Is Infinity Regress a logical impossibility?

Is Infinity Regress a logical impossibility or inconsistency, as claimed by theists, my question is HOW? How does it violate classical logic?

Second question, how do you tackle infinity regress problem?

1 Like

There is nothing logical about the impossibility of an infinite regress, contingent on what you are calling regress. Causality breaks down at Planck Time. We know this and have experience with it. That means causality runs both ways.

“In everyday life, causes always precede effects. But new experiments suggest that no such restriction applies in the quantum world.”

You are applying attributes of our known universe to that which is unknown. What exists outside the known universe, beyond its largest and smallest barriers, is not known. There is nothing illogical about a breakdown in the arrow of causality resulting in some fundamental difference in the makeup of reality.

The difference between skeptics and theists is that you pretend to know all the answers by inserting magical beings into existence. Then assert ‘That’s the way it is.’ Skeptics, on the other hand, simply accept the fact that they do not yet know, and have no issue accepting, ‘That’s the way it is.’

WHEN THEISTS ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE INFINITE REGRESS THEY FAIL.
Traditionally, the most common response is foundationalism It posits that there is a first element in the series from which all the other elements arise but which is not itself explained this way. (aka: God of the Gaps) (First Cause Apologetics.)

Metaphysical foundationalism There are perfect forms at which some point all things stop being the most perfect islands, gods, whatever, that can be imagined. That there is a most fundamental level that grounds the existence of the entities from all other levels of existence. (In short - imagining a perfect being into existence makes it real and the origin of causal events.)

Time and Causality are Temporal - They occur in our universe, in our dimension, in our version of reality. They make up our world. That, in no way, implies they are universal. The world we live in is much stranger than we can possibly imagine.

2 Likes

what do u mean by “causality runs both ways”

yes virtual particles and radio active decay etc.

So your point is causality only applies to things within the universe, not beyond, hence there is no infintie regress (or maybe we dont know it - is the answer), is that so?

Yes, maybe we don’t know. There is no reason to assume an infinite regress until we have evidence of such. There is no logical reason to rule it out either. (Considering the fundamental nature of reality can change.) I clearly stated that we cannot take what we know of our own temporal existence and apply it to the unknown. That is not LOGICAL. And that directly responds to your inquiry.

Even there is no evidence of infinite regress in current nature (we have causality though), let alone before the planck time.

Secondly, just because something is counterintuitive and contradicts our logic and reason, doesnt prove evidence of that very thing (Infinity regress). Because the idea of “uncaused first cause” is equally counterintuitive. Hence we can turn the whole thing around and claim that infinite regress is required to avoid the problem of needing some sort of “uncaused first cause”.

Finally, even if I take it for granted, it doesnt violate any classical logic. Its NOT a logical impossiblity.

Is English your first language? You asserted Causality prior to Planck time: Please demonstrate your assertion.

No one has cited evidence for anything: Do you know how to read? Are you a fucking idiot? You’re taking complete and utter nonsense. There is no reason whatsoever to accept an 'Uncaused first cause without evidence." Nothing needs to be flipped anywhere. There is no need to assert an infinite regress without evidence of such a claim. Nothing is ‘REQUIRED’ Demonstrate your god of the gaps claim. Demonstrate your infinite regress claim. You’re just spouting bullshit and trying to counter your bullshit with more bullshit.

For someone claiming to have an agnostic presuppositional mind set you sure have a lot of bullshit bouncing about. Do you know what Agnostic means?

2 Likes

To prove that an idea is false because it contains an infinite regress; we need to show two things:

  1. It is vicious.
  2. It can’t be cleverly re-expressed without the infinite regress; because sometimes this can be done.

It is rare to see anyone reference part 1 outside academia. I’ve never even heard of anyone attempting part 2.

I’m going out on a limb and suggest either it is not, or he’s a first year philosophy student. Either way that was painful gibberish.

Seriously, painful to read.

The grammar and spelling probably don’t help, but I have no idea what point he’s trying to make there?

If you want to posit a first cause you need to demonstrate some objective evidence for it. As @Cognostic points out, you can’t simply assume that what we know about causality within the physical universe applies before that physical universe existed.

Is it, how are you deterring causality without the existence of the physical universe and characteristics of it like linear time?

Take what for granted? What doesn’t violate logic? What is not logically impossible? Possibility has to be demonstrated, you can’t infer it from not knowing something is impossible, obviously.

