The Most Basic Question...

[viole]

But can you do it in finite time? For the pizza example you reach both a spacial limit (size of molecules) and a time limit (time needed for a cut). Mathematically you could do it and you can show that the size and the time converge to a finite number.
(You might remember that in calculus you have to show that the upper and lower boundaries converge to a common, finite number.) Your approach that time can be halved infinite times is naïve without showing that causation can also.

I don't know what you mean. My approach that time can be divided at will is based on the fact that there is no logical law that prevents me to do that. So, why shouldn't I use it to prove a logical argument? Are theists the only ones allowed to use arguments that are, by definition, beyond what we know about the natural world?

Now, it could be that there are physical laws that prevent that. It is actually very likely. Physics is just a subset of what is logically possible. I never contested that.

But again, I need confirmation that there are no logical barriers against infinite regress in general, so that mere logic is not a barrier anymore. And once I have that confirmation, we can proceed to the next step. And delve into what we know about our physical reality.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

let us suppose we count in hours. So, 1 is one hour. 1/2 is half an hour, and so on.

1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 +1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + ….. = 1 hour

ciao

- viole

So it is possible to set that up mathematically to have an infinite number of regressions in a finite length of time.

 

[Heyo]

I don't know what you mean. My approach that time can be divided at will is based on the fact that there is no logical law that prevents me to do that. So, why shouldn't I use it to prove a logical argument? Are theists the only ones allowed to use arguments that are, by definition, beyond what we know about the natural world?

Now, it could be that there are physical laws that prevent that. It is actually very likely. Physics is just a subset of what is logically possible. I never contested that.

But again, I need confirmation that there are no logical barriers against infinite regress in general, so that mere logic is not a barrier anymore. And once I have that confirmation, we can proceed to the next step. And delve into what we know about our physical reality.

Ciao

- viole

There is no logical law against infinite regress.
The usual argument against it is that it is absurd - which not a logical law.

I wasn't critiquing your logic but your mathematics. Convergence is the tendency of two functions or series to approach a common limit. The way you described that was incomplete as you only concentrated on one series.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your think Dr. Hawking has the answer? Because he says (or said), ""Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist." So I hope you all understand -- Because there is a law such as gravity said Dr. Hawking, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Because -- he says so? (or said so.) So, The universe can and will create itself from -- nothing. You believe that? See, all it needs is gravity to "create itself from ... nothing" Proof? He doesn't need any. Or didn't need any.

 

[Brian2]

let us suppose we count in hours. So, 1 is one hour. 1/2 is half an hour, and so on.

1/2 + 1/4 +1/8 +1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + ….. = 1 hour

ciao

- viole

But is it possible to have an infinite length of time?

 

[viole]

So it is possible to set that up mathematically to have an infinite number of regressions in a finite length of time.

Yes, ergo, it is logically possible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

But is it possible to have an infinite length of time?

I make the assumption that we agree that nothing logical stands in the way of infinite regress, so that we can go to infinite time.

I state the following, if infinite future is logically possible, then infinite past is logically possible, too. That can be proved by splitting into a handful of steps, each being logically possible.

And since an infinite future does not seem to break any laws of logic, then infinite past must be possible, too.

IOW: there is a possible world (not necessarily this one) in which a state of affairs is the consequence of an infinite chain of events that is not bounded in the past.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

There is no logical law against infinite regress.
The usual argument against it is that it is absurd - which not a logical law.

I wasn't critiquing your logic but your mathematics. Convergence is the tendency of two functions or series to approach a common limit. The way you described that was incomplete as you only concentrated on one series.

Of course I concentrated on one series, since a counter example is sufficient to defeat any positive claim. In that case that a sequence of non zero time intervals is infinite.

And convergence of series does not involve two series to approach a common limit. That would also be a circular definition, since approaching a (common) limit is what convergence means. Where did you get that from? Can you show me the book that writes that nonsense?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

I make the assumption that we agree that nothing logical stands in the way of infinite regress, so that we can go to infinite time.

