Is infinite chain of effects in the universe possible?

[Polymath257]

Let me quote a part that refutes your accusation that I am assuming there needs to be a first:

"There is no first"

Do you know how an argument by an analogy works?



The point of the argument is to prove by analogy there needs to be a first.

OK, so don't assume it.

While let me explain this to you again, if you assume the effects were always in play + infinite as a possibility, it's mere stating, that infinite chain is possible.

Yes.

So your argument by analogy comes down to:

If infinite chain is possible then an infinite chain is possible.

And you want to claim that no such chain is possible. But you have not done so.

What clouds is that you draw an description that mimics my analogy, and assumes it was always going and is still going.

Do you know how an argument works? You don't assume the conclusion nor make an analogy assuming it.

Correct. There are *two* possibilities: either there are only finite chains OR there can be infinite chains. You want to claim the first.

The question we are looking at is "is an infinite chain of effects are possible". Now my analogy has three comparisons:

(1) it compares the commander commanding another commander, as an effect causing another effect. Do you disagree with this part?

No.

(2) it compares the scenario if we go back infinite commanders with going back infinite effects so it makes an analogy between rank of commanders lined up with effects lined up in time. Do you disagree with this part?

Yes.

So while rank is what separates all the commanders and you need one command to get going, time is what separates all the effects. Time can be drawn on a paper as a line as a representation, so I don't see this as a bad comparison. Rank would be a vertical line and time more of a horizontal, but the analogy holds.

Fine so far.

(3) It argues that no command can issue in the first scenario (commanders separated by rank) and that we should conclude the same about it in the second scenario (effects separated by time).

It makes that claim, but what is the argument for that claim? Why, specifically, can no command be issued in the first scenario?

You analogy that if there was a commander already commanding is a way to attack the conclusion.

yes, by showing how that conclusion does not follow from the premises. You have yet to show why there must be a first commander.

We are tying to see if it's possible for cause and effects in an infinite chain is possible to exist.

Yes.

It's a hidden way to say if an infinite chain of effects was possible it would be that an effect is always moving.

Yes.

And in this case, it would be a commander is always commanding.

yes.

But that just saying I can draw a description with commanders for an infinite chain that is going.

yes.

However, my analogy compares the side by side commanders without assuming there is already one commanding.

So no command is ever given? it takes time to give a command, right?

That would be circular. I'm saying if there is no highest commander to give lower commander a command which is the condition, infinite ranks would draw the command going higher and higher, but never reach.

Yes, there would be an infinite number of ranks. No specific rank would need to be infinite, however.

The same is true of time, everyone needs a preceding, and keep going, there is no first.

Exactly. There is no highest commander. But each commander gets a command and then passes that command on to the next.

If you want to think of the commanders as lined up, there is no first commander on, say, the left. And yet, the commands get passed from each commander to the next lower commander. No highest commander is required.

You still have not shown that 'finite chains' are the only possibility.

 

[Link]

yes, by showing how that conclusion does not follow from the premises. You have yet to show why there must be a first commander.

I'm making analogy, every commander is waiting for a higher one, same with time, every effect is waiting for one preceding it. The analogy supposed to clarify by analogy if an infinite chain is possible or not. It does not assume it is or not. You assume an infinite chain is possible, and then compare to by analogy. This refutes nothing as I explained many times, as it's circular way of saying an infinite chain is possible and attacks the conclusion.

I'm saying if you have this condition, you will never get a command because each commander is not of the highest rank. If one is was of the highest rank, he can command others, but this is only possible in the case of a finite chain. So analogy of rank with time, I'm saying it's the same with every effect, if all are saying I won't come to be unless one preceding me, it needs to be finite, or we would never get here.

The point of the analogy is to compare the vertical rankness with horizonal time. The former is obvious why there has to be one commander without the condition, "I won't command unless one higher then me commands me". Time is more mysterious, so we break it up, and say by analogy, every effect is saying, I Won't bring another effect unless an effect causes me.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm making analogy, every commander is waiting for a higher one, same with time, every effect is waiting for one preceding it.

Yes.

The analogy supposed to clarify by analogy if an infinite chain is possible or not. It does not assume it is or not. You assume an infinite chain is possible, and then compare to by analogy. This refutes nothing as I explained many times, as it's circular way of saying an infinite chain is possible and attacks the conclusion.

No, I am showing how, in things would happen in the other branch of your dichotomy. That what you say is NOT inconsistent with that means you have NOT shown that branch is impossible.

I'm saying if you have this condition, you will never get a command because each commander is not of the highest rank.

OK, now give a *detailed* reason why no commander will get a command. Why is a highest rank required for a command to be given?

So, I have a commander. Why will that commander never get a command? Be specific in your reason. Do NOT assume there must be a highest rank.

More specifically, if there is no highest rank, why would no commander get a command?

If one is was of the highest rank, he can command others, but this is only possible in the case of a finite chain. So analogy of rank with time, I'm saying it's the same with every effect, if all are saying I won't come to be unless one preceding me, it needs to be finite, or we would never get here.

Why is a highest rank required for there to be a chain of commands?

The point of the analogy is to compare the vertical rankness with horizonal time.

Understood.

The former is obvious why there has to be one commander without the condition, "I won't command unless one higher then me commands me".

No, it is not. Could you give a detailed reason? Why must there be such a commander? It looks to me like you are *assuming* this with no reason to do so. And this is the same as assuming* there is no infinite chain.

Time is more mysterious, so we break it up, and say by analogy, every effect is saying, I Won't bring another effect unless an effect causes me.

I still see a gap in your reasoning. You *claim* there must be a highest rank for a command to be given. Be specific why you think that is the case.

 

[Link]

Salam

@Polymath257 You are right. I get what you are saying now.

 

[wellwisher]

This is just one of the components usually debated with the cosmological argument hence I have it in the religious debate section. Although it's part of cosmological argument, the topic is just this component of it.

I put this analogy before:

Infinite commanders all different rank to one another. All won't give an order unless one higher up gives it. There is infinite, so who is highest? There is no highest, and so you would wait forever, and never get an order.

Infinite effects all different stages of time to one another in the universe. All won't come to be unless one previous effects it to be . There is infinite, so who is first? There is no first, so you would wait forever, and never get an effect.

Does the analogy hold?

We live in a space-time based universe, which limits what can happen; laws of physic. For example, the earth has gravity but not anti-gravity, therefore half the gravity and anti-gravity options are not possible on earth.

If time and space could act as separated variables, instead of being connected; the three legged race of physics, then infinite possibilities would be possible. This would be state of infinite entropy and complexity. If you could move in space apart from time you could be anywhere and everywhere at any instant of time; omnipresent.

Since our space-time universe started simple with minimal entropy and complexity; singularity, creating this universe would be possible from the place of separated space and time, as one of its infinite possibilities. The local loss of entropy; from infinite to tiny, if temperature is above absolute zero, would release lots of free energy, to give the new universe a solid free energy beginning.

The 2nd law would be connected to the return of the lowered entropy universe back to the state of separated space and time, gaining complexity; evolving, as it heads back to the state of infinite entropy.

The quantum state appears to be a bridge state between connected and disconnected space and time since we can see both affects occurring; quantum entanglement moves particles together in time, in a way that is not dependent on the position in space; pure time potential.