Why is infinite regression held to be impossible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoeleth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Qoeleth said:
The creationist arguments and its variants rely on supposing that an infinite regression is impossible. I wonder, why precisely is such an infinite series held to be impossible.

If one places two mirrors facing each other, there is one mirror the image of the other, which contains its own image, which contains the image of the other, which contains its own image, et cetera ad infinitum.

If one divides 10 by 3, the answer is 3.3333333333333, etc. ad infinitum.

The value of pi, is held to be 3.14159, etc., etc.

If become aware that I think, I think that I think, and I think that I think that I think, etc. ad infinitum.

Are each of these not infinite regressions?

If the universe itself contains these infinite regressions, why should there not be an infinite regression of causes?
Click to expand...
With the two-mirror example, you don’t instantly have an “infinite regression”, you simply start a process that could potentially become infinite. First you have to put the mirrors into position, then the light starts bouncing back and forth, producing ever smaller reflected images at the speed of light. Eventually, your arms get tired and you put the mirrors down, and the process halts.

I won’t argue that this necessitates God creating the universe 10,000 years ago, but I’m confident enough to state that sometime in the indefinite but discrete past, God must have “positioned the mirrors” in order to create the universe. Hopefully he doesn’t get tired and put them down anytime soon! 😉
 
There must be a causal point to kick-start the regression otherwise nothing should exist. Think of recursion in math. Without a beginning the function cannot be computed at all. If everything has a cause that goes on forever nothing should have happened. For there to be any event there must be a first cause somewhere that boots up the sequence.
 
InJesusItrust said:
There must be a causal point to kick-start the regression otherwise nothing should exist. Think of recursion in math. Without a beginning the function cannot be computed at all. If everything has a cause that goes on forever nothing should have happened. For there to be any event there must be a first cause somewhere that boots up the sequence.
Click to expand...
If we think of causes and effects as links in a chain, then we have two views: either the chain is infinitely long and hanging from nothing, or the chain is hung from a ceiling which is itself unsupported. Either way there is nothing holding the whole assemblage up.
 
The point is, even if the device is perpetual, there has to be an event to activate the device. The device will not activate itself. If you found a mechanism to make a circular arrangement of dominoes to set themselves up again after falling, you still need to start the mechanism in order for it to be eternal. There has to be “something” before it in order for the universe to operate, even if it is eternal. There has to be a cause that sets eternity into motion, without which eternity could not begin.
 
InJesusItrust said:
The point is, even if the device is perpetual, there has to be an event to activate the device. The device will not activate itself. If you found a mechanism to make a circular arrangement of dominoes to set themselves up again after falling, you still need to start the mechanism in order for it to be eternal. There has to be “something” before it in order for the universe to operate, even if it is eternal. There has to be a cause that sets eternity into motion, without which eternity could not begin.
Click to expand...
Then what started the starter?
 
The start doesn’t need to be started. By definition the first cause from which everything else follows is the starter. We don’t know what this first cause is, but we defined it to be the first cause. We can logically deduce that an infinite regress is impossible by the fact that everything exists and is in motion. There has to be a prime mover.
 
InJesusItrust said:
The start doesn’t need to be started. By definition the first cause from which everything else follows is the starter. We don’t know what this first cause is, but we defined it to be the first cause.
Click to expand...
Then I propose that the infinite regress didn’t need to be started, just like your first cause.
 
A perpetual device cannot activate itself. We can deduce that something activated the device. If a then b, if b then c, and if c then a. In order for the loop to start one of these must be set to true by an external cause. If no event started it, how did the mechanism start?
 
MarcoPolo said:
Then you also believe in a first cause, no? :o
Click to expand...
No, I am saying that the infinite regression of causes did not need to be started. Since you claim that the first cause did not need to be started, I propose that the infinite regression of causes has that same “unstarted” property.
 
Qoeleth said:
If one divides 10 by 3, the answer is 3.3333333333333, etc. ad infinitum.

The value of pi, is held to be 3.14159, etc., etc.
Click to expand...
These are mathematical examples that do not manifest in the material realm. Can you provide an example of something based in time and space? i.e. a series of cause-less, infinite cause and effects?
 
InJesusItrust said:
A perpetual device cannot activate itself. We can deduce that something activated the device. If a then b, if b then c, and if c then a. In order for the loop to start one of these must be set to true by an external cause. If no event started it, how did the mechanism start?
Click to expand...
It didn’t. I said that the infinite regression is as “unstarted” as you claim the first cause is.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
No, I am saying that the infinite regression of causes did not need to be started. Since you claim that the first cause did not need to be started, I propose that the infinite regression of causes has that same “unstarted” property.
Click to expand...
Ok. But I am saying that concept is simply a substitute for a “god”/“first cause”.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Ok. But I am saying that concept is simply a substitute for a “god”/“first cause”.
Click to expand...
Which concept? The concept of an infinite regression? I think we must admit that an infinite regression is somewhat different than the first cause concept. The infinite regression requires nothing, a finite universe requires a first cause.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Which concept? The concept of an infinite regression? I think we must admit that an infinite regression is somewhat different than the first cause concept. The infinite regression requires nothing, a finite universe requires a first cause.
Click to expand...
The infinite regression mechanism is a thing in itself, not nothing. The chain of causality had to exist always in order for it to work.
 
InJesusItrust said:
The infinite regression mechanism is a thing in itself, not nothing. The chain of causality had to exist always in order for it to work.
Click to expand...
Correct. Likewise, existence had to exist always in order for the first mover to exist always.
 
Either way of looking at it there is something eternal. God is eternal. If the infinite chain is called God it would still be something.
 
InJesusItrust said:
Either way of looking at it there is something eternal. God is eternal. If the infinite chain is called God it would still be something.
Click to expand...
Correct. However, since God has a lot of connotations attached to it, we shouldn’t just go labeling things “God” without careful consideration. Indeed, a previous thread was exploring whether or not the prime mover was God, and it did not reach a conclusion.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
No. I am saying that I will not accept the citation of a mathematical proof as evidence that a natural infinity can’t exist without an explanation on your part.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I will provide such a proof, without Hilbert’s help.

There are 3 types of infinities:
(1) The potential infinities (the infinity used in mathematics)
(2) The actual infinity (a real, physical infinity)
(3) The descriptive infinity (describing an attribute as unlimited)

The OP is giving us examples of the first type of infinities, mathematical relations (pi & 1/3) that are examples of potential infinity. He is then asking us why these cannot be extrapolated to an actual infinity. To measure something, you have to contain it in some fashion: with mass, it needs to fit on the scale; with length, it needs to fit between the ends of the meter-stick; with luminosity, the light rays need to fit on the bolometer; and so on. In order to measure infinity, we would need something bigger than infinity to contain it. Something bigger than infinity is a contradiction of the definition of infinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top