastic system of per se, per accidens, essence, substance, potentia and so on doesn’t stand up to cross examination, but I’d say your argument here hits the nail on the head.

 

[RGCheek]

An excellent analysis. In general it seems to me that the scholastic system of per se, per accidens, essence, substance, potentia and so on doesn’t stand up to cross examination, but I’d say your argument here hits the nail on the head.

Of course you do; it supports your prior conclusion.



But perhaps you can help me with understanding how here in the real world we can have per accidens cause without preceding per se cause?

I would really like to read about that.

 

[inocente]

Wow, do you ever try to actually analyze the facts instead of comparing authoritative references?

I do not claim to be an authority, so don’t just take my word for anything, I encourage you to take everything I say with skepticism and to THINK FOR YOURSELF.

That is why I explain the things I say and provide reason and fact to support them instead of merely running to some textbook.

I can understand if you’re feeling defensive, but there are lots of people on the internet with pet theories, and if you want to convince anyone about your OP you might try not to simply dismiss them with “wow” and “lol”.

I posted what I know has repeatedly been shown to be true by experiment, and which you’ll find in every physics book and every physics course in the world. In return you called it “meaningless semantic contortions” with no explanation, no facts, no evidence and no reasoning.

Perhaps you could have another go. Why do you think it’s meaningless?

But perhaps you can help me with understanding how here in the real world we can have per accidens cause without preceding per se cause?

I would really like to read about that.

I think you misunderstood lmelahn’s analysis, but as the terms were used by Thomas Aquinas, who the Church considers its greatest philosopher, there are plenty of Catholics here who can recommend material.

 

[RGCheek]

I can understand if you’re feeling defensive, …

Well, if that was ‘defensive’ maybe it was in response to you being ‘offensive’?

I do not perceive my having been defensive, merely explanatory.

but there are lots of people on the internet with pet theories, and if you want to convince anyone about your OP you might try not to simply dismiss them with “wow” and “lol”.

As I essplained above, it is to convey mirth so people wont think me angry or annoyed, etc. I have been told I come across as angry quite often, kind of like ‘defensive’ I guess.

I have Aspergers Syndrome, and my mind does not work like yours or normal people, so your projections really do not apply here.

I posted what I know has repeatedly been shown to be true by experiment, …

What experiment? Where are the links to it?

This is a simple straightforward mathematical FACT.

One cannot sequentially count to an infinite quantity. Similarly one cannot count backwards to an infinite negative.

In reverse, we cannot start at an infinite quantity and sequentially progress to the present or a current sequence.

It is really not that hard to grasp and I would be very interested in seeing an ‘experiment’ that proves any of that wrong.



(are smiley emoticons OK? Don’t want to offend)

 

[RGCheek]

Perhaps you should support you own assertions and not pass it off even in the same post in which you make it?

I reread the post several times and I do not see anything off, of course, but that would be where YOU come in and show me my error, is it not?