Is infinite chain of effects in the universe possible?

[leroy]

All I can say is that flies in the face of much of probability theory from the last 80 years (since Kolmogorov).

But sure, go ahead and assume it if it makes you feel better.

Well if you bite the bullet and accept both ininitiesd and that events with probability zero can happen, you would have to drop science and all kind of knowledge.

For example the logical conclusion is that if “space is infinite” there would be planets that are 6,000 years old that have an appearance of age of 4B years old. And it could be that this planet is this one (implying that YEC are correct)

 

[Polymath257]

Well if you bite the bullet and accept both ininitiesd and that events with probability zero can happen, you would have to drop science and all kind of knowledge.

I disagree.

For example the logical conclusion is that if “space is infinite” there would be planets that are 6,000 years old that have an appearance of age of 4B years old. And it could be that this planet is this one (implying that YEC are correct)

Actually, that does not follow. There would still be the same laws of physics, so that planet would still look its age.

 

[Link]

Nope, EVERY commander has the wait condition.

Every commander might have once had the wait condition, but no longer has it in your scenario. There is a moving commander, the commander commanding by definition can't have the wait condition or can't order. The set up I had was all had the wait condition. The scenario again does not assume infinite chain is possible or impossible, but was to look at if events in time can infinitely regress by applying an analogy. In my scenario, it's impossible, since they all have the wait condition. Then I showed by analogy, same is true series in time of effects causing next series of events.

Your set up is not important to consider, since it asserts "if infinite chain is possible it's possible", which does not bring anything to the table. Remember what you showed "it moving" was just another way to state if it's possible, it's possible. We showed that in the tautology. So it's circular reasoning.

 

[Link]

Let me clarify in details.

Tautology:

If an infinite chain is possible, it maybe it would be the case that an event has always been occurring lead to another event.

If it would be the case that if it maybe any event has always been always occurring lead to another event that an infinite chain is possible.


This tautology is probably because they are just different ways of phrasing "infinite chain possible", but it doesn't matter, at least they are closely related in a tautological way.

If possible, then possible is not useful.

My contention:

We are trying to determine if an infinite chain is possible. So asserting any of these double implications is attacking the conclusion.


The ANALOGY

The first thing analogy proves the case, if infinite commanders all have the wait condition. Of course, if one no longer is waiting but commanding, then we would assume, a higher one commanded, and a higher one commanded. But this is just another way to state that it would be like this if the chain is already going. Refer to the above to see why that is not useful. It's just saying "if it's possible, it would be like this..." and "if would be like this, it would be possible", which is not useful as already explained. Therefore such an analogy would be using circular reasoning.

My first scenario doesn't assume infinite chains in time can't exist. But when seen by analogy, it's proven.

One more point, using the time event in top analogy

The situation that it's analogy applies to can't be used in a circular way to be asserted it's possible, and then use it create a scenario out of first analogy to not apply to the second analogy. That's full circular reasoning as well.

 

[Link]

Wrong. if an infinite chain is possible, then the scenario is possible.

Of course, one side of the tautology, which is not useful, as it attacks the conclusion.

"Infinite chain possible" = direct attack on the conclusion and circular way of arguing. It's meaningless to do that.

We are trying to determine if it is possible or not.

You can set up your analogy, but your analogy is circular reasoning.

 

[leroy]

I disagree.



Actually, that does not follow. There would still be the same laws of physics, so that planet would still look its age.

Radiometric dating is a statistical (random process) so given infinite planets, there would be a fraction of planets (which would also be infinite) where by chance alone atoms decayed at a faster rate , making a 6,000yo sample look like a 4Byo sample

So by your logic it is equally likely that are planer is 6000yo than 4B years old, it´s interesting that YEC where not so wrong after all.

 

[Polymath257]

Every commander might have once had the wait condition, but no longer has it in your scenario.

Well, yes. They all wait until they are given an order. But it isn't the case that *all* are waiting at any given time.

There is a moving commander, the commander commanding by definition can't have the wait condition or can't order.

OK, I thought the 'wait condition' was that every commander waits until they are given an order. Is that not what you wanted? If not, then the analogy fails since this is the version of the wait condition to make the analogy work.

