Why infinite regress is impossible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
snarflemike said:
I understand, but I want to understand in some fashion the nature of these causal dominos. So can you give me an example, any example, your choice, of a thing and the first (last) few causes in the link of causation?
Click to expand...
I am afraid that I cannot understand what you are not understanding. 😦
 
StephieNorthCo said:
Not convincing.
Click to expand...
Not everyone accepts the cyclical model. There are a few papers by Paul J. Steinhardt supporting the cyclical model as plausible, and he has a book: “Endless Universe, beyond the Big Bang” in which he claims a solution to the entropy objection.
 
OK, I’ll start with a rock in my yard. Give me examples of the first few most proximate causes, in the link of infinite causes, for that rock.
 
snarflemike said:
OK, I’ll start with a rock in my yard. Give me examples of the first few most proximate causes, in the link of infinite causes, for that rock.
Click to expand...
You want a real example? Think of how the universe evolved over time.
 
Just give me an example of the last 3 proximate causes of the rock in my yard.
 
STT said:
I was arguing about an important property of infinity: infinity+any number=infinity.
Click to expand...
Yes, and this is another reason why the assertion fails. In a theoretical system, there can be an infinite number of items; in a real physical system, not so much.

So, there can never be an infinite number of intermediate causes, and you need an infinite number in order for your “infinity + x = infinity” relation to hold! So, since that cannot truly exist, your explanation cannot hold up!
 
I am trying to find out from the infinite-regress proponents what is the nature of these causes - so far, without any success (perhaps my questions are ill-formed). I wonder, do all (or more precisely, an infinite number) of the infinite chain of causes possess or involve mass or energy? Does an infinite regress then require infinite mass and/or energy in the material world? I hope they will give an answer to this question.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
Yes, and this is another reason why the assertion fails. In a theoretical system, there can be an infinite number of items; in a real physical system, not so much.

So, there can never be an infinite number of intermediate causes , and you need an infinite number in order for your “infinity + x = infinity” relation to hold! So, since that cannot truly exist, your explanation cannot hold up!
Click to expand...
That is not true. The universe is in fact infinite. Consider the opposite. This means that the universe is bounded by something else, so called boundary. The boundary is either finite or is infinite. You have to deal with infinite regress if you believe that the boundary is finite or you have to accept that the whole, universe plus all boundaries are infinite.
 
How is my holding the rock associated with the cause of the existence of the rock? If I was not holding the rock, would it not exist?
 
snarflemike said:
I am trying to find out from the infinite-regress proponents what is the nature of these causes - so far, without any success (perhaps my questions are ill-formed). I wonder, do all (or more precisely, an infinite number) of the infinite chain of causes possess or involve mass or energy? Does an infinite regress then require infinite mass and/or energy in the material world? I hope they will give an answer to this question.
Click to expand...
The amount of energy of the chain is infinite if the chain is infinite and each even member of the chain is finite.
 
STT said:
The universe is in fact infinite.
Click to expand...
Umm… no. It’s big. It’s expanding. But it’s not ‘infinite’.
STT said:
Consider the opposite. This means that the universe is bounded by something else, so called boundary. The boundary is either finite or is infinite
Click to expand...
The boundary only has meaning in terms of the fact that it… well… bounds the universe! :roll_eyes:

If the universe is finite, then its boundary, likewise, is finite!
 
snarflemike said:
How is my holding the rock associated with the cause of the existence of the rock? If I was not holding the rock, would it not exist?
Click to expand...
I see what are you looking for. Think of the universe as an onion which each layer cause another layer to infinitum. The causal chain also could be circular.
 
So are you saying that it takes an infinite amount of energy and/or mass to fully account for the existence of the rock in my yard?
 
Gorgias said:
The boundary only has meaning in terms of the fact that it… well… bounds the universe! :roll_eyes:

If the universe is finite, then its boundary, likewise, is finite!
Click to expand...
Yes. You can assume that the boundary is finite. You then realize that the universe+boundary is bounded by something else. That is where infinite regress starts. You need to either accept infinite regress or accept that the universe is infinite.
 
STT said:
Yes. You can assume that the boundary is finite. You then realize that the universe+boundary is bounded by something else.
Click to expand...
No. The ‘boundary’ is a construct, not a real entity. Therefore, there’s no such thing as “the boundary of the boundary”, “the boundary of the boundary of the boundary”, etc, etc.
 
Gorgias said:
In a theoretical system, there can be an infinite number of items; in a real physical system, not so much.
Click to expand...
There is a question as to whether or not time is discrete. Assuming that time is discrete and that there is a smallest Planck time may lead to problems with Lorentz invariance. Assuming then, that time is continuous, will give an infinite number of time segments within a finite interval in a real physical system. By using a stereographic projection, this set of interval segments can be mapped in a 1-1 manner onto the whole real line showing that there is no contradiction in assuming an infinite number of time segments in a physical system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top