The Prime Mover 2.0
A new improved version of the Prime Mover. First just a reminded of the original argument:
The universe is all cause and effect. Chains of cause and effect that can be traced backwards. But these chains cannot continue forever; there must be a first cause; an uncaused cause. Posited to be God.
The biggest weakness of this argument is the ‘uncaused cause’. How exactly can such a thing be? Everything has a cause surely? What options are there apart from an uncaused cause?
Could there be no first cause? That leads to an infinite regress of cause and effect but that cannot logically exist (if there is no first member in the sequence, the whole sequence of cause and effect cannot exist).
So we have to ask the question ’what caused the first cause?’. Well time cannot stretch back indefinitely before the first cause because there would be nothing but emptiness to cause the first cause; which is impossible. Something must have changed to cause the first cause. So it could be the start of time; but what came before that?
It must be the end of time. The only answer is that the first cause was caused by the last effect. Time is circular. The first cause was the Big Bang and that was caused by the last effect; the Big Crunch.
So this version of the Prime Mover has no logical holes in it and it addresses the old chicken and egg problem.
The universe is all cause and effect. Chains of cause and effect that can be traced backwards. But these chains cannot continue forever; there must be a first cause; an uncaused cause. Posited to be God.
The biggest weakness of this argument is the ‘uncaused cause’. How exactly can such a thing be? Everything has a cause surely? What options are there apart from an uncaused cause?
Could there be no first cause? That leads to an infinite regress of cause and effect but that cannot logically exist (if there is no first member in the sequence, the whole sequence of cause and effect cannot exist).
So we have to ask the question ’what caused the first cause?’. Well time cannot stretch back indefinitely before the first cause because there would be nothing but emptiness to cause the first cause; which is impossible. Something must have changed to cause the first cause. So it could be the start of time; but what came before that?
It must be the end of time. The only answer is that the first cause was caused by the last effect. Time is circular. The first cause was the Big Bang and that was caused by the last effect; the Big Crunch.
So this version of the Prime Mover has no logical holes in it and it addresses the old chicken and egg problem.
Comments (169)
I think that these kinds of arguments can be undermined by asking for evidence about the kind causation they adhere to.
Suppose one, like Hume, challenged the very notion of causation, then the proponent of the argument needs to argue about what kind of causation exists and defend their position.
Yes but its the one where there is only one Big Bang and one Big Crunch with time being a loop.
As example, I was recently surprised to learn that time moves at different speeds. True, proven scientific fact, not a theory. The rate at which time unfolds depends on the observers relation to large mass bodies such as planets. So for example, time moves at one speed at sea level, and another speed at the top of a mountain. In fact, this time speed difference has to be programmed in to GPS satellites or they would generate faulty location data.
The time flow difference between say, the top of a mountain and sea level, is measured in billionths of a second so it's not an issue at human scale.
It seems to me the whole cause and effect prime mover issue depends upon our understanding of time, which probably isn't ready for the job just yet.
The universe doesn't seem to be heading for a big crunch at this point. It seems more likely (at our current understanding) that everything is heading for the Big Freeze. The expanding universe will expand forever and keep getting colder and thinner.
Some people think the world will end in fire, others in ice:
It is not a done deal. The astronomers can't even agree on how fast the universe is expanding:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/12/06/scientists-cant-agree-on-the-expanding-universe/#194fc3e75e2c
Also, the rate of expansion has slowed drastically in the past (end of the period of inflation); so it could slow again and maybe reverse (gravity wins in the end)?
If it is such a thing as we imagine and call God
Quoting Devans99
than it is not a first cause, than at best it is a second cause
Quoting Devans99
Which is fine, except one would have to leave the realm of the best consensus scientific theory of the the universe, that it is finite. Which is also fine - but just to be clear this is just as faith based a answer as "God".
Everything is finite in my view: time is a single, finite circle. Thats the only way out of the chicken and egg problem.
It cannot be a series of different Big crunch / Big bangs in a linear arrangement because what then causes the first Big Bang? So time has to circle around, Big Bang and Big Crunch have to meet.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I'm proposing circular time as a way out of the infinite regress problem at the start of the universe. I proposing it on the basis of logic rather than faith. It seems to be the only possible solution.
which there is no current scientific support for at all. You are just missing stating the first proposition in your logic chain - your first proposition is " it is not God, because I don't believe there is a God" so it has to be something else -
All of which is fair - I just want to point out to you that your answer to the un-moved mover has no philosophic difference than mine ( and Aquinas's') answer - Other than, my answer is consistent with the best consensus scientific explanation of the universe - while yours requires you to leave science all together and is baded solely on faith.
Well I do actually believe in God but I'm currently unsure how he fits in.
Quoting Rank Amateur
- I do not believe the concept of an unmoved mover is logically sound.
- An infinite regress of movers in time is not logically sound.
- Something from nothing is impossible
- That leaves circular time as the only possible explanation for the start of the universe
all of these opinions, you are assuming to be facts, are not facts - if there is such a thing as "God"
Basically you are still saying - Augustine's argument is logical, I just don't like his answer, so in that case it is not logical.
And you still have not acknowledged or answered my point that Augustine's argument is consistent with today's best science and yours is not - can you bridge that point for me ?
I'm saying the original prime mover argument is basically logical until it reaches the point of the 'unmoved mover' which is not a logical concept. So my axiom is to the effect 'all effects have causes'.
The opposite position is 'some effects do not have causes' undermines the rest of the prime mover argument anyway because it is all based on a premise that effects have causes.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Science points to a start of time (the Big Bang) and explains little else to my satisfaction. My argument needs a first cause (the Big Bang) so it is just as consistent with Science as other interpretations. But my argument also has the logical advantage of explaining the infinite regress / chicken and egg problem.
I gather than you mean deductive logic in this context, but that can only guarantee the derivation of true conclusions from true premises; it can neither furnish nor confirm the premises themselves. A deductive argument can be perfectly valid (logically correct), yet unsound (actually false). For example:
Quoting Devans99
This conclusion only follows from the three listed premises if there are no other possible explanations for the start of the universe, which seems unlikely. In any case, many careful thinkers throughout history agreed that an infinite regress and something from nothing are both impossible, but found no logical flaw with the concept of an unmoved mover. Your premise for rejecting it seems to be ...