And that is the case in my scenario.

No commander is 'moving', but which commander is giving an order changes over time, just as with the finite situation.

The commander currently giving the order waited until he was commanded so did, in fact, satisfy the wait condition.

The set up I had was all had the wait condition.

Yes, all have the condition that they wait until they are given an order.

And that is the case in my scenario.

The scenario again does not assume infinite chain is possible or impossible, but was to look at if events in time can infinitely regress by applying an analogy. In my scenario, it's impossible, since they all have the wait condition. Then I showed by analogy, same is true series in time of effects causing next series of events.

If there is a time when all of the commanders are waiting, then you are correct. But in that case, the analogy fails and your conclusion isn't demonstrated.

if, instead, the condition is that all wait until they are given an order, then it may well be that there is no time when all are waiting. But that is the case that is analogous to an infinite regress.

Your set up is not important to consider, since it asserts "if infinite chain is possible it's possible", which does not bring anything to the table. Remember what you showed "it moving" was just another way to state if it's possible, it's possible. We showed that in the tautology. So it's circular reasoning.

The two situations are logically equivalent *if* each commander merely has to wait until commanded. But in that case, you cannot argue that no command is ever given.

 

[Polymath257]

Radiometric dating is a statistical (random process) so given infinite planets, there would be a fraction of planets (which would also be infinite) where by chance alone atoms decayed at a faster rate , making a 6,000yo sample look like a 4Byo sample

So by your logic it is equally likely that are planer is 6000yo than 4B years old, it´s interesting that YEC where not so wrong after all.

Nope, it is NOT equally likely. In fact, the probability would not be 0 in either case.

It is even possible to compute the *non-zero* probability that radiometric dating would show a false 4.5 billion year date as opposed to a correct 6000 year date.

As long as the number of planets is substantially more than the reciprocal of that probability, such planets would be expected to exist.

In other words, this argument has nothing to do with the previous one about zero probabilities.

Is it *possible* that the YECs are correct? Sure. But the probability is incredibly small (but non-zero!).

 

[Polymath257]

Of course, one side of the tautology, which is not useful, as it attacks the conclusion.

"Infinite chain possible" = direct attack on the conclusion and circular way of arguing. It's meaningless to do that.

We are trying to determine if it is possible or not.

You can set up your analogy, but your analogy is circular reasoning.

Precisely, we are trying to determine if it is possible or not.

For a correct analogy, the wait condition must be 'each commander waits until he is given an order'. This is NOT the same as saying that there is a time when every commander is waiting (which is the same as saying there is start to any command sequence).

 

[Link]

@Polymath257

If infinite chain is possible, your analogy which has a different condition (some are already giving orders), scenario makes sense: "If an infinite chain is possible, then the scenario is possible."

It's also irrelevant, because if it's impossible, it won't make sense. So I can say you are assuming it's possible, then arguing how it would apply.

This is circular reasoning. If you can't see that, then I really can't make you understand how my argument is not assuming any of this to be true or untrue.
My analogy doesn't assume possible or impossible, it's to set up an analogy with time and events to something that is obvious. Then by argument by analogy, it proves it's impossible for timed events. But this is because of how my scenario mirror with timed events. The condition of first is same with highest. The condition of "need previous" is same with "need higher commander". If all of them have that condition, it won't happen.

While if you set up your analogy, it would be prove it a circular way, that it's possible. The conclusion and premise in the start is the same, it's assuming infinite chain is possible.

This your words "If an infinite chain is possible, then the scenario is possible."

 

[Link]

Salam

I am going to go out of my way to say this. I believe infinities can exist in actuality. As for possibilities, there is no reason to assume infinite universes are not possible for God to create. He can create infinite universes. Infinite souls if God exists is easy for him to create, why not?

However, infinite regress is impossible. God can't create something with infinite regress. This is not possible.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The universe behaves like a cascade of causes that have no cause. The universe's flaw is that it has no cause. Other than that it seems orderly and a representation of order. However when you think of time as a dimension the flaw disappears. If time is a dimension (and it appears to be so) then there is no longer any logical implication that there must be a cause. But this does not answer your question, yet.

