Is infinite chain of effects in the universe possible?

[leroy]

No. In fact, the opposite is shown mathematically. Just pick up any book on probability where they discuss measure theory.

Any countably infinite set has zero measure. In other words, the probability of that event is zero.

Example: Probability Theory One book by M. Loeve

Ok hold on

Do you grant that you picking a random number between 0-1 is impossible? It´s an impossible task ?

Yes “in theory” if there where an infinite number of things events with zero probability would happen……….does your book says anything different from that?

Obviously the conclusion should be that an infinite number of things can’t exist, not that events with zero probability cant exist.

If the probability of getting 5 queens in poker is zero, then you will never get 5 queens in poker, do you agree with this statement? Yes or no?

 

[firedragon]

No it does not.
It can be simply be shown by the following additional questions:-
Assertion: In an infinite sequence of cause-effect chain one has to wait forever to get to any one cause/effect.
Question: At which cause/effect event should I start to wait from in order to prove this assertion in such an infinite sequence?
Answer: From the initial event.
Counter: In an infinite chain there is no initial event. So you are asking me to start the waiting from an event that does not actually exist in the event chain in question. Hence your request is nonsensical. Hence you are getting a nonsensical answer.

I was not getting into a debate if the whole thing or "assertion" as you called it is "true, correct or absolutely right". If you read my comment prior to responding properly in context with what I was responding to, I was telling him that the example or analogy is correct, and that it is the most common analogy used by many in explaining the absurdity of the infinite regression.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

yes. The decay of a muon.

No absolutely proven science exists to make your assertion mate. Zilch.

 

[firedragon]

Salam

Mine was a color coded version.

I know I know Link. You put it in a different way for many to understand better I think. It's a valid experiment.

 

[leroy]

@leroy and @Link
What all of this basically boils down to is this:- If the universe is infinite in some way, then its mathematical and logical structure will follow the well-developed mathematics .

To me it’s like saying “well if you have “i” “elephants in the universe then all you have to do is follow the well supported and well developed math of imaginary numbers . that doesn’t solve the problem, it is still true that you cant have “i” in the real world.

I mean sure, but the claim is that it is impossible to have “i” elephants in the universe, therefore any theory/mothel/hypothesis that concludes that there are “i” elephants in the universe should be dropped

In other words, if a model leads to implications that are absurd, the obvious answer is that the model is wrong, not that the world is absurd.

With “i” I mean “imaginary number” or the square root of negative 1


The fact that something can be represented with logical and consistent math doesn’t mean that it can really exist in the real world.

In math we have imaginary numbers, negative numbers, infinites and many other things that are consistent, but can´t exist in the real world.

 

[Link]

Off-topic commercial break post (don't go reacting to this post and going away from OP):

Cosmological argument is kind of a boring argument for God. It lacks spiritual substance. Its strength is that, but also its weakness. It's down to earth so people can relate to it, but people get caught between conjecture and reality about infinity easily. I hope this analogy helps people see with mental clarity. I've also made a proof by contradiction in another thread to infinite chain showing it's paradoxical needs a cause and does not need one by definition and hence impossible.

I have to now make a boring thread talking about start of time and address @ChristineM uncaused event universe shrinking from eternality to plank time.

The ontological reminder to me proves God directly and is the most rewarding type proof, since you use God's Essence and know he exists by a trait he has.
Then there is the proof by God's vision, and that makes us realize we exist depending on God's vision, command, judgment, and light giving us a reality to who we are. This is perhaps the most emphasized argument in Quran and Sunnah. To know yourself to know God and to worship God as if you see him for if you don't see him, surely he sees you (which should make you see him).

This argument is also best, because it has continuous witnessing knowledge, that is knowledge of the self grows, and you become more certain of God through it, that you exist depending on God and you begin to unravel the hidden worlds that you are part of and exist in.

Cosmological argument is very boring to me. But it is a sound argument.

THIS COMMERCIAL BROUGHT YOU BY LINK. IF YOU LINK TO LINK WITH LINK YOU WILL KNOW THE LINK WE ALL CONNECTED TO BETTER.

 

[questfortruth]

Does the analogy hold?

Because the infinite long time cannot be measured, the eternal universe is not physical.

 

[ChristineM]

I have to now make a boring thread talking about start of time and address @ChristineM uncaused event universe shrinking from eternality to plank time.

No, you really dont have to make such a thread unless you really need to

 

[Polymath257]

Ok hold on

Do you grant that you picking a random number between 0-1 is impossible? It´s an impossible task ?

no. i do not grant that.

Yes “in theory” if there where an infinite number of things events with zero probability would happen……….does your book says anything different from that?