Quoting Devans99
This is true of everything that has a beginning, whose being is contingent; but it is not true if there is something that has no beginning, whose being is necessary. That is precisely what we mean by an unmoved mover--an eternal being, a necessary being, what in vernacular terms we usually call God.
I see no difference at all between this and my point
Quoting Rank Amateur
Am I missing something?
Quoting Devans99
again - all you are doing is saying " i disagree with science" and I disagree with Aquinas - here is another possibility - yet again - which is fine - but it carries no more logic or reason or basis that Aquinas - actually less - since it also requires you to disregard today's best science.
On the contrary ...
Quoting Devans99
As eternal and necessary being, the unmoved mover is not an effect; so this "axiom" is irrelevant to the argument.
But don't you see the original prime mover is self-contradictory - it posits that we can use the axiom 'all effects have causes' to trace backwards in time and then denies that the very same axiom applies to God (the uncaused cause).
My version at least applies the axiom 'all effects have causes' consistently.
Only by ignoring the fact that the whole point of arguments for an unmoved mover is that there must be a first cause that is not itself an effect of some other cause. Your axiom is actually that everything has a cause, which is a very different proposition--one that proponents of an unmoved mover would categorically deny.
IE The Big Crunch caused the Big Bang.
But we arrive at the conclusion there must have been a first cause by consideration of cause and effect. So I'd argue the start of the prime mover arguments uses the axiom 'all effects have causes' and the abandons the axiom at the end of the argument.
And the concept of a first cause is illogical as is an infinite regress. When you eliminate everything else, you are just left with circular time as the only possibility.
No, that axiom is maintained throughout. Again, the actual argument is that there must be a cause that is not an effect of some other cause.
Quoting Devans99
Only in accordance with the unstated (and unwarranted) premise that everything has a cause.
The end of time causes the start of time. The Big Crunch causes the Big Bang. It seems the only way out of the infinite regress / chicken and egg problem with regards to the start of the universe. The other options are not good:
- An effect without a cause (an unmoved mover). It would have to exist for an infinite period of time and then start moving all by itself with no prior reason. Plus it runs contrary to the axiom 'all effects have causes' I'm using
- Something came from nothing. Magic IMO. Also violates 'all effects have causes'
- An infinite regress of cause and effect into the past. Magic IMO. Also violates 'all effects have causes'.
Time being circular seems unlikely on the face of things, but the alternatives (the above three) are all impossible with the 'all effects have causes' assumption. Obviously you can question that assumption but it seems common sense to me.
Bi-directionality I am not sure about. There is the quantum eraser experiment that possibly indicates information can travel backwards in time but that's a controversial interpretation.
And also there is the problem with entropy: entropy is supposedly accumulating reaching to a maximum, then suddenly or rather abruptly, it drops down to zero, only to rise again. But for that to happen, it must mean for at least sometime, time is running backwards, correct?
What caused the first cause? There is nothing in the presentist model before the first cause except a barren, endless stretch of time. So it's impossible for the universe to begin.
Or what caused God? There is nothing in the presentist model before God but an empty stretch of time. So God must be eternal outside of time.
The universe presumably began at the point of the big bang. It plays out completely deterministically until the big crunch where it returns to its initial state and then the time cursor spins around for another loop...
So one could say that the universe began at the point of the big bang, but this only appears to us so, it's not what really happens/happened: since time is circular, this process of big bang/crunch repeats itself indefinitely and eternally, right?
I think entropy is unrelated to time; they just happen to point in the same direction; one does not cause the other.
Quoting Pussycat
I'm not sure. I imagine the time cursor spinning around the loop of time a potentially infinite number of times but it's difficult to say.
Sorry if that sounds a little crazy... this is the outer edge of my ideas so please take with pinch of salt.
In order for "not a logical concept" being a useful observation we'd first have to establish that human logic is relevant to whatever is being investigated.
In very many cases this is easy to do, because we have a vast pile of data to rely on. As example, we've built millions of bridges using human logic, so we can confidently state that declaring something a "not logical concept" in that arena would be a meaningful and useful analysis.
In some other cases, particularly those of vast scale, we can't just assume that human logic is at all relevant.
On philosophy forums so very many conversations are built upon the unchallenged assumption that human logic is relevant to the question being discussed, and then the logic dancing game is played out as if that had already been proven to be true. As Rank might say, that's just faith posing as reason.
You either disagree with my axiom or my reasoning. Which is it?
It also smuggles in the premise that everything is an effect, which is precisely what proponents of an unmoved mover deny.
That is a very illogical belief IMO.
'Everything is an effect' makes sense as an axiom.
What is the warrant for believing that absolutely everything is an effect caused by something else? How is it any more "logical" than believing that there is one unmoved mover, one uncaused cause, whose being is necessary rather than contingent?
We have no everyday experience of things being uncaused.
Hence I feel it is a good axiom.
But, um, the ENORMOUS realm you are investigating has very close to nothing to do with everyday human experience.
If the universe truly is illogical (and there is no evidence to suggest this IMO) then we have no hope of ever figuring it out. Might as well give up on cosmology if thats the case.
Everyday experience tends to revolve around human beings. Human beings have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, an ever pending suicide event we rarely find interesting enough to discuss. Are human beings logical? This is who you are analyzing a realm so vast as to be beyond our comprehension with, suicidal cave men.
We are just creatures of cause and effect. Our inputs determine our outputs. So we are logical entities who just appear to act illogically due to our inability to master the complexity of human dynamics.
The origin of time however is a cleaner problem than human dynamics.
How do you know?
So there must be a first cause. Yet what is being called a first cause in the argument isn't actually a [i]first[/I] cause, because it was caused by an effect which was presumably itself caused by an effect, and so on. So, there must be a first cause, but there isn't. :chin:
Quoting Devans99
Which suggests an infinite regress of cause and effect, if that's his answer when you zone in on this point each time. Yet he says that an infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible. :chin:
All this is really doing is saying that there's no first cause after all.
Cause and effect is the axiom I'm using (or more 'specifically all effects have causes' and 'all causes are effects'. It might be wrong, but I think its a pretty good axiom:
Cause and effect does appear to hold for everyday experience.
For non-everyday experience, it may hold as well. Two examples from the quantum world:
- Quantum fluctuations are caused by a field and the field is caused by space (empty space is something - it has vacuum energy). Space was caused by the Big Bang. The Big Bang caused by the Big Crunch.
- Radioactive decay. Caused by the jiggling of particles in the nucleus under the influence of the strong and electromagnetic forces.