It is moot though if you cannot or will not imagine life and this planet forming from the order of nature. Then you simply say that "Well its just too complicated to have formed by itself" and you are done with the discussion.

Aside from that the logical implication to me is that nothing in the orderly universe is more real than any fantastical event might be. It is more orderly than fantastical things, more consistent with a set or rules: not more real. 'Real' becomes a matter of what is allowed only by order and causation. 'Real' was one thing before Einstein, another thing after. Or at least our understanding of it changed.

The question becomes then: Within an orderly universe of rules and causes following causes, can there be an infinite chain of effects? No. Our natural order answers this question. We can see through our instruments that energy is dissipating and entropy increases. The chain of events seems to have an end -- in our order which we call our universe.

That does not mean that in a universe without rules or with different rules that things are not different. There could be infinite chains of events separate from our system, just as there could be fantastical creatures and other wonders which can never exist in the chain of causes that we call our universe.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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

Can you create an infinite chain of cause and effects.

Creation doctrine supposes that the universe didn't always exist and that it is separated from it's source (in this case the Creator). Things are different in emanationism:

Emanationism is a cosmological theory which asserts that all things "flow" from an underlying principle or reality, usually called the Absolute or Godhead. (Wiki)​

 

[leroy]

Nope, it is NOT equally likely. In fact, the probability would not be 0 in either case.

It is even possible to compute the *non-zero* probability that radiometric dating would show a false 4.5 billion year date as opposed to a correct 6000 year date.

As long as the number of planets is substantially more than the reciprocal of that probability, such planets would be expected to exist.

In other words, this argument has nothing to do with the previous one about zero probabilities.

Is it *possible* that the YECs are correct? Sure. But the probability is incredibly small (but non-zero!).

By your logic
1 The probability that we live in this particular planet is Zero. (But it can still happen)

2 the probability that we live in a particular planet that is 6,000 years old (that looks billion of years old) is zero (but it can still happen)

So the probability of us living in a 6000yo planet (that looks old) is the same as living in a 4B years old planet. And since both planets are indistinguishable you are to conclude that YEC and Old Earthers are equally likely to be correct.

Is it *possible* that the YECs are correct? Sure. But the probability is incredibly small (but non-zero!)

Sure in the real world where inifits are impossible and the number of planets is finite the statement above would be true.


But given infinite planets, there would be the same amout of 6000yo planets than 4Byo planets. So living in a 6,000yo planet is equally likely than living in a 4Byo planet.

In both cases the probability is zero (but it can still happen) it seems to me that you have to buy this absurdities, in order to mantein the view that there are real infinities.


....

In other words by you logic (please spot the exact point where you think I am wrong)
1 there is an infinite number of planets that are 1 day old

2 there is an infinite number of planets that are 2 days old

.3 there is an infinite number of planets that are between 6000 and 10 000 years old (like YECs claim our planet to be)

4 there is an infinite number of planets that are between 4B and 4.5B years old (like old earthers claim our planet to be)

5 there is an infinite number of planets that are trillions of years old,

6 there is an infinite number of planets that are cuadrilions of years old etc

(The list goes to infinite)

* an infinite number of planets by chance alone, would look older that what it really is

So the probability of living in any specific set of planets from the list above is zero (but it can still happen)

The probability that we live in "3" (from the list above) and "4" are the same (zero but it can still happen)

Therefore YEC and Old Earthers are equally likely to be correct.

The evidence from radiometric dating becomes irrelevant, because there would be infinite many planets where the samples look billions of years old when they are just 6,000 old. (And the same can be said with other dating methods)

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257

If infinite chain is possible, your analogy which has a different condition (some are already giving orders), scenario makes sense: "If an infinite chain is possible, then the scenario is possible."

It's also irrelevant, because if it's impossible, it won't make sense. So I can say you are assuming it's possible, then arguing how it would apply.

This is circular reasoning. If you can't see that, then I really can't make you understand how my argument is not assuming any of this to be true or untrue.
My analogy doesn't assume possible or impossible, it's to set up an analogy with time and events to something that is obvious. Then by argument by analogy, it proves it's impossible for timed events. But this is because of how my scenario mirror with timed events. The condition of first is same with highest. The condition of "need previous" is same with "need higher commander". If all of them have that condition, it won't happen.

