Why infinite regress is impossible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Infinite regress isn’t impossible, and the best cosmological arguments don’t claim that infinite regress is impossible.
 
PickyPicky said:
Can you count forwards from zero and get to infinity?

That is the same thing as claiming infinite regression is impossible.
Click to expand...
No you cannot count forwards from zero to infinitiy, thus no claim on the impossibility of infinite regression can rest on that argument.

Your statement is a logical non sequitur, in that no claimant to the impossibility of infinite regression requires there to be an infinite series of acts, even ones as simple as counting. In fact, the abilty to make an infinite series of acts would be the antithesis of the premisis.
 
STT said:
You can never reach zero from infinity. Why that is a problem?
Click to expand...
That is an infinite regression. In fact it is the core infinite regression, as the counting the of acts is the simplest of the acts. Thus there can be no infinite regressions.
 
Brendan said:
No you cannot count forwards from zero to infinitiy, thus no claim on the impossibility of infinite regression can rest on that argument.

Your statement is a logical non sequitur, in that no claimant to the impossibility of infinite regression requires there to be an infinite series of acts, even ones as simple as counting. In fact, the abilty to make an infinite series of acts would be the antithesis of the premisis
Click to expand...
Precisely.
 
Brendan said:
That is an infinite regression. In fact it is the core infinite regression, as the counting the of acts is the simplest of the acts. Thus there can be no infinite regressions
Click to expand...
You’ll need to explain that a little more. Particularly the “thus”.
 
Because there would be no starting point. We can’t have that now, can we?
 
Gorgias wrote:
Therefore, there’s no such thing as “the boundary of the boundary”,
Click to expand...
Take a cube. The boundary of the solid cube is the six squares. The boundary of a square is four line segments. The boundary of a line segment is the two endpoints.
 
Last edited:
Brendan said:
That is an infinite regression. In fact it is the core infinite regression, as the counting the of acts is the simplest of the acts. Thus there can be no infinite regressions.
Click to expand...
No, it just means that there is always a cause before another cause no matter how far you go.
 
AlNg said:
Take a cube. The boundary of the solid cube is the six squares. The boundary of a square is four line segments. The boundary of a line segment is the two endpoints.
Click to expand...
AlNg said:
Gorgias wrote:
Therefore, there’s no such thing as “the boundary of the boundary”,
Click to expand...
Take a cube. The boundary of the solid cube is the six squares. The boundary of a square is four line segments. The boundary of a line segment is the two endpoints.
Click to expand...
Yes, but these coincide with the boundary of the cube itself, so … in your example, there really is no “boundary of the boundary”, since these are identical to the boundary of the cube. 😉
 
Is not infinite regression like a scratched CD which stutters and repeats until externally interrupted? Both are nonsensical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top