Obviously the conclusion should be that an infinite number of things can’t exist, not that events with zero probability cant exist.

Actually, the conclusion is that zero probability events can't exist OR that infinity does.

Both are logically allowed.

If the probability of getting 5 queens in poker is zero, then you will never get 5 queens in poker, do you agree with this statement? Yes or no?

I agree that you won't get a zero probability event from a finite selection.

But, if there were 5 queens and an infinite number of ace of spades, then the probability of getting 5 queens would be zero, but still possible.

 

[Polymath257]

No absolutely proven science exists to make your assertion mate. Zilch.

Since there is no such thing as an 'absolutely proven science' at all, this is a void statement.

But, the best evidence and reasoning we have is that the decay of a muon is an uncaused event.

 

[Polymath257]

To me it’s like saying “well if you have “i” “elephants in the universe then all you have to do is follow the well supported and well developed math of imaginary numbers . that doesn’t solve the problem, it is still true that you cant have “i” in the real world.

I mean sure, but the claim is that it is impossible to have “i” elephants in the universe, therefore any theory/mothel/hypothesis that concludes that there are “i” elephants in the universe should be dropped

In other words, if a model leads to implications that are absurd, the obvious answer is that the model is wrong, not that the world is absurd.

With “i” I mean “imaginary number” or the square root of negative 1


The fact that something can be represented with logical and consistent math doesn’t mean that it can really exist in the real world.

In math we have imaginary numbers, negative numbers, infinites and many other things that are consistent, but can´t exist in the real world.

And yet, complex numbers (involving i) are crucial for the development of quantum mechanics, for the modeling of wave phenomena, and for many other aspects of the real world.

Infinity is regularly used in physics as well as math. Negative numbers are ubiquitous, especially with our understanding of charge.

 

[firedragon]

Since there is no such thing as an 'absolutely proven science' at all

Exactly. So don't give examples of things that are not "absolutely proven" by science as if they are "absolutely proven by science".

Cheers.

 

[HonestJoe]

Does the analogy hold?

I don't think so. The problem with any human-based analogy is that it implies human-based limitations that wouldn't apply to a truly infinite universe. For there to be infinite effects, there needs to be infinite time, so the idea of "having to wait forever" becomes meaningless.

Though we (and our perception) is limited to a specific (though moving) place in space and time, the universe as a whole would have no limitation. It would just be. All of the infinite effects would simply exist. Just as all places in the universe just exist together (regardless of whether we can perceive them or not), all the times in the universe just exist together too. There would be no initial cause because there would be no initial anything, there would just always be (and always will have been) the infinite chain of effects, because that's what effects do.

It is really difficult to get your head around these concepts of course, and none of this automatically means it is correct, but it certainly theoretically possible.

Edit: This may help of hinder, but it is worth remembering that every effect is also a cause (and in this context, vice-versa!)

 

[Link]

I don't think so. The problem with any human-based analogy is that it implies human-based limitations that wouldn't apply to a truly infinite universe. For there to be infinite effects, there needs to be infinite time, so the idea of "having to wait forever" becomes meaningless.

Though we (and our perception) is limited to a specific (though moving) place in space and time, the universe as a whole would have no limitation. It would just be. All of the infinite effects would simply exist. Just as all places in the universe just exist together (regardless of whether we can perceive them or not), all the times in the universe just exist together too. There would be no initial cause because there would be no initial anything, there would just always be (and always will have been) the infinite chain of effects, because that's what effects do.

It is really difficult to get your head around these concepts of course, and none of this automatically means it is correct, but it certainly theoretically possible.

Edit: This may help of hinder, but it is worth remembering that every effect is also a cause (and in this context, vice-versa!)

Salam

Imagine you are existing eternally. You transcend time. You want to create a universe.

Can you create an infinite chain of cause and effects. I say it's impossible. You can't create the world without a start and end point. You can only created with limitations.

So if you make our time (humans we living now) an effect to reach to, can you create infinite sequence of effects leading to it?

In the analogy, imagine infinite amount of commanders existing and you need higher rank to give an order, when all of them are different ranks. The problem is that no highest exists, and so we know no command will start. You keep delegating it to one higher.

In time, same thing, you keep delegating it to preceding one, but none of them is the start.

Sure, if commanders were commanding, sure, all of them will command. This doesn't mean anything and that is all that @Polymath257 amount to saying.

We are trying to see if it's possible infinite chain, not just assume it's going and going. Asserting if they were commanding in a chain and going and going, of course, misses the point of the wait condition. All of them have that condition. To make the analogy, all stages in time in the universe will have the condition they are preceded by a different stage. So if you keep delegating it to the one preceding, then it never starts. The point of the analogy was to look at time through command structure of generals. Infinite with no one on top is akin to no start. The condition of "higher", is simple "preceding".