While if you set up your analogy, it would be prove it a circular way, that it's possible. The conclusion and premise in the start is the same, it's assuming infinite chain is possible.

This your words "If an infinite chain is possible, then the scenario is possible."

OK. Without assuming no infinite chain is possible, prove that if each commander waits to be ordered, then no order is ever given. Do NOT assume that there must be a start.

So here is the set up:

1. each commander (individually) waits to give his order until ordered by a commander that is higher up.

2. There is no highest commander.

Prove, from this, that no command is ever given. Let's see your argument.

 

[Polymath257]

By your logic
1 The probability that we live in this particular planet is Zero. (But it can still happen)

2 the probability that we live in a particular planet that is 6,000 years old (that looks billion of years old) is zero (but it can still happen)

So the probability of us living in a 6000yo planet (that looks old) is the same as living in a 4B years old planet. And since both planets are indistinguishable you are to conclude that YEC and Old Earthers are equally likely to be correct.

Wrong. The probability we live on any particular planet, no matter what the age, is 0.

The probability we live on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old may well be non-zero. The probability that we live on one that is 6000 years old may also be non-zero.

Sure in the real world where inifits are impossible and the number of planets is finite the statement above would be true.

But given infinite planets, there would be the same amout of 6000yo planets than 4Byo planets. So living in a 6,000yo planet is equally likely than living in a 4Byo planet.

Nope. That is an incorrect conclusion. Simply being the same cardinality (one-to-one correspondence) does NOT mean they have the same probability.

Once again, go look at a good book on Probability.

In both cases the probability is zero (but it can still happen) it seems to me that you have to buy this absurdities, in order to mantein the view that there are real infinities.


....

In other words by you logic (please spot the exact point where you think I am wrong)
1 there is an infinite number of planets that are 1 day old

2 there is an infinite number of planets that are 2 days old

.3 there is an infinite number of planets that are between 6000 and 10 000 years old (like YECs claim our planet to be)

4 there is an infinite number of planets that are between 4B and 4.5B years old (like old earthers claim our planet to be)

5 there is an infinite number of planets that are trillions of years old,

6 there is an infinite number of planets that are cuadrilions of years old etc

(The list goes to infinite)

* an infinite number of planets by chance alone, would look older that what it really is

So the probability of living in any specific set of planets from the list above is zero (but it can still happen)

So far, so good.

The probability that we live in "3" (from the list above) and "4" are the same (zero but it can still happen)

And this is wrong. The probability we live an any *specific* planet is 0. The probability we live on a planet from 3 may well be non-zero.

Therefore YEC and Old Earthers are equally likely to be correct.

The evidence from radiometric dating becomes irrelevant, because there would be infinite many planets where the samples look billions of years old when they are just 6,000 old. (And the same can be said with other dating methods)

You really need to learn some modern probability theory.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Universe did not necessarily begin even if we presume God as the cause of its existence. The beginning of world is a matter of faith in revelation from God.

From Aquinas' Summa (Part I, Question 46, Article 2):

Whether it is an article of faith that the world began?

Objection 1. It would seem that it is not an article of faith but a demonstrable conclusion that the world began. For everything that is made has a beginning of its duration. But it can be proved demonstratively that God is the effective cause of the world; indeed this is asserted by the more approved philosophers. Therefore it can be demonstratively proved that the world began.

/... /

I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (I:32:1). The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing. Now everything according to its species is abstracted from "here" and "now"; whence it is said that universals are everywhere and always. Hence it cannot be demonstrated that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above (I:19:3). But the divine will can be manifested by revelation, on which faith rests. Hence that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 4), the opinion of philosophers who asserted the eternity of the world was twofold. For some said that the substance of the world was not from God, which is an intolerable error; and therefore it is refuted by proofs that are cogent. Some, however, said that the world was eternal, although made by God. For they hold that the world has a beginning, not of time, but of creation, so that in a certain hardly intelligible way it was always made. "And they try to explain their meaning thus (De Civ. Dei x, 31): for as, if the foot were always in the dust from eternity, there would always be a footprint which without doubt was caused by him who trod on it, so also the world always was, because its Maker always existed." To understand this we must consider that the efficient cause, which acts by motion, of necessity precedes its effect in time; because the effect is only in the end of the action, and every agent must be the principle of action. But if the action is instantaneous and not successive, it is not necessary for the maker to be prior to the thing made in duration as appears in the case of illumination. Hence they say that it does not follow necessarily if God is the active cause of the world, that He should be prior to the world in duration; because creation, by which He produced the world, is not a successive change, as was said above (I:45:2).