If you make the infinite regress to mean that an infinite number of cause/effect events can fit into a finite time, in theory that can happen it seems even if in practice there would be problems no doubt.

I state the following, if infinite future is logically possible, then infinite past is logically possible, too. That can be proved by splitting into a handful of steps, each being logically possible.

And since an infinite future does not seem to break any laws of logic, then infinite past must be possible, too.

When you say "splitting into a handful of steps", do you want to divide the infinite past into portions that are possible? That would be making infinity into a real number that could be divided.
An infinite future is possible but could never be attained. There would always be more of it to come.
It is the same with the infinite past.

IOW: there is a possible world (not necessarily this one) in which a state of affairs is the consequence of an infinite chain of events that is not bounded in the past.

Ciao

- viole

I'm not sure what you mean by "not bounded in the past" but as I said, the infinite number of events seems theoretically possible even if in reality, not possible. Trying to show an infinite length of time still has problems imo.

 

[viole]

If you make the infinite regress to mean that an infinite number of cause/effect events can fit into a finite time, in theory that can happen it seems even if in practice there would be problems no doubt.

Yes, but the original argument was not about practice. It was about logical possibility. Anyway, an interesting errand would be to analyze if that would also be possible in practice. I think it would be easy to make a case that the Universe has infinite regress, while keeping what is known from cosmology, that has the same evidence of it having one first cause.

When you say "splitting into a handful of steps", do you want to divide the infinite past into portions that are possible? That would be making infinity into a real number that could be divided.
An infinite future is possible but could never be attained. There would always be more of it to come.
It is the same with the infinite past.

I claim that a state of affairs can be the consequence of an infinite sequence of events which is not bound in the past. And I can do that by exploiting the logical possibility of infinite future.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not bounded in the past" but as I said, the infinite number of events seems theoretically possible even if in reality, not possible. Trying to show an infinite length of time still has problems imo.

I am not sure that an infinite number of events would not be applicable in reality. As I said, it would not be difficult to pustulate a possible origin of the universe that is the consequence of an infinite chain of events. I could, for instance, claim that the singularity (where our physics break) could be the effect of an infinite set of events that unfolded in one hour. So, the Universe would be 13,8 billions years and one hour old, and without a first cause.

Evidence? None, like the evidence of a first cause. And since the Laws of physics break at the neighborhood of the singularity, I am equally entitled to pustulate that, and with the same arguments brought about by any first-causist. Which would make any categorical argument against the physical possibility of infinite regress false, at this point of our knowledge, as well.

Not bounded in the past is a fancy word for "past infinite". It means that given an arbitrary time in the past, the state of affairs at that time has antecedent causes that are even further in the past.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

I am not sure that an infinite number of events would not be applicable in reality. As I said, it would not be difficult to pustulate a possible origin of the universe that is the consequence of an infinite chain of events. I could, for instance, claim that the singularity (where our physics break) could be the effect of an infinite set of events that unfolded in one hour. So, the Universe would be 13,8 billions years and one hour old, and without a first cause.

Why would there be no first cause to that infinite chain of events? Oh I think I understand why, it is because there was not a first event (which would require a cause) If there was a first event with a finite amount of time between it and the next event, that would mean that the hour would be full of events before reaching infinity.
BUT it seems that it does not make sense to say that there is no first event since after an hour back in time there are no more events, so there had to have been a first event and so a cause for that first event.
This means that for your set of numbers (1/2,1/4,1/8.........etc) to work in longer time frame than one hour you would have to start stacking cause and effect on top of each other, simultaneous.
Even if time began 1 hour before the BB the first event would need a finite time to the next event and so an infinite number of events could not fit in the hour.
So basically what you are saying is that there is no first event if you want an infinite number of events in that hour.
So anyway I would now have to say that an infinite number of events cannot logically fit in the hour since it would require no first event in order to be infinite.

