infinite regress : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » infinite regress » infinite regress

infinite regress

hockey999
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 13, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 4

Posted 10/13/08 - 01:47 PM: Subject: infinite regress	#1
I'm wondering if there is no infinite regress there has to be a first cause. Which is god right? If I say that there cannot be infinite regress how can I give a good argument for that? Any ideas thanks?

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 131
Total Posts: 4213

Posted 10/13/08 - 03:18 PM:	#2
If I recall correctly, Francis Bacon once argued that there cannot be an infinite stream of time because if you took half of that stream, the second half would continue to grow, thus appearing bigger; since it's absurd for anything to have two halves of different size the conclusion is that time isn't infinite. The same argument could, I suppose, be used to say that there is no infinite regress. The trouble is however, that the argument is nonsense. To arrive at the conclusion that the two halves are different sizes it is necessary to already assume that one or the other halves isn't infinitely large: and since the argument tries to show that an infinite stream of time is impossible by showing it to be absurd, it cannot remove the assumption of infinity mid-way through. In any case, a supreme being need not necessarily be a "first cause". The Big Bang suffices as an explanation.
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2154

Posted 10/13/08 - 07:12 PM:	#3
hockey999 wrote: I'm wondering if there is no infinite regress there has to be a first cause. Which is god right? Why is there no infinite regress? If time were infinite or circular or even a psychological illusion, then infinite regress is possible, (or circular regress or no regress). Assuming that there is no infinite regress, you certainly don't end up with "god". Just uncaused causes. There could be multiple or even infinite uncaused causes. Ancient Greeks used to talk about every cloud having an uncaused cause. Christians talk about every human being an uncaused cause. Any one of those shows that the impossibility of infinite regress doesn't say anything. hockey999 wrote: If I say that there cannot be infinite regress how can I give a good argument for that? Any ideas thanks? You could mention entropy. It seems that our perception of time is inter-related to the loss of energy and order over time. If infinite regress were true, (and not circular), then going backwards to infinity leads to some strange states that seem very unlikely -- but would always lead to a scenario where even a god isn't necessary.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 255

Posted 10/14/08 - 07:44 PM:	#4
Historically, "infinite regress" also ties somewhat into "Occam's razor". Really simply put, Occam's razor says that the simplest solution is usually the best. In his own words (translated from Latin), it goes something like "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" (in the context of his works). I suppose, this is also known as the Law of Parsimony. From a different perspective, infinite regress comes into the picture. An infinite regress is mostly thought of as a postulate whose solution requires another related postulate to be solved, and so on, infinitely. Now, if this sequence of postulates becomes harder and harder to solve (or, at least not easier), then you have an "unattainable" infinite regress. Occam's razor is not really a "hard logical rule" though, more like a rule-of-thumb. But it does indicate a real problem when someone postulates an unattainable infinite regress. In such a situation William of Ockham might say that the postulate is a dead end right off, since it only complicates things. Arthur C. Clarke's "The Fountains of Paradise", in the words of "Starglider" wrote: If you assume that the universe can be quote explained unquote as the creation of an entity known as God, he must obviously be of a higher degree of organization than his product. Thus you have more than doubled the size of the original problem, and have taken the first step on a diverging infinite regress. William of Ockham pointed out as recently as your fourteenth century that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. I cannot therefore understand why this debate continues. If you're looking for a more concise definition of unattainable infinite regress, perhaps this will do (for everyone to debunk, criticise, and finally set a flame): A series of propositions, P_n, n=1,2,…, so that: • P₁ is claimed/postulated/sought • \|P_n\| is a metric and the interesting parts: • P_n+1 ⇒ P_n • P₁ is unattainable if \|P_n\| ≤ \|P_n+1\| (Yeah yeah, my math bg shows, and what about it?) I invented the "unattainable" distinction here (seemed pretty straightforward anyway). If you remove the metric stuff, you can also remove the unattainable part, and you just have a (regular) infinite regress. In my own opinion, infinite regress by itself is not necessarily enough to reject a proposition. But if it's unattainable, then some alternate approach is in order (if any at all). The standard example: • The Universe is grandiose and spectacular • I just can't imagine it not having been created by God Ok, so we have P₁ = God created the Universe, and \|P_n\| = grandiosity and spectacularity. • But God is also grandiose and spectacular • God must have been created by Über God Gah! We now have an infinite sequence of propositions (Gods creating Gods) — that is, an unattainable infinite regress. So the claim, God created the Universe (P₁), is unattainable, by this line of reasoning.
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.