Source:
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The beginning of the duration of creatures (Prima Pars, Q. 46)

 

[leroy]

And this is wrong. The probability we live an any *specific* planet is 0. The probability we live on a planet from 3 may well be non-zero.

Why
Supposedly a planet could be
1 year old or 2 or 3 or 4 ...... towards infinity ... the age of the planet could be anywhere between 0-and infinite. So the probability of any specific age is zero.

So the probability that the planet is 6,000-10,000 years old is zero

The probability that a planet is is 4-4.5B years old is zero

The probability that the planet is 6000-10000 yars is the same than the probability than 4.4.5B years old is the sane (zero in both cases)

So YEC and old earthers are equally likely to be correct.

]
You really need to learn some modern probability theory.

Maybe, but please spot my specific mistakes and explain why am I wrong

 

[Polymath257]

Why
Supposedly a planet could be
1 year old or 2 or 3 or 4 ...... towards infinity ... the age of the planet could be anywhere between 0-and infinite. So the probability of any specific age is zero.

Not necessarily. For example, the probability of age n might be 1/n(n+1).

So the probability that the planet is 6,000-10,000 years old is zero

The probability that a planet is is 4-4.5B years old is zero

Again, learn some actual probability theory. You are making many basic errors.

The probability that the planet is 6000-10000 yars is the same than the probability than 4.4.5B years old is the sane (zero in both cases)

So YEC and old earthers are equally likely to be correct.


Maybe, but please spot my specific mistakes and explain why am I wrong

Again, many very basic errors. I would suggest a good book rather than attempting education here. Our maybe another thread.

 

[Link]

OK. Without assuming no infinite chain is possible, prove that if each commander waits to be ordered, then no order is ever given. Do NOT assume that there must be a start.

So here is the set up:

1. each commander (individually) waits to give his order until ordered by a commander that is higher up.

2. There is no highest commander.

Prove, from this, that no command is ever given. Let's see your argument.

Let's start with the base cases. We are talking about infinite commanders beside each other at the same point time. They all have the condition at the same point in time.


One commander (he is highest) can command.

Two commanders (one is highest), so one can command because there is a highest, then next can command if he gives him an order.

Three commanders (one is highest)...

Any finite number (one is highest), so one can command because there is a highest, then next can command, then next, then next...till finite order is finished.



Now look at what happens when infinite number:

Infinite number (none is highest)... the conclusion differs, in that, no one can command because there is not a highest. In the above examples, there was always a highest. Without a highest, it's negation of the statement. The "because" there is a highest - the negation happens.

Now this analogy itself doesn't say infinity is impossible or infinite regress is impossible in timed events or assume it is. It's setting up an analogy to apply to timed infinite regress in time. So far if you agree, let me know.

I will then explain how events in time are analogous to the above example.



Your analogy would work like this:

There is always a commander commanding at some point of time:

one commander is commanding...can command since one commander is commanding.

Two commanders... one is commanding so no problem, it can be either first or second

Three commanders (it can be any of the three commanding)

Any finite number (it can can be any of the finite number commanding)


So with infinite number.....

It does not matter if infinite chain, some one is commanding in the chain...


Sure, your analogy shows if an infinite chain exists, and there is some one commanding, it would be possible. And if an infinite chain is possible, we would assume this to be the case as well.

But it brings nothing to the table in seeing if possible or not.

It's a different analogy and would be circular reasoning if used.

The reason I set up your analogy to work like this with the base cases, is because, not all have the wait condition, at least someone in the chain does not in your scenario.