On a circle of cause and effect you do not need a first cause. All causes are also effects. You can choose a first cause but its arbitrary. I chose the Big Bang/Big Crunch as first cause because of convention.
Quoting S
No it's not infinite. The circle of time is a finite circle. First cause (which is an arbitrary choice on a circle) always causes last effect. The circle of time is eternal - outside of time and finite. IE the same events repeat themselves endlessly.
So you can imagine if the circle was say 50 billion years in circumference that an event A might occur 10 billion years after the Big Bang. Then after another 50 billion years, event A occurs again. It is the exact same event A that occurs again; it's not an identical but different event, it's the same event.
P1 The universe is everything
P2 Cause and effect apply
C1 The universe was caused by the universe (IE time is circular)
What's supposedly finite in that model, then? You say that it's not infinite, but you're describing an infinite loop. You yourself say that the same events repeat themselves endlessly, and that there's no real beginning or end, which means that it must be infinite. There isn't a first cause or a last effect, except in name alone.
I don't see how the objections to an infinite linear regression wouldn't equally apply to an infinite loop. You say, or so the argument goes, that if there is no first member in the sequence, then the whole sequence of cause and effect cannot exist. Well, there is no first member in the sequence under your model. You're just arbitrarily picking a member in an infinite circular sequence and calling it the first, but the same can be done in infinite linear sequence.
The 'current time pointer' loops around and resets itself at t=0. So infinity is never encountered; the pointer reaches the end of time and resets; not holding state beyond one rotation around the loop is a way to avoid infinity.
Quoting S
With an infinite linear sequence there is always some member without a predecessor - an infinite linear sequence has no starting member so the whole sequence is undefined. With a finite circle, all members at least have a predecessor.
With a finite, eternal, circle of cause and effect there is a problem of where did the circling originally start. But this circle is eternal so beyond time so 'start' does not have a proper meaning. Thats not a great answer. I'm not sure on this point. Maybe God to the rescue? (Bit of a lazy option!).
So it's an assumption.
Let's release one photon at a time through a double slit. Each will go through either the left, or the right, slit.
There is no way of knowing which slit will the seventh photon go through.
Hence there is little or no discussion of what causes it to go through one, and not the other.
perhaps here is something that is uncaused. The point is, the assumption of cause can sometimes be ignored.
Why not, then, simply do this in the case of the first cause?
But it seems to me that time wouldn't really end, it would just transition over and over again infinitely.
Quoting Devans99
No, I don't think that that's right. On the contrary, a linear sequence which is infinite regressively cannot have any member without a predecessor, otherwise it wouldn't be infinite regressively.
Quoting Devans99
What? It looks like you're running into contradiction again. If there's a member without a predecessor, as you say there must be, then that member must be a starting member.
Quoting Devans99
It wouldn't be finite regressively, as far as I can tell, so that wouldn't be a problem. You've already accepted that there wouldn't be a start.
Quoting Devans99
It wouldn't have a start, otherwise it wouldn't be eternal in the sense you seem to mean. That which has always been and always will be is eternal, so there can be no start. That which is beyond time can have no start.
But that should be a potential infinity rather than an actual infinity... maybe... it's sort of hard to talk about outside of time.
Quoting S
If there is a member without a predecessor then that is contrary to the axiom of 'cause and effect' I'm using. All effects must have causes so all members have predecessors.
An example of a infinite linear sequence:
..., x2, x3, x4, x5, ...
So x2 does not have a predecessor. Or if you add x1:
..., x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, ...
Now x1 does not have a predecessor. No matter how many predecessors you add, there is still a member without a predecessor. So all infinite linear sequences are missing a predecessor. So they run contrary to cause and effect - the infinite linear sequence is never fully defined; there is always a first member missing.
The integers (negative and positive) comprise an infinite linear sequence. What is its first member? Which integer does not have a predecessor?
I've given it some thought, and it seems like you're talking about a complete set - like, say, the set of all events - which contains a finite number of members, but a sequence which loops infinitely. Agree or disagree?
Anyway, it still seems to me that your argument suffers from some of the problems that I've raised. It still leads to an infinite regressive loop of cause and effect, with no first member in the sequence, which, by your own argument, means that the whole sequence of cause and effect cannot exist.
I also think that it's simply mistaken, in the first place, to assume that there's a "before time", let alone that the end of time "must" have come before the start of it, which doesn't follow.
And your talk of first and last, and of a beginning and an end, is misleading, because these concepts don't actually apply under your model, nor can they.
Quoting Devans99
I know that, and I agree, but my point was that you've created a contradiction, and it's not clear to me whether that was an error on your part or an attempt to reduce my position to absurdity, although if it was the latter it hasn't worked.
Now, you said that (P1) [i]with an infinite linear sequence, there is always a member without a predecessor[/I] (which is false).
Then you said that (P2) [i]an infinite linear sequence has no starting member[/I] (which is true).
But if, (P1) [i]with an infinite linear sequence, there is always a member without a predecessor[/I], then it follows that (C1) [i]there is always a starting member in that sequence[/I], because (P3) [I]a member without a predecessor must be a starting member[/I].
But (C1) contradicts (P2).
Quoting Devans99
No, that's not right. Any member that you single out will necessarily have a predecessor, even if you don't explicitly include it in the part of the sequence that you're focussing on. They're not missing from the sequence itself, it's just that they'll be out of shot from certain camera angles. If you disagree, then I challenge you to find me an exception here. Find me a number in that sequence where you don't think that there's a predecessor, and I guarantee you, I can tell you what that predecessor is.
Quoting S
Sorry the predecessors argument I was using is not right. What I should have said is if the sequence of cause and effect goes back infinitely, it cannot have a start, or first cause. Meaning the rest of the sequence cannot be caused / exist.
Okay.
Quoting Devans99
I don't see how that follows, and I don't recall seeing an argument for that. Thus far, I've only assumed it for argument's sake.
With an infinite regress there is no first cause. If you remove the first cause from any chain of cause and effect, then the rest of the chain ceases to exist. So I think the axiom 'all effects have causes' is violated by an infinite regress - individually each effect has a cause but when the sequence is considered as a whole, there must always be a missing cause (because there is no start).
The argument is no different to the original prime mover which also assumes an infinite regress is impossible.
