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

[wittgenstein]

When asked what God was doing before the creation, Augustine said that there was no time before creation because God created time at the creation. Ironically, Hawking (an atheist ) and Einstein would agree. Not about God creating the universe but about the fact that time is a dimension. To ask ,what happened before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole.*

• That north pole metaphor is from Hawking.

 

[lmelahn]

And if you have infinite causes going back, it leads to a contradiction. Make 2 o’clock today the end of the time series. Then apply the infinite integer system on top of the infinite series (there could be more than one series, but that is beside the point). Is the first moment even or odd? I know it sounds like a false question because you say there isn’t a first, but it shows the absurdity of your position. There has to be a first, an even or odd, not in math, but in reality.

I am afraid I didn’t understand your objection . Ordinarily time would be mapped, in mathematical terms, to the real numbers, not to the integers, since time does not come in discrete bits, but is continuous. Mathematics is an abstraction from reality, but it has a foundation in reality.

The distinction between per se and accidental doesn’t prove anything. So there was a cause of the ball being flying through the air. That cause is in the past, so the accidental is nothing, since the past doesn’t exist. There is just causes.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think we both said the same thing with different terminology. My point was that a per accidens cause is, strictly speaking, not a cause at all, although it used to be. Strictly speaking, the only kind of causes that exist now are what Aquinas calls per se causes. (Like my parents: they were causes per se of my existence when they conceived me, but they are so no longer.)

The arguments based on the impossibility of infinite regress–for example the First, Second, and Fifth Ways in Aquinas’ Summa theologiae–all depend on real causes that exist now (“per se” causes).

(Interestingly, the Fourth Way, which I consider the most rigorous proof of God’s existence, does not make use of an infinite regress.)

 

[lmelahn]

I think the distinction between addressing the problem as a philosophical question (which I admit that I am not sure what you mean) as opposed to a real world question is the distinction here.

I didn’t mean to distinguish between a philosophical problem and the real world. I was distinguishing philosophy from theology: in other words, we don’t need to make use of Revelation to answer the question (although Revelation sheds a lot of light). No, on the contrary, I think good philosophy studies the real world.

I agree that one can create set of numbers or other elements with an infinite number of members as an abstraction, say all even numbers evenly divisible by 6. Poof, there it is.

But when speaking of real world problems, this does not work. If someone signs a contract with you to manufacture a million bobble head dolls this is hugely different than a contract for an infinite number of bobble headed dolls. And there is the rub.

Well, I was intending to speak of the real world, too (perhaps this was a misunderstanding here). My reply would be, what if the “manufacturer” (i.e., God) were omnipotent? If I signed a contract with Him, he could create an infinite number of bobble-headed dolls, couldn’t He?

I am speaking of real world problems, problems that involve process over time, not instant creations of abstract sets, or an infinite number of angels dancing on an infinite number of pins through an infinite number of years.

Right, I was just trying to explain that “time” is not something independent from the process. Give me an infinitely extended process, and I will show you an infinitely extended time. Likewise, give me a finitely extended process (as is in fact the case) and time is finite as well.

Back to the OP; I want to take this one step at a time to avoid confusion and focus with clarity of thought and presentation of points of contention. Once we agree we can go to the next logical point, OK? If we cannot agree, then at least we will have found the crux of the disagreement.

Absolutely! Not even St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas could agree on this one!

Suppose I am hired to do some real world process, say shelling peas. And lets suppose I can shell a thousand peas per hour with this handy little machine I invented. Were I asked how long it would take me to shell a million peas I could give an answer. Were I asked how long I must sign my contract for to shell five TRILLION peas, I could give an answer.

But how long do I say it would take me to shell an infinite number of peas? Some say that I would have to say that the answer is undefined, but I think them cowards The answer is that it would take an infinite amount of time.

Now this is no Zeno’s paradox, any rational person would agree that an infinite number of peas takes an infinite amount of time for a single person or even billions of people to shell such a number (if it really is a number (ut its all we have to work with at the moment).

I agree with your reasoning so far.

