You have to choose the start as the oldest item — Devans99

why?

Because the oldest item defines all the other items in the regress. For example:

{ 2016, 2017, 2018 }

If I somehow could remove the year 2016, would the years 2017 and 2018 still exist? No they would not - they are determined and defined by 2016.

So you have to start with the oldest item. 2018 does not exist; is just vapour without 2017 so you can't start at 2018.

Because the oldest item defines all the other items in the regress — Devans99

Why?

I sat through 2018. I know what it is.

I can give it a number.

And then I can number every year before that.

We have a pool table. The cue hits the white ball. The white ball hits the black ball. The black goes in the pocket.

Would the black ball go in if the cue did not hit the white?

No it would not - we have removed the first element in a time ordered regress and so the rest of the regress disappears.

So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress does not exist.

But that's a finite regress...

And even so, I could number the events backwards:
1. Black goes in hole
2. White hits black
3...

But how does a finite regress work any differently to an infinite regress? Without a start, neither exist.

You can't number the events in reverse time order: the cue causes the white to move causes the black to move. There is a causal ordering of events - it's impossible for the black to go in the hole before the white hits it.

You can't number the events in reverse time order: — Devans99

Yes I can. I can number them in any order I like.

That's one of the funny things about numbers. When you count a bunch of things, you get the same number regardless of the order.

The point of a regress in time is that it has a distinct order - time order. And later events depend on earlier events. So you can't just reverse the order - you lose all the semantics - the cause and effect relationship between the events.

Do you see that you have changed your topic? Now you are not claiming that there can be no infinite regresses, but that there can be no infinite causal regresses.

All regresses in time are similar. Time itself is a regress. If you think about a moment, it defines/causes the following moment, so it forms a regress.

But are all regresses in time?

Not all regresses are in time. Logical statements form a regress in that each logical statement depends on prior statement(s) for justification.

I can't actually think of an infinite regress example that does not involve time. Not surprising really constructing anything infinite is impossible because you would never finish.

But if its infinite, it can't be a regress — Devans99

No, that makes no sense. A regress can indeed be infinite.

...the first event defines the second, the second the third, and so on down the chain. — Devans99

Working backwards from today's event, it's logically possible to regress infinitely, and you haven't logically demonstrated otherwise.

You can simply assume a first event, but you aren't being logical in doing so.

The only real problem here is that you don't realise that you're being illogical.

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. — Devans99

That's codswallop. Each year is defined by the previous year, to infinity. There's an infinite number of defined events. They're all defined. Every single one of them.

Why? — Banno

Because God. That's the honest answer.

Without a start, neither exist. — Devans99

At what point does this become something like propaganda or spam?

We only know of one way of existence. Are other forms of existence possible? — Devans99

We know of more than one. The material, of course, and the idea - maybe capital I Idea. That is, there is that that is, and that that mind creates in itself.

I think the challenge is how do you represent information if it is not with material? All I can think of is energy. — Devans99

And energy and matter are different forms of the same thing, yes? As suggested in e = mc^2.

That Feynman quote is my constant guide, here, in philosophy, and elsewhere too. A closed mind is a dead mind, I suspect. :wink:

So we have infinite reality devoid of time and space, and then a universe is born. Where and when is it located within the infinite reality?

And what is it made from, I'm also curious about this?

That's codswallop. Each year is defined by the previous year, to infinity. There's an infinite number of defined events. They're all defined. Every single one of them. — S

Yes but working from the other direction - there is no start - so none of the years are defined. And that is the correct direction to work from - time does not run backwards - the future does not define the past. An analogy of how it works is here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/277817

We know of more than one. The material, of course, and the idea - maybe capital I Idea. That is, there is that that is, and that that mind creates in itself. — tim wood

Can an idea said to be real though? Is it just electrical signals in our brains? I'm not sure an idea has independent existence as in Plato's theory of forms:

"The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

And energy and matter are different forms of the same thing, yes? As suggested in e = mc^2. — tim wood

I'm not sure if Einstein's stuff applies outside spacetime, but you might be right. The photon is the only thing close to non-material I can think of.

