Infinite regress is logically impossible

[bahman]

Regress means the action of returning to a former state. Infinite regress means that there are infinite former states. To discuss let's move one by one to the former state. There is however a state former than any state that you assume. This means that you cannot reach to infinite former state. This means that by the reverse process, one cannot reach from an arbitrary state in the infinite former state to the current state as well. The current state exists. Therefore, infinite regress is logically impossible.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, it needs to be, according to the infinite regress argument a viscious infinite regress. And while debated positing that the universe is eternal does not have to have an infinite regress justification.

The question of whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning is a topic of philosophical and scientific debate. If someone believes that the universe is eternal, it doesn't necessarily imply a vicious infinite regress.

A vicious infinite regress occurs when a causal chain or explanatory series goes on indefinitely without a fundamental or ultimate explanation, leading to an infinite loop that doesn't provide a satisfactory answer. In the context of the universe being eternal, the idea is that it has always existed and didn't have a specific starting point. This doesn't necessarily imply a vicious infinite regress if one posits that the universe itself is a fundamental and uncaused entity.

There are also coherentist arguments in favor of an eternal universe and/or the possibility of one. IOW the infinite regress argument has a specific understanding of what truth is and it is not the only one and it is also potentially problematic.

I think some people think the infinite regress argument is a stand on metaphysics, when it is actually a stand on justification.

[attofishpi]

Regress means the action of returning to a former state. Infinite regress means that there are infinite former states. To discuss let's move one by one to the former state. There is however a state former than any state that you assume. This means that you cannot reach to infinite former state. This means that by the reverse process, one cannot reach from an arbitrary state in the infinite former state to the current state as well. The current state exists. Therefore, infinite regress is logically impossible.

Of course, the concept of "infinite regress" comes from causality, that from our current perceivable reality one can regress back through the causes and their affects (that made you exist) to 'somewhere', but anybody with a fairly rational mind, doesn't like to deal with 'infinities'.

So, I don't agree in such a thing as 'infinite regress', instead I believe random chance within chaos eventually formed into logic and the physical properties that then gave rise to causality to form the universe, that we now are granted the exceptional quality of being able to observe.

[bahman]

Well, it needs to be, according to the infinite regress argument a viscious infinite regress. And while debated positing that the universe is eternal does not have to have an infinite regress justification.

The question of whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning is a topic of philosophical and scientific debate. If someone believes that the universe is eternal, it doesn't necessarily imply a vicious infinite regress.

A vicious infinite regress occurs when a causal chain or explanatory series goes on indefinitely without a fundamental or ultimate explanation, leading to an infinite loop that doesn't provide a satisfactory answer. In the context of the universe being eternal, the idea is that it has always existed and didn't have a specific starting point. This doesn't necessarily imply a vicious infinite regress if one posits that the universe itself is a fundamental and uncaused entity.

There are also coherentist arguments in favor of an eternal universe and/or the possibility of one. IOW the infinite regress argument has a specific understanding of what truth is and it is not the only one and it is also potentially problematic.

I think some people think the infinite regress argument is a stand on metaphysics, when it is actually a stand on justification.

I think that the universe has a beginning for the very same reason: You cannot reach to infinite past by reversing the time so you cannot do the opposite.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, it needs to be, according to the infinite regress argument a viscious infinite regress. And while debated positing that the universe is eternal does not have to have an infinite regress justification.

The question of whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning is a topic of philosophical and scientific debate. If someone believes that the universe is eternal, it doesn't necessarily imply a vicious infinite regress.

A vicious infinite regress occurs when a causal chain or explanatory series goes on indefinitely without a fundamental or ultimate explanation, leading to an infinite loop that doesn't provide a satisfactory answer. In the context of the universe being eternal, the idea is that it has always existed and didn't have a specific starting point. This doesn't necessarily imply a vicious infinite regress if one posits that the universe itself is a fundamental and uncaused entity.

There are also coherentist arguments in favor of an eternal universe and/or the possibility of one. IOW the infinite regress argument has a specific understanding of what truth is and it is not the only one and it is also potentially problematic.

I think some people think the infinite regress argument is a stand on metaphysics, when it is actually a stand on justification.

I think that the universe has a beginning for the very same reason: You cannot reach to infinite past by reversing the time so you cannot do the opposite.

I don't think my capabilitied determine ontology.

[bahman]

Regress means the action of returning to a former state. Infinite regress means that there are infinite former states. To discuss let's move one by one to the former state. There is however a state former than any state that you assume. This means that you cannot reach to infinite former state. This means that by the reverse process, one cannot reach from an arbitrary state in the infinite former state to the current state as well. The current state exists. Therefore, infinite regress is logically impossible.

Of course, the concept of "infinite regress" comes from causality, that from our current perceivable reality one can regress back through the causes and their affects (that made you exist) to 'somewhere', but anybody with a fairly rational mind, doesn't like to deal with 'infinities'.

Cool.

So, I don't agree in such a thing as 'infinite regress', instead I believe random chance within chaos eventually formed into logic and the physical properties that then gave rise to causality to form the universe, that we now are granted the exceptional quality of being able to observe.

That is one scenario.

[bahman]

Well, it needs to be, according to the infinite regress argument a viscious infinite regress. And while debated positing that the universe is eternal does not have to have an infinite regress justification.

The question of whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning is a topic of philosophical and scientific debate. If someone believes that the universe is eternal, it doesn't necessarily imply a vicious infinite regress.

A vicious infinite regress occurs when a causal chain or explanatory series goes on indefinitely without a fundamental or ultimate explanation, leading to an infinite loop that doesn't provide a satisfactory answer. In the context of the universe being eternal, the idea is that it has always existed and didn't have a specific starting point. This doesn't necessarily imply a vicious infinite regress if one posits that the universe itself is a fundamental and uncaused entity.

