We do not know. I do not know ... and you do not know. — Frank Apisa

IMO, all of us philosophers (and all of us scientists too) should repeat this to ourselves at least once a day. :up: :smile:

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar. — Richard P. Feynman

#ThoughtForTheDay

I do not 'assume an infinite regress has no start' - if it had a start it would not be infinite. — Devans99

Exactly. That's how you begin your attempted reduction to the absurd. But you aren't logical enough to make it work. You just zoom in, follow the chain for a while, then make a giant logical leap to a presumed start. You haven't demonstrated that an infinite regress is impossible, you've only demonstrated that you're bad at logic and dogmatically attached to the idea of there being a start, so you can smuggle in God through the backdoor.

You don't need a philosophy forum, you need a psychiatrist.

Exactly. That's how you begin your attempted reduction to the absurd. But you aren't logical enough to make it work. You just zoom in, follow the chain for a while, then make a giant logical leap to a presumed start. — S

Your point is not coming across. What I do is perfectly logical. If an object has no start then it does not exist. Try to imagine a 3D object with no identifiable start - no such object can exist - it would be incorporeal - it is the exact same thing with time - things without starts cannot exist.

Here is another proof that an infinite regress is impossible:

a. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
b. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number.
c. But can be a number greater than every other number
d. But there is no greatest number (If X is greatest, what about X+1 ?)
e. So is not a number (from c and d)
d. Contradicts [a] which says it is a number

a. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number. — Devans99

The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any integer.

The rest of your argument fails from there.

Pattern-chaser
928

We do not know. I do not know ... and you do not know. — Frank Apisa


IMO, all of us philosophers (and all of us scientists too) should repeat this to ourselves at least once a day. :up: :smile:

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar. — Richard P. Feynman


#ThoughtForTheDay — Pattern-chaser

Thank you.

Unfortunately, for many "I do not know" is something that can never be said or acknowledged.

Good quote from Feynman...a complicated man, but a guy filled with great quotes.

The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any integer.

The rest of your argument fails from there. — Banno

Whats wrong with that statement?

Which statement?

The number of events is in an infinite regress is an integer so it can't be greater than any integer.

Infinity is greater than any integer.

But it's not an integer. So it can't be the number of events in an infinite regress - that takes an integer value.

The number of events in an infinite regress is... infinite.

Infinity is not an integer.

No the number of events in an infinite regress is an integer. 1, 2, 3 ... is how we count events with integers. Infinity is not an integer. Its impossible to count to infinity. So it cannot be the number of events.

While the number of events in a regress may be an integer, the number of events in an infinite regress is, by that very fact, infinite.

And infinity is not an integer.

But if its infinite, it can't be a regress - a regress has an integer number of events in it.

Or if you prefer, the first event defines the second, the second the third, and so on down the chain. If you have no first event, the whole of the rest of the chain must be undefined.

Infinite regresses cannot exist.

But if its infinite, it can't be a regress - a regress has an integer number of events in it. — Devans99

All you are saying here is that a finite regress is not an infinite regress.

Yep. You are right.

No I am saying there is a property of all regresses called 'number of elements' and it is an integer property.

You cannot set an integer property to a non-integer value.

Here is another proof that an infinite regress is impossible:

a. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
b. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number.
c. But can be a number greater than every other number
d. But there is no greatest number (If X is greatest, what about X+1 ?)
e. So is not a number (from c and d)
d. Contradicts [a] which says it is a number — Devans99

So why pretend to this long version, when the real version is "Every regress is countable, therefore there cannot be an infinite regress".

Is it because there are infinite regressions?

It's a shame, Devans, that you cannot see this error. You know enough about maths, and are erudite enough, to present curious arguments. But somewhere something went wrong with your education. You are not a fool, but you are a wasted opportunity.

I am still formulating my thoughts as to how best to dismiss infinite regresses.

That long proof needs some more work...

Try this. A finite regress will have a finite number of items. An infinite regress will not.

None of which says anything about the "existence" of infinite regressions. And that might well be because of the ambiguity of "existence" in relation to numbers.

After all, does 2 exist?

But the key point is an infinite regress has no start. If there is no starting element, then the element next to the start is undefined and so on for all the others.

An infinite regress is like a house without a foundation.

Of course it has a start. You can start it anywhere - just as you can count to infinity from any integer.

No an infinite regress in time looks like this:

{ ..., 2016, 2017, 2018 }

The ... indicates that it has no start.

It starts at 2018.

2017 comes before 2018.

Try writing it {2018, 2017, 2016...}

It does not matter which order you write it - it is the temporal order that matters - and 2017 comes before 2018 - and it has no temporal start.

and it has no temporal start — Devans99

Notice that this is an additional assumption. It doesn not follow from

...and 2017 comes before 2018 — Devans99

Look:

{ ..., 2016, 2017, 2018 }

It has no start, that's what the ... mean. If it had a start it would be a finite regress.

But the key point is an infinite regress has no start. If there is no starting element, then the element next to the start is undefined and so on for all the others. — Devans99

{ ..., 2016, 2017, 2018 }

It has no start, that's what the ... mean. If it had a start it would be a finite regress. — Devans99

Start at 2018. We know what that is. Then work backwards. Define 2017 as the year before 2018. And 2016 as the year before 2017. A neat recursive definition.

Start at 2018. We know what that is. Then work backwards. Define 2017 as the year before 2018. And 2016 as the year before 2017. A neat recursive definition. — Banno

But you cannot start in 2018 - 2018 does not exist until 2017 has happened. 2017 defines 2018. You have to choose the start as the oldest item - and there is no oldest item in an infinite regress.

Because there is no start, none of the years are defined.