So we have infinite reality devoid of time and space, and then a universe is born. Where and when is it located within the infinite reality?

And what is it made from, I'm also curious about this? — whollyrolling

I am not sure. Continuing to assume the existence of a timeless God, reality would initially consist of:

1. In the beginning there was God only
or
2. In the beginning there was God and some stuff

The first option, God might create matter from nothing by exchanging it for negative gravitational energy as per the zero energy universe hypothesis. Or maybe pantheism applies in some way (a part of God becomes the universe's matter somehow).

The 2nd option is more in the spirit of the conservation of energy but does not seem as Occam's Razor as the first.

As per your examples:

1. God wouldn't be creating something from nothing, God would be creating something from God--because there was only God. In this example, God is material and infinite, but material is finite, so God is also finite.

2. If material existed along with God, then God is separate from material, not omnipresent, both are finite and also infinite and God is arguably non-material.

Let's keep this going and make less sense of something that is already absurd.

1. God wouldn't be creating something from nothing, God would be creating something from God--because there was only God. In this example, God is material and infinite. — whollyrolling

Maybe he might have to 'seed' it with something from God, but then the matter could be created from nothing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Pantheism is a hard sell.

2. If material existed along with God, then God is separate from material, not omnipresent, both are finite and also infinite and God is arguably non-material. — whollyrolling

Everything would be finite - God and the material - why do you say 'both are finite and also infinite'?

BTW I thought of a funny proof that God is not omnipotent: Could God create a copy of himself?

Let's keep this going and make less sense of something that is already absurd. — whollyrolling

Not as absurd of some of the Cosmology theories for the early universe I've seen IMO.

The leading Cosmology theory, Eternal Inflation, has matter created out of nothing as per the Zero Energy Universe theory.

You implied that God and material existed together before there was time or space. Material exists in time and space, which is finite, but if material existed prior to all things, along with God, then both are also infinite.

I think a key question is can space exist without time?

- Yes. Then material and God could exist in space without time. God would probably be material.
- No. Then God only exists and he is non-material (unless there is something not-God and not-material).

In our universe, space cannot exist without time:

- Does something of zero seconds long exist? No
- A 3D analogy is to have a cube length zero. It does not exist - take away one dimension and the others cease to exist

So God is timeless, space cannot exist without time, suggesting God could be 'spaceless' too?

Material exists in time and space, which is finite, but if material existed prior to all things, along with God, then both are also infinite. — whollyrolling

God (and the material if applicable) could exist in a sea of nothingness. Nothing is nothing so it does not count as infinite.

If God existed amid nothingness, then both would be finite because neither would omnipresent. Two things existing independently requires both space and time. You can't just cherry pick natural laws and apply them where they fit your imaginary model of reality while removing them where they don't fit your model. It's inconsistent and pointless.

If God existed amid nothingness, then both would be finite because neither would omnipresent. Two things existing independently requires both space and time. You can't just cherry pick natural laws and apply them where they fit your imaginary model of reality while removing them where they don't fit your model. — whollyrolling

We have a breakdown of natural laws at the singularity... we have to try to use common sense instead. Something must of been causally before the singularity and it is not of our spacetime. It is timeless (to avoid an infinite regress).

Good point about two things existing independently requiring space. Applies for matter. Not for pure energy though maybe? So God + energy could exist without spacetime? Or God is energy without spacetime?

It's inconsistent and pointless. — whollyrolling

Sorry you feel that way. Obviously feel free to duck out any time.

It is not "our" space-time. It is a set of observable, demonstrable natural laws. Why claim that something supernatural exists and then apply natural laws to it willy nilly in a concoction with a bunch of imaginary absurdity?

The fact nature exists and cannot have always have existed implies that something beyond nature (=supernatural) must exist.

My approach is to assume certain common sense rules/axioms constrain govern the situation surrounding the singularity. IE we don't have a guaranteed set of natural laws but certain common sense axioms should still hold:

- can't get something from nothing (excepting the zero energy universe theory)
- 2nd law of thermodynamics
- cause and effect
- No magic allowed

The above transcend the natural laws so can be used to analyse the situation and hopefully get somewhere...

this theory itself sounds absurd to me