There wouldn't - and couldn't - be any "removing" of a first cause from an infinite regress, because there wouldn't - and couldn't - [i]be[/I] a first cause in an infinite regress to begin with. So that line of argument doesn't work.
Quoting Devans99
No, there would be no missing cause. We've essentially already been over this and you conceded. There can be no missing cause in an infinite chain of cause and effect. That's simply not possible, else it wouldn't be an infinite chain of cause and effect.
So, I'm still waiting for a valid argument from you.
Quoting Devans99
Okay, but I'm calling that assumption into question.
No I have not conceded. The sequence as a whole has no start so none of it can exist. Maybe this paradox will help you see the problem with infinity/eternity:
- Say you meet an Eternal being
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?
Okay, well let's go back over it until you do, then. :grin:
Quoting Devans99
That's the claim I'm challenging. I'm asking you how you get from A to B.
Quoting Devans99
Nope, I'm not seeing a problem that's relevant. How am I supposed to know? He could be on any number. Where's the paradox? And how does it get you from A to B in the claim that I'm challenging?
A sequence of cause and effect:
A->B->C
(A causes B causes C)
If I remove A, then B and C does not happen. Can't you see an infinite sequence has no start so none of it can exist.
It’s impossible to count to infinity so the being cannot be on that (no matter how many times you add one, you never reach infinity). If the being is on a finite number, then he is not eternal; he started counting a finite time ago.
So it's because eternity has no start - it's impossible to start counting, start being, start existing.
If you look at the paradox again - it assumes 3 things and reaches a contradiction - eternity, being and counting. Being and counting are possible so it must be eternity that is not possible.
1. It makes no sense to talk about removing a cause. That's not actually possible.
2. There cannot be an infinite chain of cause and effect with a gap in it, so as soon as begin to suggest a gap in the chain, you're no longer talking about an infinite chain. And as soon as you begin to talk about something other than an infinite chain, you're committing a fallacy of irrelevance.
Quoting Devans99
So what? I didn't say that he is, or even could be, on or reach or count to infinity.
Quoting Devans99
That doesn't appear to follow. You're just giving yourself more work instead of answering my question. Now you have two apparent non sequiturs to explain.
Quoting Devans99
I never suggested otherwise. I accept the no start thing. In the thought experiment, God has always been counting, has always been, has always existed. This doesn't pose any problem as far as I can tell.
Quoting Devans99
How so? I see no contradiction there.
But we need to consider a chain without a first cause, so removing a cause is a way to do this. All real chains of cause and effect have a starting cause. It is only an infinite chain of cause and effect that does not have a starting cause. Because there is no first cause, none of the other members in the chain can exist:
A->B->C->D->E.
If A does not exist, then B, C, D, E do not exist. That is the situation for an infinite regress - the first member does not exist so none of the members exist.
Quoting S
I'm not talking about a gap. I'm talking about the absence of the first member.
Maybe an example with less moving parts: Imagine an eternal being; he would have no birth so could never exist. Being is possible we therefore conclude Eternal is not.
IE eternal has no start - no moment of birth - so the rest of the life cannot exist. Very similar to my example of removing A from the start of a sequence.
That does not follow at all. Again, your fundamental assumption is that everything is an effect--i.e., everything has a beginning--which is precisely what arguments for a First Mover deny.
So how could he exist if he was not born? An unborn being would not exist.
Arguments for First Mover are inconsistent: They say effects do not have a cause (God) - in which case it is wrong to claim that you can trace a chain of cause effect back to God (because some effects do not have causes).
My argument at least applies its axioms consistently.
Please pay attention. Arguments for a First Mover consistently affirm that every effect has a cause. What they deny is that everything is an effect; specifically, the First Mover is not an effect and requires no cause.
I agree: the existing prime mover arguments apply cause and effect in an inconsistent manner; cause and effect are applied for everything accept God.
My argument applies cause and effect consistently throughout.
No, it would do the opposite, if it were even possible, which it isn't. Please think this through. An infinite chain of cause and effect cannot be broken, otherwise it wouldn't [i]be[/I] an infinite chain of cause and effect. Do you even know what an infinite chain of cause and effect is? Have you forgotten?
Quoting Devans99
Begging the question.
Quoting Devans99
I accept that an infinite chain of cause and effect has no starting cause.
Quoting Devans99
Please stop repeating that non sequitur. You need to fill in the logical gap.
Quoting Devans99
Not possible in an infinite chain. Please stop repeating your arguments and start addressing my refutations. If A does not exist, then it must never have existed - it must never have been part of the chain to begin with. And in that case, it isn't a problem. Alternatively, you end up in contradiction or a fallacy of irrelevance. Take your pick, it's a lose-lose scenario.
Quoting Devans99
No it is not.
Quoting Devans99
Doesn't follow.
Quoting Devans99
You were talking about removing a member from a chain, and that would obviously create a gap.
The absence of a first member goes without saying. It's absent by default in the case of an infinite chain. If you have something to say about that, please get on with it.
Quoting Devans99
What nonsense. The missing premise from the above argument would be that all beings must be born, but no one is under any obligation to accept that premise. Obviously many believers would outright reject that premise. It would be kind of silly to argue that God must have been born.
Quoting Devans99
This premise is true...
Quoting Devans99
...but you have not demonstrated that the above conclusion follows from it.
How much do you know about logic - more specifically, validity? Please look into it if need be, and if/when you're ready, return with a valid argument.
Quoting Devans99
And now you've gone back to your talk about removing, instead of talk about an absence. The former is not possible.
I am not suggesting breaking the chain. It is just a fundamental characteristic of a chain that it has a start. All chains have starts. I suggesting imagining a chain without a start... clearly such a chain cannot exist.
Quoting S
You are wrong again. All my argument asserts is that beings must have a temporal start of some form (I called it birth just to make it familiar). Can you imagine a being without a temporal start? That is just impossible. Such a being would have an unexplainable gap in its personal history - its origin and an origin is essential to being.
I may have to offline this discussion as it appears we are going around in circles. Happy XMAS though.
Yes you are, even if you don't mean to. If you don't see that, then please review our discussion and give it some more thought.
Quoting Devans99
1. That is begging the question - a fallacy.
2. An infinite chain doesn't have a start.
Quoting Devans99
I suggest you begin by presenting a logically valid argument which ends with that conclusion, instead of a fallacious argument from incredulity such as the above.
Quoting Devans99
Born, temporal start - doesn't matter. That isn't a premise that I need to accept, and that is, once again, begging the question. Do you understand what that means? It is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.