I will observe, however, that shelling peas is very different from creating: shelling takes pre-existing materials and changes them. God, however, creates from nothing. Also, “creation” is a single act that transcends time. For God all things are present: He decrees, so to speak, the entire existence of a thing, from beginning to end (or, as in our case, He decrees that there will be no end).

So, point 1: It is impossible to completely shell an infinite number of peas with a finite number of people.

Do you and I agree or not?

I would have to add, I think, “with a finite time to work on them.” If they had an infinite time to work on them–merely following the mathematical reasoning here–then I think they could shell them all. Naturally, I don’t consider this a real-world scenario.

(It is a mathematical fact that “countable” infinities are mappable to each other. For example, if I have a set N that contains only the positive integers, and a set Z that contains all the integers (positive, negative, and zero), then I can easily construct a function that maps the two sets one-to-one, without leaving any elements behind. In fact, I can even map the positive integers to all the rational numbers. Not to the real numbers, though.)

 

[wittgenstein]

Any ultimate explanation is beyond our finite minds.
For example, if we say that everything has an explanation, then why did God create the universe?
An uncaused causer to our finite minds is like a square circle. Its not that there is an ultimate explanation and we are too stupid to understand it, its that there is no explanation!!!

 

[wittgenstein]

God being infinite and ineffable is beyond explanation. Sometimes I think that describing God is idolatry. We are trying to force God into a finite box.
To steal an existentialist principle, existence (subject) precedes essence (predicate). * I AM THAT I AM!

• God transcends predicates. For our finite minds any explanation requires predicates.

 

[wittgenstein]

God is the subject. Creation is the predicates. Subjects instantiate predicates. If no one was brave, courage would only be an abstraction.
We are not our predicates. My emotions, personality, beliefs, thoughts etc change all the time and I am still me. Similarly, God gives being to creation but is not creation.

 

[DrTaffy]

Is the first moment even or odd? I know it sounds like a false question because you say there isn’t a first, but it shows the absurdity of your position. There has to be a first, an even or odd, not in math, but in reality.

Surely assuming the existence of an actual first moment in time is the same as assuming that past time is finite? After all, if there is an actual first moment, then there is an actual interval between that moment and the present, and an actual interval has to be finite?

So you have assumed your conclusion. Or in other words, if past time is infinite, there is no first moment.

 

[lmelahn]

Any ultimate explanation is beyond our finite minds.
For example, if we say that everything has an explanation, then why did God create the universe?
An uncaused causer to our finite minds is like a square circle. Its not that there is an ultimate explanation and we are too stupid to understand it, its that there is no explanation!!!

I think I would have to disagree respectfully . The square circle is self-contradictory. Just a question, then: how is the notion of uncaused cause self-contradictory? How do you define “cause”?

God being infinite and ineffable is beyond explanation. Sometimes I think that describing God is idolatry. We are trying to force God into a finite box.
To steal an existentialist principle, existence (subject) precedes essence (predicate). * I AM THAT I AM!

• God transcends predicates. For our finite minds any explanation requires predicates.

I don’t think that describing God is idolatry. We just have to be careful not to apply creaturely notions too crassly to Him. God, for example, is good, but He is not good the way men are good, but in more perfect and excellent way. (In fact, He is best described as Goodness Itself–any goodness found among men is received from Him.)

The same with being: God does not “be” (exist) in the same way the we “are” (exist), but in a more perfect and excellent way. He is best described as Being Itself (whereas we creatures receive our being from Him).

Exodus (as might be expected from a work inspired by the Holy Spirit!) hits the nail right on the head when it describes God as “I am.” (Or “I Am Who Am,” depending on how you translate that difficult Hebrew expression.)

 

[RGCheek]

Well, I was intending to speak of the real world, too (perhaps this was a misunderstanding here). My reply would be, what if the “manufacturer” (i.e., God) were omnipotent? If I signed a contract with Him, he could create an infinite number of bobble-headed dolls, couldn’t He?

Of course God could, but just try to hire Him.


