What is a valid argument against the notion of infinite regress?
>>1009043
It's not a serious problem in nature, it's just a result of hang-ups created by our own observations.
>>1009043
There are none.
Either infinite regresses are possible or they aren't and you can't argue your way towards one or the other.
>>1009070
Why not?
The idea should be easy enough to establish one way or the other.
Why is that nigga wearing womens underwear on his head
>>1009043
Some infinite regresses are ok, some aren't.
For example -- there is nothing wrong with positing an infinity of past moments. Ghazali and Bonaventure would tell us that if this was the case then there would be an infinity of moments required for us to get to where we are now, and thus we could have never done it. But this comes from conceiving as if the infinity had a beginning and that we were traversing from some "infinitieth" moment in the past to now. But as Aquinas pointed out, the point of an infinity of past moments is that there is no first moment, so we can over ever talk about traversing from some definite point in the past to now. But from any particular point in the past we chose it will be a finite number of moments away from our current moment. So it is fine.
There is how ever a problem with positing an infinite series of simultaneous sufficient causes where each one gets its causal power from the last one in the series. If A causally supports B which causally supports C, and A didn't have its causal efficacy in and of itself, then there would be no causal efficacy to transfer over to B or C. Adding a cause prior to A that supports it but does'nt have causal efficacy primarily itself would leave us with the same problem, and no matter how many more derivative causes we posit we do not escape this problem. We only escape the problem if we posit a first cause which has it's causal efficacy underivatively.
>>1009043
I realised Hume looks a lot like sam smith
>>1009682
I think Ghazali and others have a point though. When people speak of infinity in the context of infinite regress, they are speaking in terms of something happening within time and space. If this what people understand as "infinity", then Ghazali and Bonaventure's arguments against it are perfectly valid.
>>1009770
I don't see how they could be vindicated - the fact that it is happening throughout time, rather than at a single time, is part of the reason why the infinite regress is fine.
Having an infinite succession of past moments does not require that we traverse a full infinity of moments from some definite point in the past so to get to today. If there is an infinite past then we have no definite "starting point" by which we would have to traverse the infinity from - because there is no starting point. Any point in the past we can "put our finger on" is still a finite amount of moments away from our current moment. They were right to say that one cannot traverse an infinity , but that doesn't seem to apply here.
>>1009043
How did we get here if there was infinite time beforehand?
>>1009718
U right
>>1009832
>Having an infinite succession of past moments does not require that we traverse a full infinity of moments from some definite point in the past so to get to today.
It kind of does. because if what you are referring to as "infinity," is Y not happening in time until X happens in time first, then nothing is then allowed to move in time.
>If there is an infinite past then we have no definite "starting point" by which we would have to traverse the infinity from - because there is no starting point.
The point though that there isn't an infinite past and the idea of an infinite past is plain absurd.
The only thing that can be described as infinite at all is the one thing you mentioned has "causal efficacy" in and of itself. Otherwise, infinity is just a meaningless word.
>>1009068
This. It's about as much of a problem as the problem of solipsism. It's not solvable even in principle.
>>1009998
>It kind of does. because if what you are referring to as "infinity," is Y not happening in time until X happens in time first, then nothing is then allowed to move in time.
Hurr durr, functions defined for the whole real axis can't exist, how does y get from infinity to 5
>>1010012
Look, when people talk about "infinity" they usually mean one of two things: either they are referring to something that has causal efficacy in and of itself and exists beyond the confines of finite space and time, or they are referring to a kind of line in time that goes on forever and is "dotted" by successive causal events in a never-ending "chain."
The first is using "infinity" with respect to something that is absolutely unaffected by anything else and exists independently even if other things are affected by its presence. The second doesn't make much sense except to our subjective and limited field of vision from our particular vantage point in time and space.
>>1009192
acting like a filthy musselman has been in vogue in europe for a long time...like even way back when old ben was called obi-wan, europeans still wanted to act like musselmen.
>>1009998
I don't quite see what you are getting at here. Sorry. What is wrong with an infinite past exactly by your reasoning ?
>>1009043
It goes all the way back to Xeno's paradox: an arrow must travel halfway towards its target en route - and from that halfway point, it *also* must travel halfway towards the target - and so on and so on. The only way out is to set a limit, and reconcile the paradox by accepting that there is no way out within the closed system of logic that is represented by human language. This is supported by the Incompleteness Theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems), which posits that any system will inherently contain paradoxes that are only resolved by stepping outside of it and into another system. Time represents the organization of all information, and placing it in linear order is a systematization which yields necessary paradoxes, infinite regress being one of them. That's why we cannot describe a "valid argument" against the notion, because it is a necessary condition of the system of information which forms our understanding of the known universe.
But if you want to experience it in a way you will never be able to describe in spoken or written language, you could try psychotomimetics such as LSD, psilocybin, or DMT. Just be aware that it'll be extremely frustrating until you accept that you literally can't describe it.
>>1010808
>What is wrong with an infinite past exactly by your reasoning?
It tends to feel like one is just suggesting "the past" is an illusion