Quoting Devans99
An eternal being wouldn't have a temporal start. I don't need to imagine one, but you would need to show that it's not logically possible. That is, you would need to do so if it actually bears any relevance to our discussion, but it doesn't. We don't need to be talking about beings at all, let alone a being without a temporal start. This is just a red herring.
Quoting Devans99
It's only impossible in combination with premises such as those, but I could simply reject those two premises. Besides, more importantly, all this talk of an eternal being is just one big red herring. Please return to the topic that we were discussing, which was about an infinite chain of cause and effect.
Quoting Devans99
But that's your fault. I'm clearly not the one sending the discussion round in circles. I'm refuting your arguments, and you're repeating the same arguments, making the same mistakes, with the added insult of leaving important parts of my replies unaddressed.
Quoting Devans99
Bah humbug.
Only by adopting the additional axiom--an assumption, not an argument--that everything is an effect.
Are you seriously making that argument? It's an eternal being.
That's like asking how an immortal can still be alive, and claiming that he would be dead by now.
There is nothing inherently illogical in those concepts. The rather obvious weakness in your argument that an eternal being couldn't possibly exist is that it is conditional on the acceptance of certain premises which do not need to be accepted, and very likely would not be accepted by those who believe in an eternal being, who are, at least in part, your target audience.
I don't believe in an eternal being, or analogously an immortal, but your argument against one is poor, as is your similar argument against an infinite regress, which you still don't seem to realise is actually an argument against your own position, hence even if you "succeed", you fail.
Quoting Devans99
But you deny the logical consequence of an infinite regress. It's like you can't quite make up your mind between a first cause and an infinite regress, so you end up either switching between the two whenever it's convenient, trying to have your cake and eat it, or denying both. None of the approaches I've just described are reasonable. You need to go back to the drawing board.
1. Assume an infinite regress of time ordered events
2. So some events must have taken place infinity long ago *
3. These events must have been caused by prior events
4. But thats impossible by the definition of infinity (nothing before time = -?)
5. Contradiction; so an infinite regress of events is impossible
*If all events occurred finitely long ago, then it is not an infinite regress
What? What does it mean for an event to have taken place infinitely long ago? And no, there's nothing about an infinite regress which necessitates that each event in the chain cannot have occurred a finite length of time ago. For example, there can be an infinite regress of events, each of which occurred a minute apart.
Quoting Devans99
What? You need to explain that properly.
I don't know. Nonsense as far as I can tell but thats because infinity is nonsense. I'm trying to present an argument based on the rules of infinity and then to arrive at a contradiction. Problem is infinity is so shot through of contradictions that it's hard work to avoid them on the way...
Quoting S
If all of the of events occurred a finite time ago, there must a point in time before which no events occurred. That implies a first event; IE not an infinite regress.
Quoting S
Its a problem with infinity; events are time ordered but that ordering breaks down at -?; all events at an infinite distance in time from us are co-incidental which is mad...
An argument with a nonsensical premise that you can't explain is not an argument which can succeed.
Quoting Devans99
Why must there be? You never set out your reasoning fully, which leaves me guessing.
Quoting Devans99
Why would it breakdown?
Quoting Devans99
As in, happening at the same time? How did you reach this conclusion?
It would help if you actually understood the rules of infinity that mathematicians recognize, which are different from the rules of finite quantities; then perhaps you would finally realize that they are not contradictory at all.
If each event occurred a finite time ago, before each event, there must be an actually infinite number of other events. So there must be an event that occurred at t = -? (else it would not be an infinite regress). But that event cannot have a predecessor as there is nothing before -?. So infinite regress requires actual infinity and that concept does not work with cause and effect.
So the argument in full again:
An infinite regress of events is not possible (if cause and effect apply):
1. Assume an infinite regress of time ordered events
2. So some events must have taken place infinity long ago *
3. These events must have been caused by prior events
4. But thats impossible by the definition of infinity (nothing before time = -?)
5. Contradiction; an infinite regress of events is impossible
* If all events occurred finitely long ago then then before each such event is an actual infinity of past events (if it was a finite number of prior events, would not be an infinite regress). So there must be some events occurred at time/event number -?. There is nothing prior to this to cause such events; so thats impossible by axiom of cause and effect.
That conclusion does not logically follow from your premise, or make any sense whatsoever. It is impossible to reach negative infinity, or for any event to occur at negative infinity, and the concept of an infinite regress does not logically imply otherwise; or, if it does, you haven't demonstrated it.
There neither is, nor can be, any such event of which you speak. Negative infinity isn't a point in time or an event or a number, and there is always a before with a negative infinity sequence. For example, starting with zero, before that is minus one, and before that is minus two, and before that is minus three, and so on [i]ad infinitum[/I].
You seem to have misconceptions about the concept of infinity, and you seem incapable, in practice, of putting together a logically valid argument. With each opportunity, you just keep failing. Adding logical connectives like "so", "must", and "cannot", to the sentences which compose your argument won't achieve anything unless you actually put the work in to make sure that it all fits together validly, without any gaps.
An event is defined by all events that caused it (so if A->B and B->C then A,B->C). So with an infinite regress, no events are fully defined (its always ...,A,B->C which is not a complete definition). Events must be fully defined to be part of reality.
The past actually happened so all of those past events must form a concrete set of events. But if there is an infinite regress of events then the set must be actually infinite in size. An infinite concrete set... how is that possible?
The Big Bang theory seems to "support" the prime mover argument as in there was a beginning.
I haven't read much but there's also the heat death paradox to consider. The current understanding of entropy (if I'm not mistaken) means that if there was an infinite time available to us then the universe should be in thermal equilibrium. It is not. So...a beginning.
You seem to think the universe is some kind of oscillating process. Big Bang - Big Crunch and repeat.
There seems to be no evidence of a Big Crunch happening within the current scientific paradigms. Google it. So, your argument doesn't work unless there's something we don't know. The expansion of the universe is accelerating and showing no signs of slowing down which should be the case if a Big Crunch is possible.
What do you think?
Attempting to be maximally charitable, I understand @Devans99 to be arguing that there are only three possibilities:
All three explanations are consistent with the axiom that every effect has a cause. Adopting the additional axiom that there cannot be an actually infinite series of causes and effects rules out the first option. Adopting the additional axiom that everything is an effect rules out the second option. That leaves only the third option.