There are also coherentist arguments in favor of an eternal universe and/or the possibility of one. IOW the infinite regress argument has a specific understanding of what truth is and it is not the only one and it is also potentially problematic.

I think some people think the infinite regress argument is a stand on metaphysics, when it is actually a stand on justification.

I think that the universe has a beginning for the very same reason: You cannot reach to infinite past by reversing the time so you cannot do the opposite.

I don't think my capabilitied determine ontology.

What do you mean?

[Impenitent]

the prior state was Virginia

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

I think that the universe has a beginning for the very same reason: You cannot reach to infinite past by reversing the time so you cannot do the opposite.

I don't think my capabilitied determine ontology.

What do you mean?

Pardon the typo, though I'm guess I need more explanation.
I don't think my capabilities or our capabilities determine ontology.

This was in reaction to You cannot reach. You cannot do the opposite.

The wording seems to say tha my/our/human inability to do something means it can't be the case. I am not at all sure that's what you meant, so I figured I'd respond like that and see what happened.

There could be a metaverse that is eternal which is popping out local universes, like ours, which then have beginnings.

There could be other conceptions of time where many parts of the line start or sort of expand outwards, so it's not like time has to reach somewhere in the way we usually conceive of time. Perhaps there are cyclic solutions.

In any case I don't think the issue is resolved either in science nor in philosophy.

[Harbal]

Regress means the action of returning to a former state. Infinite regress means that there are infinite former states. To discuss let's move one by one to the former state. There is however a state former than any state that you assume. This means that you cannot reach to infinite former state. This means that by the reverse process, one cannot reach from an arbitrary state in the infinite former state to the current state as well. The current state exists. Therefore, infinite regress is logically impossible.

Whatever you can imagine, you can always imagine something that came before it, so infinite regress is the only imaginable option. Thusly, I have proved that infinite regress is not only possible, but that it is inevitable. And there we have an end to the matter; the case is closed.

[attofishpi]

Regress means the action of returning to a former state. Infinite regress means that there are infinite former states. To discuss let's move one by one to the former state. There is however a state former than any state that you assume. This means that you cannot reach to infinite former state. This means that by the reverse process, one cannot reach from an arbitrary state in the infinite former state to the current state as well. The current state exists. Therefore, infinite regress is logically impossible.

Whatever you can imagine, you can always imagine something that came before it, so infinite regress is the only imaginable option. Thusly, I have proved that infinite regress is not only possible, but that it is inevitable. And there we have an end to the matter; the case is closed.

..and this will be written down throughout the anals of time (since back in the days when this was written).

However!

What can you imagine within chaos in the context of no logic, no causality. If you can regress back through causality to a point where causality is no longer perceivable, indeed, causal chains fall apart (chaos) then "can you still imagine" something that came before it?

[Harbal]

Regress means the action of returning to a former state. Infinite regress means that there are infinite former states. To discuss let's move one by one to the former state. There is however a state former than any state that you assume. This means that you cannot reach to infinite former state. This means that by the reverse process, one cannot reach from an arbitrary state in the infinite former state to the current state as well. The current state exists. Therefore, infinite regress is logically impossible.

Whatever you can imagine, you can always imagine something that came before it, so infinite regress is the only imaginable option. Thusly, I have proved that infinite regress is not only possible, but that it is inevitable. And there we have an end to the matter; the case is closed.

..and this will be written down throughout the anals of time (since back in the days when this was written).

However!

What can you imagine within chaos in the context of no logic, no causality. If you can regress back through causality to a point where causality is no longer perceivable, indeed, causal chains fall apart (chaos) then "can you still imagine" something that came before it?

I'll have a good think about it, and get back to you.

[bahman]

I don't think my capabilitied determine ontology.

What do you mean?

Pardon the typo, though I'm guess I need more explanation.
I don't think my capabilities or our capabilities determine ontology.

This was in reaction to You cannot reach. You cannot do the opposite.

The wording seems to say tha my/our/human inability to do something means it can't be the case. I am not at all sure that's what you meant, so I figured I'd respond like that and see what happened.

There could be a metaverse that is eternal which is popping out local universes, like ours, which then have beginnings.

There could be other conceptions of time where many parts of the line start or sort of expand outwards, so it's not like time has to reach somewhere in the way we usually conceive of time. Perhaps there are cyclic solutions.

In any case I don't think the issue is resolved either in science nor in philosophy.

OK, I see what you mean. How about saying that the infinite past cannot be reached by reversing time?

[bahman]

Regress means the action of returning to a former state. Infinite regress means that there are infinite former states. To discuss let's move one by one to the former state. There is however a state former than any state that you assume. This means that you cannot reach to infinite former state. This means that by the reverse process, one cannot reach from an arbitrary state in the infinite former state to the current state as well. The current state exists. Therefore, infinite regress is logically impossible.

Whatever you can imagine, you can always imagine something that came before it, so infinite regress is the only imaginable option. Thusly, I have proved that infinite regress is not only possible, but that it is inevitable. And there we have an end to the matter; the case is closed.

But you cannot reach to infinite former state.

[Iwannaplato]

OK, I see what you mean. How about saying that the infinite past cannot be reached by reversing time?

Generally I think humility about deducing our way to certainty about ontology is wiser. There will be people who will deduce that there can't suddenly be a universe of matter with nothing before it, whether time begins then or not. There will be people who think they can deduce the universe cannot have been around forever with their favorite deduction. I think both groups are showing hubris when they rule out such ontological models. We've already been surprised, as a species, by huge things that seemed not possible turning out to be the case.

I'm not saying no one should try these deductions and consider them. But with a grain of salt the size of a house.