Exactly. we don’t know if the universe had or even needed a cause, and even if it did why assume it was a first cause, when you have no objective evidence that what you’re assuming was a first cause, is a) possible b) could exist without a cause itself.

If anyone makes assertions to know anything about an concept, while simultaneously claiming to be an agnostic about it, they demonstrably do not.

1 Like

To me it sounds like a combination of not somewhat lacking language skills and trying to repeat a concept/question that is only half understood.

It’s either possible or it’s not. If it’s possible, then insisting on a god-like prime mover creating the universe is special pleading. If it’s not possible, then insisting on a god-like prime mover that has always existed is just an extra step and assumption compared to the hypothesis that the universe (plus any precursor(s)) has always existed. And in which case Occam’s razor means going for the latter, the simplest solution, that requires no appeal to magic.

1 Like

Most discipline is hidden discipline, designed not to liberate but to limit. Do not ask Why? Be cautious with How? Why? leads inexorably to paradox. How? traps you in a universe of cause and effect. Both deny the infinite.
-The Apocrypha of Arrakis (Frank Herbert)

1 Like

We know of no physical infinities. Infinity is a completely abstract concept from mathematics, invented by mathematicians. When infinities emerge from the mathematics that describe nature, it is generally regarded as an indication that we have something wrong, the equations are not right.

A good example the oft used term “singularity” in cosmology, denoting the apparent outcome from continued gravitational compression of some body.

In this scenario the equations describing the state of the system, imply an infinite density, but that violates existing laws so it is accepted that the theory leading to these equations is incomplete or flawed in some fundamental way.

What would you call the surface of a ball bearing, if not technically an infinite surface? It has no beginning nor end and is featureless.

No,I don’t think the surface of a sphere is regarded as infinite surface area, it is readily calculated from it’s radius. Did you mean something else?

Yet it has no beginning nor end on its surface. Yes it has features to it you can calculate, but its surface is technically infinite in the aspect of there is no marked beginning or end.

If you were to paint the bearing with a 0.1mm layer or paint, would you require infinite paint? To say some “thing” is infinite in mathematics anyway, means one can define a one-to-one correspondence between the thing and the set of integers without end.

The very definition of infinity is defined in terms of counting in fact, we can’t take every point (or say atom) on the surface of the bearing and map them to an integer and to that without end we’d have stop once we’d counted all the atoms on the surface.

Pi as far as I’m aware is an infinite number. Meaning to technically count the most accurate circumference of a circle or sphere is an infinite number in that regard. So are we being technical here or just rounding up to Jebus did it?

1 Like

You are confusing infinite with periodic. The surface of a sphere is described in polar coordinates by the set of points p=(r, φ, θ), where the radius r is held constant, and the angles φ and θ can be varied in the intervals [0,2π) and [-π,π], respectively. The periodicity enters because p=(r, φ, θ) and p=(r, φ+m×2π, θ+n×2π), where m and n are arbitrary integers, represent the same point.

You need to sharpen up your accuracy and terminology here. π is not infinitely big, but it is irrational, with infinitely many non-repeating decimals. The number of rational numbers is countably infinite, but the number of irrational numbers is uncountably infinite. Which means that there are far more (in fact, infinitely many more) irrational numbers than rational ones.

1 Like

Yes I’m aware. The irrationality of pi, and infinite numbers for that matter, is where I am going with this. We are dealing with irrational concepts. To claim we haven’t seen a physical infinity as Sherlock has said is nonsense. Assuming we could even comprehend and recognize an irrational figure such as something infinite is ridiculous. As I’m trying to point out here our understandings are exactly that, limited. Wether we can comprehend anything like this is at best questionable.

Thank you for the response, I’ll have to sharpen my ball bearing analogy.

1 Like

I take it you mean it has an infinite number of digits in it’s decimal expansion which is true. But the spheres surface are is not therefore infinite (though it too will have infinite digits).

If you were to tessellate the sphere (say like a football) and approximate the area by summing the area of those polygons, we’d get an approximate area of the idealized ball.

Now if you tessellate each of the polygons and sum the area again you’ll get a different slightly larger number and if you keep tessellating over and over to smaller and smaller polygons, the area will approach a limit, it will never exceed that limit.

The point I want to make here is that we can have sums with an infinite number of terms who’s total is not infinite.