Proponents of unmoved mover arguments obviously disagree with the axiom that everything is an effect, holding instead that there must be one cause that is not itself an effect brought about by some other cause. Perhaps their additional axiom, which rules out the third option, is that the existence of something rather than nothing demands an explanation; it should not merely be accepted as a brute fact. More specifically, the existence of contingent being requires the reality of necessary being.
None of them have been.
Quoting Devans99
You're just making up your own rules, it seems. I don't see any reason to accept your made up rules.
Quoting Devans99
How is it not? The burden is on you to demonstrate a contradiction.
Understood, and I share your suspicion that a cyclical universe is not the only alternative to an infinite regress or an unmoved mover.
That's seeking an explanation for an infinite progression, not an infinite regress.
We know that we're here. How we got here can be explained through prior causes. There would always be a prior cause, so there would always be an answer.
I find this paradox interesting.
Put it this way, would you exist if you were not born? Time is a series: A->B->C. For the whole series to be real, it has to have a first member. So an infinite regression cannot be real; it has no first member ( ...->B->C ) so none of the series is defined. Another analogy is pool: The player hits the cue ball, the cue ball hits the black and the black goes into the pocket. With an infinite regress, the black goes in the pocket without the player hitting the cue ball.
Quoting S
What is the cardinality of an infinite set? It must be some number X bigger than all possible finite quantities. But that's impossible, because there is no largest number (X+1>X). So an infinite set cannot exist. So an infinite regression (in the past) is impossible.
So the main question here is what precisely is the purpose of the "uncaused cause" argument? I don't think that it can prove the existence of a deity through logical necessity because we have no certainty that logical necessity can be trusted (as someone mentioned above the rejection of causation).
Any thoughts?
No, but that question controversially assumes or suggests that the birth analogy is a true analogy, and that has yet to be demonstrated. I would exist and have been born under both scenarios: an infinite regress and a first cause. The universe would exist under both scenarios, although it obviously wouldn't have been "born" in the sense of a first cause in an infinite regress scenario: that's impossible as it implies a contradiction. (And note that the Big Bang is not a first cause in the philosophical sense).
Quoting Devans99
Yes.
Quoting Devans99
That's the unsupported assertion you've been repeating [I]ad nauseum[/I].
Quoting Devans99
Even assuming that that follows, anything that follows from an unsupported assertion is trivial.
Quoting Devans99
Yes, that's an analogy for a first cause if we interpret the initial action as such, but of course it wouldn't actually be the first cause, so these examples aren't doing you any favours.
Quoting Devans99
No, that is a non sequitur. With an infinite regress, the actions which lead to the black ball going in the pocket can be traced backwards infinitely, and they would include the player hitting the ball.
Quoting Devans99
I don't know, because I don't know enough about that topic within mathematics. I don't know much about mathematics at all beyond a layman's understanding. So I would have to look further into it.
Quoting Devans99
Well, thanks for providing your reasoning, but I don't know enough about the content at this stage to properly assess it.
It seems to be a common misconception that the Big Bang supports, or contributes toward supporting, the cosmological argument. You would need to get past the singularity.
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number
2. Thats a contradiction (can’t be both a number and > any number)
3. Making up magic numbers is not allowed (can break any theory if magic is admissible)
Also, I think I'd like to change my original axiom at this point to 'events are caused by events'.
The revised axiom rules out an uncaused cause. The argument above rules out an infinite regress. That leaves circular time.
What's funny about this is that you can't rule out an infinite regress without ruling out your "circular time" model. Under your proposed model, there would always be a prior event, which necessitates an infinite regress.
But I think that this argument of yours against an infinite regress is better than your previous attempts. If it's unsound, it's less obviously so to me than your previous attempts. And I'm still thinking it over.
Is singularity any more a proven scientific theory than God ??
Prior to the big bang, the common argument against the CA was " who created the creator" or said another way, an infinite regression. Post big bang this argument became outside scientific consensus.
A finite universe supports CA - happy to agree is does not support CA to the exclusion of all other arguments - but it most clearly supports CA
You have really been operating with this axiom all along, as the necessary conclusion from your two previous premises, "every effect has a cause" and "everything is an effect." Obviously no proponent of unmoved mover arguments would agree with your revised axiom, and neither would anyone who affirms agent causation rather than causal determinism. What is the warrant for presupposing that all events are caused by other events?
This I would argue extends into the world of science where cause and effect is a widely used axiom. I believe it holds (and I'm sure someone will argue the opposite) even in the quantum world.
I think once we let go of causation, we enter the world of magic, inhabited by other ghostly concepts like infinity and eternity. I very much believe in materialism.
Sure, but we are discussing the nature and origin of the entire existing universe, not everyday experience. Moreover, many philosophers (and people in general) reject causal determinism, instead affirming agent causation as part of our everyday experience. For example, I am the cause of this particular post; it was not completely dictated by prior events. I could have chosen to say something different, or not to say anything at all. I could have submitted it earlier or later than I actually did.
If the universe is cyclical and governed entirely by causal determination, then the exact same series of events transpires over and over again. Even if you allow for some random fluctuations with each iteration, this is not a rational explanation of anything; it ultimately treats everything that exists and every event that occurs as a meaningless brute fact.
I think we are just computers. We have inputs and outputs. All of our outputs are eventually but fully determined by our inputs. It's just our incredible complexity that gives the illusion of free will.
Quoting aletheist
I think there might be follow on arguments that re-enforce the view that there is a God. An eternal circle is the Occam's Razor design for eternal life. If I were God, it's the one I'd go for. It's actually achievable (unlike Heaven and Hell). So if time is circular, it suggests God did it somehow (a timeless being therefore beyond cause and effect, creates another timeless entity, the universe). But above I've diverted from the 'events are caused by events' axiom. So please regard it as speculative.
So I acknowledge in advance that two of my favourite ideas (Circular time and God) are hard to square together...
If the universe is an eternally repeating cycle, perhaps with some random variations here and there, then no timeless being is required to create it; again, existence is simply a meaningless brute fact that does not call for a rational explanation. The reality of God is much more compatible with unmoved mover arguments.
Quoting Devans99
Why do you think that heaven and hell are not achievable?
Quoting Devans99
Sort of like a square circle? :grin:
No random variation in my view. No stochastic processes. Its all cause and effect. So I view it like Laplace:
"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."