Evidence? None, like the evidence of a first cause. And since the Laws of physics break at the neighborhood of the singularity, I am equally entitled to pustulate that, and with the same arguments brought about by any first-causist. Which would make any categorical argument against the physical possibility of infinite regress false, at this point of our knowledge, as well.

Not bounded in the past is a fancy word for "past infinite". It means that given an arbitrary time in the past, the state of affairs at that time has antecedent causes that are even further in the past.

Ciao

- viole

I'm still not sure what you mean by "not bounded in the past".

 

[viole]

Why would there be no first cause to that infinite chain of events? Oh I think I understand why, it is because there was not a first event (which would require a cause) If there was a first event with a finite amount of time between it and the next event, that would mean that the hour would be full of events before reaching infinity.
BUT it seems that it does not make sense to say that there is no first event since after an hour back in time there are no more events, so there had to have been a first event and so a cause for that first event.
This means that for your set of numbers (1/2,1/4,1/8.........etc) to work in longer time frame than one hour you would have to start stacking cause and effect on top of each other, simultaneous.
Even if time began 1 hour before the BB the first event would need a finite time to the next event and so an infinite number of events could not fit in the hour.
So basically what you are saying is that there is no first event if you want an infinite number of events in that hour.
So anyway I would now have to say that an infinite number of events cannot logically fit in the hour since it would require no first event in order to be infinite.

Actually, no.

If there are no events one hour before, that does not mean there is a first event in the infinite sequence I showed. Because if there was, we will always be able to find an antecedent, which contradicts it being the first. Therefore, no first element can exist, on pure logical grounds.

This is actually a direct consequence of rational numbers not being well ordered. A bounded below set of rational numbers does not necessarily have a first element. For instance, all fractional numbers bigger than zero, do not have a first element. It is not the same with integer numbers. A bounded below set of integers has always a first element.

So, my model would work. The only argument that would defeat it is if we postulate a minimum non zero duration of time, and no time interval can be shorter than that. In other words, discrete time. Because in that case every infinite sequence would entail infinite past time. But, again, there is no reason to postulate that when there is no available physical knowledge about that. And if a first causist speculates about a first cause trying to fill a gap, I am equally free to speculate to fill the gap with a process without first cause. Both explanations would be at the same logical and evidential level.

I think your problem here is that you have a prejudice towards a first cause to explain things. As if there was some metaphysical law that requires explaining everything in terms of a first cause. But that would just beg the question by assuming a first cause as the sole mean to explain things. And at the end of the day, my model also explain things. In fact, it explains all of them in terms of their antecedent, since all of them have an antecedent that explains them. So, why do you need more than that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

The first cause problem is not a question of before and after ... of time. It's a question of possibility. The universe exploded into being because it was possible. So the possibility of it doing so must have somehow already existed. And that means existence precedes (and likely transcends) the universe that we know. So the question is how did that possibility (with it's limitations) come to exist? And saying that all things were/are possible in a state of nothingness doesn't answer the question because the universe is not an expression of all possibility. It is an expression of what is possible against what is not. Possibilities have parameters. They are part-n-parcel. Nothingness has no parameters.

We have no idea what the answer to this question is. But the question remains, and it cannot be dismissed by any means but willful ignorance. We can label that answer anything we want. Call it "God" even. What we can't do is dismiss it, or define it.

 

[Muffled]

I believe one might wish for an origin of God but there is none. He has always existed. I suppose one could say that nature abhors a vacuum but that presupposes there is a nature. I believe thee is no rhyme nor reason. God just simply exists.

 

[Muffled]

I'll give it a go. Absolute states are generally unstable. (I Ching philosophy.) Nothingness would be infinitely receptive (as opposed to resistant) to relativism (or relativity.)

I believe I Ching can be wrong. Perhaps there is absolute stability. Certainly God claims immutability.

 

[Muffled]

"why is there something rather than nothing?"

Either something always existed or something came from nothing. Some believe one and some believe the other. However...We may never know

"(Other's might think the most basic question is "why won't my willie let me alone,"

I believe you missed phrased that. Shouldn't it be "why won't I let my willie alone"?