The analogy is to you can mentally grasp the infinite chain in time, with something easier. But the analogy applies, and is sound argument in my view, to prove infinite regress is impossible.

 

[sayak83]

To me it’s like saying “well if you have “i” “elephants in the universe then all you have to do is follow the well supported and well developed math of imaginary numbers . that doesn’t solve the problem, it is still true that you cant have “i” in the real world.

I mean sure, but the claim is that it is impossible to have “i” elephants in the universe, therefore any theory/mothel/hypothesis that concludes that there are “i” elephants in the universe should be dropped

In other words, if a model leads to implications that are absurd, the obvious answer is that the model is wrong, not that the world is absurd.

With “i” I mean “imaginary number” or the square root of negative 1


The fact that something can be represented with logical and consistent math doesn’t mean that it can really exist in the real world.

In math we have imaginary numbers, negative numbers, infinites and many other things that are consistent, but can´t exist in the real world.

Yes they can. Any structure that is logically consistent can certainly exist. The logical relationships of quantum mechanics cannot exist without imaginary numbers. So they do exist in the real world. Gravitational potential energy has negative values...so negative numbers also exist and is crucial to reality.

 

[Polymath257]

Salam

Imagine you are existing eternally. You transcend time. You want to create a universe.

OK, sounds like a fun thing to imagine.

Can you create an infinite chain of cause and effects. I say it's impossible. You can't create the world without a start and end point. You can only created with limitations.

Why would that be? Even infinite time would have limitations (just not temporal ones). Why would there need to be a start and end?

I can easily imagine creating a universe with infinite time and space.

So if you make our time (humans we living now) an effect to reach to, can you create infinite sequence of effects leading to it?

Sure, no problem. I'm beyond time and space, right?

In the analogy, imagine infinite amount of commanders existing and you need higher rank to give an order, when all of them are different ranks. The problem is that no highest exists, and so we know no command will start. You keep delegating it to one higher.

And since I am outside of time, I can create that infinitely many commanders in a way that commands are always being given (in time). There is no inconsistency there.

In time, same thing, you keep delegating it to preceding one, but none of them is the start.

And since I am outside of time, that isn't a problem.

Sure, if commanders we all commanding, sure, all of them will command. This doesn't mean anything and that is all that @Polymath257 amount to saying.

All of them *wait* to be commanded by their superior. And each one eventually does get commanded by their superior. There is always some commander giving an order to the next one.

We are trying to see if it's possible infinite chain, not just assume it's going and going. Asserting if they were commanding in a chain and going and going, of course, misses the point of the wait condition.

No, it does not. Every commander waits until ordered by the next higher up. And commands are always being given because there are infinitely many higher up.

That it is going and going is one possible way to satisfy your criteria.

All of them have that condition.

Agreed. Each one waits until the next higher up commands.

To make the analogy, all stages in time in the universe will have the condition they are preceded by a different stage. So if you keep delegating it to the one preceding, then it never starts.

Yes, precisely. It never starts. It is always going.

The point of the analogy was to look at time through command structure of generals. Infinite with no one on top is akin to no start.

No, it is not.

The condition of "higher", is simple "preceding".

Agreed.

The analogy is to you can mentally grasp the infinite chain in time, with something easier. But the analogy applies, and is sound argument in my view, to prove infinite regress is impossible.

And both infinite regresses are completely consistent. And they are for exactly the same reason.

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly. So don't give examples of things that are not "absolutely proven" by science as if they are "absolutely proven by science".

Cheers.

Because they are, by far, the best explanation we have with the most evidence and support?

I would point out that the statement that 'every effect has a cause' is also not absolutely proven. And, in fact, there are good reasons to suspect it is false.

 

[Polymath257]

Don't assume that the limitations of your imagination are shared by the limitations of the universe to be.

 

[Link]

Yes they can. Any structure that is logically consistent can certainly exist. The logical relationships of quantum mechanics cannot exist without imaginary numbers. So they do exist in the real world. Gravitational potential energy has negative values...so negative numbers also exist and is crucial to reality.

He said imaginary numbers. They are used in math, but have no reality. It's a tool.

 

[Link]

@Polymath257 you may love circular reasoning and asserting same thing over and over again, but not gonna entertain this infinite cycle you keep repeating. You don't grasp it, it's fine. You are arguing over nothing. Either the analogy holds or it doesn't. You conjecture past that, and try to make things confusing for no reason. We all know if infinite chain was going it would be going. We are trying to see if such a chain is possible. You can assert it all you want though if it makes you feel better. As usual, you attack the conclusion and miss the argument.