—?Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
Old fashioned I admit. As far as quantum mechanics goes, there are interpretations that are deterministic, eg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#De_Broglie–Bohm_theory
Quoting aletheist
How exactly do you implement transmigration of the soul? Even in a simulated world; the complexity of mapping the nervous system in this 'reality' to a new nervous system in the reality of heaven or hell seems beyond the capability of all possible Gods.
In that case, you must believe that this entire conversation--along with everything else that ever has happened and ever will happen--could not have played out any differently. In fact, you believe that it has happened infinitely many times in the past, and will happen again infinitely many times in the future, as the universe continues its endless (and meaningless) cycles. We are all mere cogs in a vast machine. Nothing that we observe demands an explanation; everything is just a brute fact.
Quoting Devans99
I see no reason why this should be problematic for the One who created the soul and the body (and put them together) in the first place, especially if we understand Him to be omniscient and omnipotent. Immense complexity does not entail logical impossibility.
Potentially infinitely many times would be nice. Believe is too strong a word. Hope is more appropriate at this stage. Science needs to provide more empirical evidence. Its an old idea and its occupied many minds down the years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
Why then does science not take it seriously? I'm not sure. I think they are too atheist to take it seriously.
Quoting aletheist
I think we will have to agree to disagree. I am a materialist. I see no evidence of the non-material whatsoever. I admit that is just induction so I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong too.
What would qualify as "empirical evidence" that the universe is cyclical, repeating the exact same sequence of events over and over? Why would we expect to find any such evidence at all?
Quoting Devans99
Because science is causally determined not to take it seriously. In any case, a cyclical and causally determinate universe does not call for an explanation of anything, scientific or otherwise; everything is a brute fact.
Quoting Devans99
Then why worry about finding a place for God in the picture?
Well we have the Big Bang - which is one half of the story. What we really need is more evidence for the Big Crunch - the other half of the cyclical time story.
It seems obvious to me that nothing apart from the Crunch could of caused the Bang - exactly the right amount of matter/energy. So more investigations into the current expansion rate of the universe would be good (there are disagreements depending on who you listen too). More investigation into the topology of spacetime would be nice too.
Quoting aletheist
He seems to fit in logically - I'm also a fan of the argument from design. The atom for example is a minor miracle of design in my view. So we need a God to explain the evidence of design away.
Design implies intention and choice from among multiple viable options, but causal determinism rules both of those out. Somehow excluding God from causal determinism would be just as "inconsistent" (according to your own assessment) as excluding an unmoved mover from being an effect. In other words, your updated axiom that all events are caused by other events entails that there is no God.
Besides, under materialism, "God" would have to be something entirely material, and thus not suitable for the name as commonly employed.
I think cause and effect only applying to things in time makes sense. Without time there is no before or after. Maybe there is another dimension of time for God only and that is circular too. But these are tricky things to reason about:
- Is timeless possible?
- Does cause and effect apply to timeless beings?
- Why is there something rather than nothing?
These questions might be beyond our reasoning capability as creatures of time.
Is there always a prior event? Yes or no?
Lolwut? God doesn't really have a place in this discussion. There is more of a scientific basis in support of an initial singularity than God. You can look up the former if you're interested. There is zero scientific basis for God.
Quoting Rank Amateur
It's outside the consensus because we don't know, because of physics breaking down. An infinite regress is still logically possible, and the notion of an uncaused cause would still require justification as an exception to the principle of cause and effect.
Quoting Rank Amateur
My point was about the Big Bang. If you're asserting that the Big Bang most clearly supports the cosmological argument, then I would like to see you put your money where your mouth is.
interesting that this come after this
Quoting S
Never mind S - forget I engaged
Yet I wouldn't even know where to begin looking into your extraordinary claim about the Big Bang theory supporting the cosmological argument. What reputable source would make such a claim? It's just a misinterpretation of science, isn't it?
Then that's an infinite regress. It regresses from an event to a prior event infinitely.
No because these are the same points. A circle only has one set of points. Try not to think of time as flowing... think of it as like a spacial dimension. So in a 4d spacetime view our universe forms a torus shape with time being the loop shape. Nothing flows, everything is completely still in the 4d spacetime view of the universe. Just one set of events.
Whaaaat? :confused:
Everything is completely still? That has perhaps puzzled me the most in what you just typed.
But anyway, same points or not, doughnut universe or not, logically, it seems to me that if there's always a prior event, then that's an infinite regress, and there's no possible way around that. If the motion of travel is forever going backwards, or anticlockwise if you prefer to imagine it as a circle, then that's an infinite regress.
In that case, your previous objections to the unmoved mover dissolve, since it is outside of time and therefore not subject to cause and effect.
The concept of a singularity is no more proven than the concept of "God" or let's say a necessary being.
Both are possible answers to what is before the big bang. They are both faith based claims. One is faith in science ( or better said - faith in our ability to answer all questions) and the other is a faith in God.
Singularity - defined as
In the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is "the point where all laws of physics break down"
has no real scientific evidence to support it at this point, at least not the last time I looked. It is an idea, a possible explanation, at best a logical guess. It is not a scientific theory in the way gravity is.
I didn't look any of this up - if my understanding is outdated - happy to admit it if it is shown to be.
Well I admit that is a problem with the spacetime/eternalist model. Seems to be something different about 'now' compared to 'past' and 'future' else we would not be able to tell the difference between them. So some sort of 'now' cursor spinning around the loop of time? That gives a problem of where did it start and why... plus there should be no motion in the 4d space-time view. Maybe time is not quite like a space dimension but some sort of hybrid dimension that allows a time cursor to flow around? Or maybe 'now' is purely a product of consciousness somehow?
Quoting S
A circle is not an infinite regress. Draw a circle. There are a finite number of points on the paper as a result. There is nothing infinite about it.
If the last event is before the first event, the Big Crunch before the Big Bang it all adds up nicely.
There is a start of time, so time must be real like Einstein said, it can't be infinite, so time must have an end too. Has to be somewhere for all the matter and energy to go at the end of time - must be back to the start of time.
just for some mathematical clarity - between any two points- whether it is on a circle or a line are an infinite number of points.
We can agree on this point I think: a timeless unmoved mover is a possibility.
But my axiom 'events are caused by events' rules out an unmoved mover in time.
As I recall the church was somewhat split on the issue of whether God was inside or outside of time.