So I believe the question also might be why the existence has intelligence and in addition why one would bother thinking about his willie.

 

[crossfire]

I believe I Ching can be wrong. Perhaps there is absolute stability. Certainly God claims immutability.

Can nothingness (as per the OP) be anything other than receptive? How can nothingness resist anything?

 

[Boris Norris]

The cause of something is self-evident. There doesn't have to be a huge explanation of why we exist, although I will say, it is in my teachings that we exist to create God's divinity,

Wrong. We exist because of evolution in which no god had input. The only divinity is in the minds of believers. There's no evidence of anything.

because if divinity exists, it can provide the most generosity to the most lifeforms as possible. That is my cause, and to me, it's self-evident, just like the cause to every person. Some people wish to live without a cause and that's fine too, but then, I would argue that their cause is simply to live, as life itself is cause for change.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Wrong. We exist because of evolution in which no god had input. The only divinity is in the minds of believers. There's no evidence of anything.

Ultimate nature (The Omniverse) ultimately created the Universe and everything in it, including negative energy, positive energy and all the laws of physics we know today. You might not view that as God, but I do, because it is a type of synverse. As a natural theologian I see evidence of divinity every day. Just because we haven't found a way to quantify it (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are qualities of both nature and human that are divine - the potency of the Universe, the sagacity and generosity of humans, for example. To say that divinity doesn't exist is like saying existence doesn't exist to me. It's apparent that both things exist and work together to build a better, more sustainable future.

 

[Brian2]

Actually, no.

If there are no events one hour before, that does not mean there is a first event in the infinite sequence I showed. Because if there was, we will always be able to find an antecedent, which contradicts it being the first. Therefore, no first element can exist, on pure logical grounds.

There has to be a first event/cause in the infinite sequence or it does not begin.
If there is a first event/cause in that sequence, the next has to be a finite time after it and so the hour does not have an infinite number of cause/events.
If there is always an antecedent then that would have happened before the start of the hour, thus adding to infinity, which is not possible.

This is actually a direct consequence of rational numbers not being well ordered. A bounded below set of rational numbers does not necessarily have a first element. For instance, all fractional numbers bigger than zero, do not have a first element. It is not the same with integer numbers. A bounded below set of integers has always a first element.

Yes I suppose, and it is a direct consequence of mathematics which work on paper but cannot, for practical considerations, work in real life. (in this case the practical consideration is that there had to have been a first cause/event).

So, my model would work. The only argument that would defeat it is if we postulate a minimum non zero duration of time, and no time interval can be shorter than that. In other words, discrete time. Because in that case every infinite sequence would entail infinite past time. But, again, there is no reason to postulate that when there is no available physical knowledge about that. And if a first causist speculates about a first cause trying to fill a gap, I am equally free to speculate to fill the gap with a process without first cause. Both explanations would be at the same logical and evidential level.

I think the thing is that even with no minimum length of gap there always needs to be a first event/cause, whether there is or is not any "time" before the hour.
If there is a first (which there has to be) the whole thing breaks down because with finite intervals there would be less than an infinite number of event/causes.

I think your problem here is that you have a prejudice towards a first cause to explain things. As if there was some metaphysical law that requires explaining everything in terms of a first cause. But that would just beg the question by assuming a first cause as the sole mean to explain things. And at the end of the day, my model also explain things. In fact, it explains all of them in terms of their antecedent, since all of them have an antecedent that explains them. So, why do you need more than that?

Ciao

- viole

As I explained, there has to have been a first in the series (and that first event/cause would be right on the start of the hour) and the antecedent would be before that first. And after the first the intervals are always finite so it would be impossible to fit an infinite number into the hour.
This is a problem with theoretical mathematics, it can seem to be logical when looked at from one angle and then not logical from another angle.
From my pov the problem is yours. Maybe you want to keep looking at the mathematics theory and not the practical considerations.