The analogy is about sequential time units that take greater than 0 time. If God is creating all of them and sustaining them by some magical God-means, then you are going back to a condition that I said I was not addressing; the fantastic. I think we both know that God wont be shelling any peas for us, so can we move on?

Right, I was just trying to explain that “time” is not something independent from the process. Give me an infinitely extended process, and I will show you an infinitely extended time. Likewise, give me a finitely extended process (as is in fact the case) and time is finite as well.

And that is the case in REAL time. All processes are finite, short of those infinite by God-means, which I am not addressing here.

I would have to add, I think, “with a finite time to work on them.” If they had an infinite time to work on them–merely following the mathematical reasoning here–then I think they could shell them all. Naturally, I don’t consider this a real-world scenario.

Yes, neither do I…so why do you bring it up? For completeness sake?

(It is a mathematical fact that “countable” infinities are mappable to each other. For example, if I have a set N that contains only the positive integers, and a set Z that contains all the integers (positive, negative, and zero), then I can easily construct a function that maps the two sets one-to-one, without leaving any elements behind. In fact, I can even map the positive integers to all the rational numbers. Not to the real numbers, though.)

Being mappable to each other does not equate to being the same. And the mapping is abstract as well as no person is going number by number and drawing lines correspond ding one number to another. IT is simply a process that is described then magically ‘taken to infinity’.

Without using infinite processes, or God, time cannot be of infinite duration. It must have a starting point.

Which is point number 2; if we instead of shelling peas, we are hiring pea shellers. Some say they have shelled a million peas, and some claim to have shelled a trillion, but is the claim that they have shelled an infinite number of peas Is not believable as such would appear to be impossible.

Do you agree?

I say

 

[lmelahn]

Which is point number 2; if we instead of shelling peas, we are hiring pea shellers. Some say they have shelled a million peas, and some claim to have shelled a trillion, but is the claim that they have shelled an infinite number of peas Is not believable as such would appear to be impossible.

Do you agree?

I say

So, a finite number of persons with a finite amount of time can only shell a finite number of peas. I agree, and I also agree that this is the only reasonable real-world scenario. (And I agree, even leaving aside the fact that, in the real world, the machines will eventually wear out and break down, etc.)

 

[wittgenstein]

He is best described as Being Itself (whereas we creatures receive our being from Him).

)

Agreed! See post 66
I also agree that Exodus (I AM THAT I AM) is the claim that God is Being tself.

 

[wittgenstein]

I think I would have to disagree respectfully . The square circle is self-contradictory. Just a question, then: how is the notion of uncaused cause self-contradictory? )

I am not saying that an uncaused causer is self contradictory, I am saying that God is as incomprehensible as a square circle.

 

[RGCheek]

I am not saying that an uncaused causer is self contradictory, I am saying that God is as incomprehensible as a square circle.

Some things are incomprehensible because they are so unlike us, but a square circle is not incomprehensible, it is a self contradictory phrase.

And if God is truly incomprehensible then to what degree did He make us in His own Image? Cant God make us so that we can understand Him enough to a purpose?

 

[thinkandmull]

I am afraid I didn’t understand your objection . Ordinarily time would be mapped, in mathematical terms, to the real numbers, not to the integers, since time does not come in discrete bits, but is continuous. Mathematics is an abstraction from reality, but it has a foundation in reality.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think we both said the same thing with different terminology. My point was that a per accidens cause is, strictly speaking, not a cause at all, although it used to be. Strictly speaking, the only kind of causes that exist now are what Aquinas calls per se causes. (Like my parents: they were causes per se of my existence when they conceived me, but they are so no longer.)

The arguments based on the impossibility of infinite regress–for example the First, Second, and Fifth Ways in Aquinas’ Summa theologiae–all depend on real causes that exist now (“per se” causes).

(Interestingly, the Fourth Way, which I consider the most rigorous proof of God’s existence, does not make use of an infinite regress.)

In your take, how is accidental cause different from per se? How are the parents different from the swinging bat?

 

[thinkandmull]

In Aquinas’s article on whether there can be a quantitative infinity, he says no because it contradicts the notion of an end. But why then is it possible for there to be infinite moments in time of existence of things? Why is matter infinitely indivisible as he says?