What we can draw on paper is a representation of a circle, and we can mark as many points on it as we like--up to any finite number. However, a real circle--note, not an actual circle, since there is no such thing--does not consist of any number of discrete points, finite or infinite; it is a continuous curve, infinitely divisible into smaller and smaller arcs.
Quoting Rank Amateur
There are potential points beyond all multitude between any two actual points that we mark, but a truly continuous circle or line does not consist of points at all.
Quoting Devans99
Any classical theist who embraces unmoved mover arguments would "locate" God outside of time, since time would be an aspect of the universe that He created.
A continuous circle is only possible in the mind. In reality circles are made of molecules of material which are discrete all the way down.
been a long time for me - but I have a memory of the formula for a line is
y = mx+b where (x,y) is a point, and m is the change in any two points on the line (x1, y1 to x2, y2) , and b is a point where the line where x = 0 - seems a lot of points in that formula
I would dispute that. I mathematical point is defined to have length=0. How many points in an interval length 1? 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED.
Any sensible definition of a point requires a non zero length... things with zero length just don't exist.
We're not just talking about a circle though. I can only make sense of an event preceding another event preceding another event with a sort of backwards motion. This backwards motion can be circular, kind of like a point on a circle moving around the perimeter in an anticlockwise direction. And it would perpetually be moving in that direction if we were to trace back in time the preceding events. And it would regress in that way infinitely.
Quoting Devans99
But there is no last event! There's always one which preceded it!
agree - i said between any 2 points there are an infinite number of points - we are arguing facts now
a point is a specific place in space, it has no size. Between any 2 points there is only one distinct line. between any 2 points on the same line there are an infinite number of points.
Well I can understand not wanting to depart from the Presentist view point; it is after all our gut feeling for the way the world works. But presentism is logically impossible by the reasonable axiom 'events are caused by events'. And it causes paradoxes, some of which I pointed out earlier. It is fair to say I can't make my mind up between the two.
Quoting S
But on a fixed set of finite co-ordinates. So it could depending on how time works perhaps be a potential rather than actual infinity. It would also be more logically consistent that a linear infinite regress (which fails mathematically).
So it would not exist, how can something have no size and exist?. A point is purely in our minds. How many things do you know that exist and have length zero?
you are arguing against the factual mathematical definition of a point - If you have a problem conceptualizing this I can't help you.
Presentism as in only the present exists? I don't see how that's what I've implied. Or how that's made impossible by the axiom that events are caused by events.
I don't see how else you can make sense of prior events other than to trace them backwards. It's already implied by the wording, isn't it? If you were to depict a prior event, then wouldn't you put it behind another event? And if you kept doing that over and over again, you'll be depicting a backwards movement, or in the case of a circle, you'd be reversing around the perimeter of the circle. And if there's no end to that then that's an infinite regress, isn't it?
Quoting Devans99
All that matters in terms of the success or failure of your argument is whether it is an infinite regress, as I am arguing it is. So long as you have as part of your argument that an infinite regress is impossible, and so long as your model constitutes an infinite regress of a kind, as you now appear to be conceding, then it logically follows that your model is impossible, hence your argument fails.
I would say it's a work in progress. All models of this nature have problems. This model has less problems than most IMO.
A real circle is truly continuous, and its mere possibility is sufficient for its reality.
Quoting Devans99
You mean in actuality, which is only one subset of reality. Real circles are not "made of" anything.
But just because we can imagine something it does not mean it is possible. I can imagine squaring the circle all I like but its still impossible.
Please give me an example of something that you can imagine, yet is logically (not just actually) impossible.
Quoting Devans99
Please tell me exactly how you can imagine squaring the circle.
I would say that that's optimistic. I seem to have thrown a spanner in the works. But I wish you the best of luck in that endeavour. It has certainly been interesting so far to examine what you've been coming up with and to subject it to scrutiny.
A magician pulling a rabbit from a hat without using a trick of some sort.
Quoting aletheist
Well the square is similar to a circle but an octagon is more similar but I can construct an octagon so maybe I can get there. So superficially it seems possible but logically it is in fact impossible. So many things we can conceive of can never be in reality. An infinite regress in time for example as demonstrated earlier cannot exist in reality.
Not sure I entirely agree but thank you for your time also... very thought provoking.
That is actually impossible, but not logically impossible.
Quoting Devans99
Similar ... more similar ... maybe ... superficially ... but I asked you to tell me exactly how you can imagine squaring the circle. You cannot, precisely because it is logically impossible.
Quoting Devans99
Again, that is indeed actually impossible; but it is not logically impossible, because we can imagine it.
I agree. I would've said that although it may be physically impossible, it's not logically impossible.
Then your axiom system contains magic. I'm trying to stay on the scientific side by avoiding magic.
Quoting aletheist
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number
2. Thats a contradiction (can’t be both a number and > any number)
3. Making up magic numbers is not allowed (can break any theory if magic is admissible)
4. There must be a first event.
So just because we can imagine an mathematical infinite regress; it does exist mathematically.
No, you are obstinately ignoring the difference between actual impossibility and logical impossibility. I suggest that you study up on that distinction, since it is quite important in philosophy, as this discussion has shown.
Quoting Devans99
Literally no one agrees with that statement. We could correct it to say instead, "The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any finite number," but that is not self-contradictory at all; in fact, it is trivially true.
Quoting Devans99
Who said anything about "existing mathematically"? Because we can imagine an infinite regress, it is logically possible, even though it is actually impossible. See, there is that important distinction again!
But there are only finite numbers:
1. If actual infinity is a number, there must be a number larger than any given number.
2. But that’s contradictory.
3. Can’t be a number AND larger than any number.
4. So actual infinity is not a number
5. Invention of magic numbers runs contrary to the spirit of science.
Or
Actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:
There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X
Says who? Not any actual mathematician (pun intended).
Quoting Devans99
First of all, who said anything about "actual infinity"? Secondly, it begs the question to insist up-front that "there must be a number larger than any given number"; that is not how numbers work.
You can view actual infinity as the set of natural numbers { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... }. The '...' indicates it is not completely defined in a logical sense. If it's not completely defined, it's not defined at all and it does not exist logically or mathematically.
Then why are we still having this conversation? I have never been arguing for actual infinity.
Quoting Devans99
If the set of natural numbers is actual, then where can I find it? Again, numbers are real, but not actual.
Quoting Devans99
Again, says who? Not any actual logician or mathematician, I suspect.