I think God can make a square circle. It’s just above our imagination. He made the world infinitely divisible, yet finite to our eyes… Zeno paradox shows it takes infinite steps to get somewhere, yet we do get places.

I think the belief in finite times steams from a natural faith of the mind, which is healthy and true

 

[lmelahn]

In your take, how is accidental cause different from per se? How are the parents different from the swinging bat?

Sorry, I was on an Spiritual Exercises retreat. I am back now .

Don’t compare my parents with the swinging bat, but rather compare parents in the very act of begetting (a per se cause) to parents after they have begotten children (a per accidens cause).

Or else, compare the bat (or the player, for that matter) in the very act of swinging with the bat (or player) afterwards.

You see how, strictly speaking (i.e., “per se”), the cause is only present in very act; once the act ceases, the cause also ceases (but the thing that did the acting does not cease, necessarily: it is, however, only a “per accidens” cause now).

You may have heard the maxim sublata causa, tollitur effectus (“If you suppress the cause, you take away the effect.”) That applies only to per se causes, or causes considered strictly.

 

[lmelahn]

In Aquinas’s article on whether there can be a quantitative infinity, he says no because it contradicts the notion of an end. But why then is it possible for there to be infinite moments in time of existence of things? Why is matter infinitely indivisible as he says?

I am interested in reading that article. Do you have a reference?

 

[thinkandmull]

newadvent.org/summa/1007.htm#article4

Your explanation of per se vs accidental doesn’t seem to fit with Aquinas. There can be an infinite accident group of causes? Without there being a per se, there would be no accidental, as you’ve explained it

 

[lmelahn]

newadvent.org/summa/1007.htm#article4

Your explanation of per se vs accidental doesn’t seem to fit with Aquinas. There can be an infinite accident group of causes? Without there being a per se, there would be no accidental, as you’ve explained it

Thank you for the reference. I think the example given by St. Thomas of the carpenter fits illustrates the distinction between per se and per accidens.

I tried to simplify a little in my answer, but maybe I should have given the full explanation from the get-go.

“Per se” and “per accidens” are technical terms that Aquinas inherits from Aristotle (in Greek, kata hauta and kata symbebekos). The indicate the level of dependency: in order to write something in red, I must have a red writing instrument. In that technical language, it must be red per se. On the other hand, there are a variety of writing instruments that I could use: a pen, a pencil, a paintbrush, my finger, etc. Hence, if I decide to use a red pen, then pen is only necessary per accidens.

Similarly, in this article, the carpenter must put into use several operations in order to make something: his faculties, his art, the movement of his hand, a hammer, and so on. To that degree, the carpentry work depends per se: no carpenter (or no hand, or no hammer), no capentry; sublata causa, tollitur effectus (if you remove the cause, you take away the effect).

On the other hand, which hammer (of the appropriate type, naturally) is used is immaterial. Hence the use of this hammer or that one is only a per accidens cause.

Remember, though that the per accidens is the level of dependence, and there are different ways that it can happen. In the case of the hammer, what is indifferent is the individual hammer: the carpentry does not depend on the this or that hammer, only on having a hammer.

In the case of human or biological generation, however, we are analyzing a different facet of causality: the actuality or reality of the causative action. My parents caused my existence (in the past). They are not causing my existence now. While they were in the process of causing my existence (at the moment of my conception), my existence depended on them (no conception, no me; again, sublata causa, tollitur effectus). Now, my continued existence no longer depends on them. I owe my existence to them, but through an action on their part that has now ceased. The maxim sublata causa, tollitur effectus no longer applies. Hence they are per accidens causes of my existence.

In sum: a per se cause always obeys the maxim sublata causa, tollitur effectus. If a cause, or an aspect of that, cause does not obey this principle, then it is a per accidens cause (or anyhow, per accidens with respect to that aspect).

 

[thinkandmull]

My parents are not sustaining me in existence, neither is the pen sustaining the ink on the paper. They are “once causes”. How is this at all relevant in the discussion of whether there can be an infinite regress of motions?